The same number of people killed by the atomic bomb at Hiroshima have now been killed in the Syrian civil war.
More than 120,000 dead – and counting.
Drawing less attention – but certainly no less shocking – is the number of people who have been displaced from their homes. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, some 2.3 million Syrians have fled into neighbouring Lebanon, Turkey, Jordan, Iraq and Egypt. The refugee camps in these countries are bursting at the seams and require relief.
As one of the wealthiest nations on the planet, Canada’s response to the current crisis has been trivial. Despite the desperate need to relieve the burden on these camps, the federal government has granted asylum to a mere 200 Syrian refugees. Instead, it has taken the easy way out by throwing money at the problem and keeping it contained thousands of miles away from Canada.
That is not to say that monetary assistance in the region isn’t needed. The United Nations has called on the international community to contribute food, shelter and other basic needs to the region. Canada responded by donating nearly $210 million to international humanitarian assistance efforts.
Unfortunately, there are simply too many people in the camps for the money to have a positive impact. And while the Canadian government hides behind these donations, situations in the camps continue to deteriorate.
As a result, the UN has issued another request to the international community to go beyond providing aid and begin resettling Syrian refugees. The response was discouraging. Only 16 nations answered the call – and to widely varying degrees.
Generously, the United States did not set a specific limit on the number of those permitted to claim asylum, but rather left the limit open-ended. Germany agreed to resettle some 5,000 Syrians. Even Norway, a small country with an equally small population, committed to the resettlement of more than 1,000 refugees.
Canada, on the other hand, a full 30 times larger in landmass, has agreed to take only one fifth of those taken by Norway – pathetic.
To be fair, the federal government has also allowed 1,100 to be resettled in Canada through private sponsorship (usually through religious groups, NGOs, and other organizations).
Still, this is a complete reversal of Canada’s long history of setting the global standard for swift and direct humanitarian action.
Throughout the 20th century, with the exception of Jewish refugees fleeing to Canada prior to the Second World War, Canada has considered providing asylum in cases of emergency as a worthy exception to the normal immigration control rule.
In 1986, the “people of Canada” received the UNHCR Nansen Refugee Award in recognition of their “essential and constant contribution to the cause of refugees within their country and around the world,” the single occasion in which the award has gone to a country (and not an individual) in its 70-year history.
During the Yugoslavian civil war, Canada admitted 5,000 Bosnian Muslims.
When the violence in Kosovo at the turn of the century left 860,000 ethnic Albanian Kosovars displaced, Canada responded to the UNHCR’s appeal for countries to provide asylum by admitting 5,500 of these refugees.
Here in Ottawa, the historical trend is no different. In 1979, at the height of the tragedy involving the Vietnamese Boat People, then-mayor Marion Dewar launched Program 4000, an initiative that eventually led some 4,000 Vietnamese refugees to be resettled in Ottawa alone. Across the entire country, 50,000 were granted asylum.
So then what accounts for this shift in the Canadian response to emergency refugee situations?
The answer, unsurprisingly, can be traced back to politics. Since the Conservatives came to power in 2006, the federal stance on immigration and refugees has hardened considerably.
Recent legislation produced – most notably the Protecting Canada’s Immigration System Act (Bill C-31) – has imposed great restrictions on those who wish to come to Canada, limiting both the type of individual who can claim asylum as well as the country in which a claim can come from.
In regards to Syria, the federal government has justified its meagre response by pointing to two factors:
• Syrian refugees do not wish to seek asylum elsewhere, they wish to return to Syria as soon as possible.
• Granting asylum and providing resettlement are expensive; thousands more could be helped through the provision of aid than by bringing refugees to Canada.
Upon closer examination, however, these justifications don’t hold water. While Syrians may wish to return home, it is quite clear that such an eventuality could take months, if not years.
Furthermore, providing direct aid to the region is an effective alternative – when the camps are at normal capacities. But when these camps are overpopulated (sometimes by as much as four times their safe capacity) such aid does little to address the plight of the refugees.
Resettlement, then, emerges as a win-win. On the one hand, the individuals transported to new countries are provided an opportunity to start a new life in a safe environment.
On the other hand, with fewer refugees in the camp, much of the overwhelming strain is released and “in-camp” conditions are able to improve.
The current example points to a growing trend amongst states in the global north to keep refugee crises at arms length.
Rather than allowing refugees to seek asylum in their home countries, northern states have opted on containing the problem in its region of origin.
Canada has always prided itself on its reputation as a caring and generous member of the international community.
Yet, our once strong commitment to countries in need has weakened considerably, and both our international influence and standing have been injured as a result.
It is time for Canada to begin repairing this image. Syria would be a good place to start.