Connect with us

Americas

‘Alternative Facts’ and Forced Migration: America, Muslim Countries, and the Refugee Crisis

Dr. Matthew Crosston

Published

on

There is an awful lot of emotional kvetching around the recent Trump executive order about banning entry to people from seven specific countries to the United States. Word of warning: this piece is not going to be diving into the symbolic wrist-cutting people on the left are doing or the hyper-defensive quasi-arrogant self-justification being pushed back from those on the right. If the initial period of the Trump presidency has shown us anything, it is that it is going to be full of great gusts of emotional wind from both sides of the spectrum.

Unfortunately, most of that emotionality seems to be little focused on elucidation or even just calm, rational, objective logic. Instead, its sole purpose seems to be only to enflame each side against one another even more deeply than before. And that is saying quite a lot, given how each side right now absolutely despises one another.

I do not actually believe this executive order is some attempt by Trump to become a quasi-fascist dictator bent on bringing about further suffering to the oppressed refugees of the world. However, having said that one small caveat, the initiative is also horrendously inefficient and useless in terms of keeping America safe, the thing that is supposed to be its fundamental purpose. Perhaps worse still, it further justifies people in America to only become MORE ignorant on the issues of forced migration, refugee distribution, and global accountability. So, allow me to take a few moments to give to the world, but especially to Americans who support Trump, some very basic but crucially important points.

One of the common justifications being offered by Trumpets (my word, trademarked, copyright in queue) is that ‘major Muslim countries’ are not doing their fair share or stepping up to the plate to cover the burden that is right now a decidedly Middle East phenomenon. This impression is what makes critics feel emboldened to declare limits on just how many refugees (and from where) the United States should receive. However, let us consider actual numbers taken directly from the United Nations High Commission on Refugees (which is basically the global gold standard on all issues dealing with forced migration):

  • Iran: 979,000 refugees received
  • Jordan: 664,000 refugees received
  • Lebanon: 1.17 million refugees received
  • Pakistan: 1.5 million refugees received
  • Turkey: 1.8 million refugees received
  • America: 267,000 refugees received (and Trump apparently whining suspiciously about every single one of them)

Not only does the United States not crack the Global Top 10 in terms of refugees received, its general institutional attitude about refugees over a generation has to be considered decidedly pessimistic: in 1990 it had 464,000 refugees. This means the progression from Generation X to the Millenial Generation has seen a 42% DECREASE in refugee acceptance. The overall world population in refugees over that same time has seen a slight increase, so the American trend is not indicative of the overall international tendency. For goodness sake, Uganda has presently received more refugees than the United States and has been a stronger beacon of international conflict amelioration. Uganda!

While it is true that the countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council have famously refused to participate in alleviating the refugee crisis, this is not so much a reflection of their belief that refugee populations harbor significant numbers of radical Islamist terrorists (yes, they state this publicly but one needs to make distinctions between political narratives offered as justification without evidence and reality) as it is an admission that these countries fear any social, economic, or societal welfare disruption in their own precariously balanced communities. But even this disappointing fact cannot dismiss how much of a commitment countries like Turkey, Iran, Jordan, and Lebanon have made already. Especially if you compare it to the self-proclaimed leadership of the United States. Indeed, all of North America at the moment has just over 400,000 refugees (so, Canada, you’re not off the hook either) while the Arab world currently accounts for 8.3 MILLION. Given that there are just over 17 million refugees around the world because of various conflicts, wars, and displacements, this means the Arab world is covering nearly half of the total amount. And yet, all anyone discusses in America is how ‘major Muslim countries’ are not doing their fair share of carrying the burden. Ridiculous.

A second, more recent, retort coming from the Trumpets is that this executive order is nothing new at all and is in fact a continuation of a policy Obama began during his Presidency. In this case people are referring to 2011 when Obama suspended the processing of Iraqi applications for six months. This stemmed from a very specific situation in which two Iraqi refugees already living in America were caught trying to arrange weapons transfers back to the Middle East for terror purposes. The ‘ban’ by Obama was specifically done as a pause for law enforcement agencies to follow up on the arrests and process the full consequences of the actions of the two arrested. So, in reality, the Trumpets are playing a bit fast and loose with this claim, perhaps reacting to all this criticism in an overly sensitive way. But, trying to couch the Trump maneuver as an ‘extension’ of the previous Obama decision – which was both incredibly brief in terms of time and incredibly specific in terms of application – is inaccurate at best and egregiously misleading and manipulative at worst. In addition, while Obama did halt the refugee program for those six months, at no time did it impact valid green card holders or anyone else with a legal visa. It also had no application or impact on refugees who had already gone through the extensive vetting process successfully. Trump’s travel ban bars entry to those groups, causing a chaos that has no legal or political connection to the previous Obama decision. So, trying to lay this at the altar of Obama legacy does not hold water, but I suppose it does sound a bit sexier to Trumpets who are desperately seeking ways to support the order without letting their man be culpable for it.

