The 2015 refugee crisis demonstrated the need for increased commitment towards providing settlement to refugees. However, the question remains – who should be responsible. Addressing the refugee problem requires adequate resources that developing countries alone cannot mobilize. Consequently, wealthy nations should be responsible for providing refugees from other regions of the world with shelter. Even though wealthy nations have no legal mandate to provide asylum, they should shelter refugees as a matter of humanitarian concern.
According to Winchester (2019), world leaders are responsible for assisting those who suffer dreadfully without shifting blames. For example, Eastern European countries should increase their refugee uptake to address a humanitarian concern. These countries’ primary concern should be how to help those seeking asylum settle and feel secure and peaceful in their new places and not blaming their countries of origin for the problem. Many countries that host refugees do not bear the burden of entirely taking care of their needs since global agencies and philanthropists provide aid. There may be concerns about the disruption of social order, but that can be managed without rejecting refugees.
Wealthy nations should also provide shelter to refugees as a form of redress for international issues. Refugees’ predicaments have been associated with wealthy nations’ actions in developing countries. Wealthy nations may respond that their action or inaction in refugees’ countries of origin are for the common good. However, their efforts in those countries create a responsibility to offer redress for refugee predicaments. For example, France and Britain’s actions in Libya left many people devastated while others sought asylum elsewhere. The Syrian case also demonstrates that wealthy nations should take responsibility for their efforts in the affected countries. The gains of their interventions may be long-term, but the refugee problem cannot wait for a country to stabilize over many years (Winchester, 2019). It would be ethical to assist those who are suffering because of actions by wealthy nations. The steps may be right, but doing them requires the goodwill to help those who they affect. Countries such as Denmark, Norway, Germany, France, and Japan should not close their doors to refugees but accept numbers that they can sustainably host.
Additionally, compensation comes into the picture when responsibility is involved. Wealthy nations support coercive institutions that disenfranchise the already suffering people in war-torn countries. The benefits of these institutions mainly accrue to the wealthy nations. Hence, they owe a responsibility of compensation to refugees who would otherwise be better off without coercive institutions that breed conflict. Again, compensation is not a legal duty, but developed countries can develop policies for sheltering refugees based on their involvement in unstable countries.
Lastly, wealthy nations have the resources to provide homage to the world’s refugees, gaining a comparative advantage in foreign relations. One could argue that if wealthy countries have the resources to host the Olympics and world cup, and other massive events, they can shelter refugees. The point here is that they do not need to benefit from hosting refugees, but rather utilize their excess capacities to help others (Bauböck, 2017). Therefore, wealthy nations should be responsible for providing shelter to refugees from other parts of the world since it is a humanitarian concern; it would help them provide redress and as compensation.
References
Bauböck, R. (2017). Refugee protection and burden-sharing in the European Union. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 56(1), 141-156. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12638
Winchester, J. (2019). Refugees in an age of anger: Why the “Developed” World Should Help to Clean Up the Messes That Have Led the Refugees to Flee, and How to Welcome Refugees Without Provoking a Backlash. Eco-Ethica, 8, 187-199. https://doi.org/10.5840/ecoethica20206124
write