Finally, the last point I want to leave people with is a consideration of democracy and what it is meant to symbolize. WorldAudit.org puts out yearly rankings on Democracy, covering 154 countries across an impressive number of analytical factors, including corruption, civil liberties, religious freedom, press freedom, rule of law, and human rights. America, the country that envisions itself as the standard-bearer for all other democracies, comes in at 16. Americans might want to take issue with that but it does mean America is legitimately in the top 10% and would have scored higher if it was not so economically cutthroat in terms of health care and women’s equality, especially when compared with Northern European countries. What I want to focus on, however, are the democracy ranks of those five Muslim countries mentioned earlier. The ones who have taken on an incredible amount of the refugee burden from Syria specifically:

  • Iran: #145
  • Jordan: #79
  • Lebanon: #98
  • Pakistan: #107
  • Turkey: #101

So, there we have it. The United States, a country that prides itself on being the land of the free, the home of the brave, the world’s only remaining superpower, when it comes to freedom, justice, and opportunity to people who are displaced and suffering because of no fault of their own, comes in pathetically behind states that justifiably and consistently rank in the bottom third of all countries. I offer this not as a demand that America opens its doors and accepts all refugees in desperate need of relief and hope. Though that would in fact be properly representing the creed and tradition of America. If you have any doubts just go over to Ellis Island and reacquaint yourself with what is written on the Statue of Liberty. Rather, I offer these facts as a necessary counter to the anti-intellectual atmosphere currently wreaking havoc in America. This atmosphere shuns simple research and lauds ‘alternative facts.’ America right now is entering a phase where too many people are not about the ivory tower but instead are all about the echo chamber. Willingly. Voluntarily. Debaucherously. In the end, I can only hope this trend is as short and forgettable as the original Obama ‘ban’ was on Iraqis.

Dr. Matthew Crosston is Executive Vice Chairman of ModernDiplomacy.eu and chief analytical strategist of I3, a strategic intelligence consulting company. All inquiries regarding speaking engagements and consulting needs can be referred to his website: https://profmatthewcrosston.academia.edu/

Continue Reading
Comments

Americas

Minor Successes And The Coronavirus Disaster: Is Trump A Dead Duck?

Dr. Arshad M. Khan

Published

on

That reminder from the Bible, ‘He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone’ may give us pause — but not journalists who by all appearances assume exemption.  And the stones certainly bruise.

Evidence for the bruises lies in the latest poll numbers.  Overall, Joe Biden leads Donald Trump 50 to 43 percent, a margin that has continued to increase since January.  It is also considerably wider than the few points lead Hillary Clinton had over Trump four years ago.  It gets worse for Trump. 

In the industrial states of Michigan and Pennsylvania, which Trump in 2016 won by razor thin margins, he is losing by over 4 percent.  Also key to his victory was Wisconsin where, despite his success in getting dairy products into Canada, he is behind by a substantial 7 percent.  Key states Ohio and Florida are also going for the Democrats.

Trump was not doing so badly until the coronavirus struck and during the course of his news conferences he displayed an uncaring persona larded with incompetence.  Dr. Anthony Fauci, the man he fired for correcting Trumpian exaggerations became a hero and Trump the bully.

If that bullying nature won him small rewards with allies, he hit an impasse with China and Iran … while bringing the two closer to each other.  Then there is the border wall, a sore point for our southern neighbor Mexico.  President Lopez Obrador made sure the subject never came up at the July meeting with Trump,   Thus Mexico is not paying for it so far and will not be in the foreseeable future.

The United Arab Emirates, a conglomeration of what used to be the Trucial States under British hegemony. have agreed to formalize its already fairly close relations with Israel.  In return, Israel has postponed plans to annex the West Bank.  Whether or not it is in Israel’s long term interest to do so is a debatable question because it provides much more powerful ammunition to its critics who already accuse it of becoming an apartheid regime.  However, it had become Prime Minister Netanyahu’s sop to the right wing who will have to wait.  Of course, the reality is that Israel is already the de facto ruler.

If Mr. Trump was crowing about the agreement signed on September 15, although it is akin to someone signing an agreement with Puerto Rico while the United States remains aloof.  As a postscript, the little island of Bahrain also signed a peace deal with Israel.  Bahrain has had its own problems in that a Sunni sheikh rules a Shia populace.  When the Shia had had enough, Saudi and UAE troops were used to end the rebellion.  Bahrain is thus indebted to the UAE.

How many among voters will know the real value of these historic (according to Trump) deals particularly when he starts twittering his accomplishments as the election nears?

There things stand.  As they say, there is nothing worse than peaking too early.  Bettors are still favoring Trump with their money.  The longer anyone has been in politics the more there is to mine, and for an opponent to use to his/her advantage.  Time it seems is on Trump’s side.  

Continue Reading

Americas

U.S. Elections: Trump’s Strategy of “Peace” might help

Sojla Sahar

Published

on

Presidential elections in the United States are around the corner and campaigns by the presidential candidates are in full swing in whole of the United States. The Republicans have nominated Donald Trump as their presidential candidate whereas the Democrats have chosen the seasoned politician Joe Biden who has also served as the vice president under the Obama administrations. Over here, a fact shouldn’t be forgotten that the so-called Democrats have also imposed an unnecessary war and burden of foreign intervention on the people of America. Let it US intervention in Afghanistan, Iraq or Syria this has imposed huge financial burden on the American people that is being pay by their taxes. United States has around 200,000 troops scattered in the world. There are around 38,000 in Japan, 34,000 in Germany, 24,000 in Korea, 5,000 Bahrain, 5,000 in Iraq, 3,000 in Spain and 12,000 in Afghanistan. Under the Trump administration, much needed decision was taken by the administration for pulling out of troops from all the unwanted and unwelcomed foreign interventions. This has cost huge monetary burden and heavy taxes on the people of US. These interventions were a gift by Democrats to its people that led American to nothing.

Under Trump administration, US decided to withdrawal its troops from Northern Syria. US have around 1,000 troops positioned in the Northern Syria for deterring Iranian influence and countering ISIS expansion in the country. They have decided only to leave special operations force in Syria and will pull out the rest from the conflict zone. It is not the task that will come to an end in days it will take years and huge budget to relocate the troops. This decision might be a breath of fresh air for the Americans but it might weaken the US military positions in front of the Russian military on the globe. United States also has American military troop’s presence in Germany as well. Trump administration is willing to reduce the troops in Germany by around 25%. There is around 11,900 troop’s present in Germany for securing Europe’s security. The Trump administration is focused on relocation and strategic repositioning of the US troops in the world. For this, the Trump administration has decided to pull out its 6,400 troops from Germany as they whole burden is on the US shoulders for costs maintaining alliance and Germany is not paying its share in the defense budget of NATO putting all the burden on the US citizens. Trump administration also slammed the European countries of not paying their due share in NATO defense budget. Italy spends about 1.22% from its budget and Belgium spends around 0.93% from its GDP on the NATO defense budget.

In addition, the Trump administration has shown that they do not want war and conflict. They have also retreated themselves from the foreign intervention drama that has led to damage to the peace of the world. Trump has given an impression that he aims to bring peace in the world not by arms but through negotiations with the conflict actors. Its example is US negotiations with Taliban’s for ending the endless war fruitless war that brought destruction for Afghanistan and brutally damaged the standing of US in the world.

There are around 12,000 American troops in Afghanistan that are now reduced to 8,600 troops. The rest are sent home and some are being settled in Italy and Belgium. The Trump administration has declared to reduce the number of troop in Afghanistan by 5,000 by November and will reach 4,000 by June 2021. They are aiming to completely withdraw from Afghanistan within 14 months if a concrete peace deal is signed between Taliban’s and United States.

There were more than 100,000 American troops in Afghanistan that went there to fight war on terror but are coming back empty handed. But still in even in these circumstances it will benefit the American people and their issues will be addressed in a better way. Not just this, Trump administration has also decided to withdraw its troops from Iraq that has been there for more than 19 years now putting a burden on American shoulders.

 All of this decision by the Trump administration shows that under Trump USA will go for the isolationist impulses that will help them to rebuild domestically and resolve the problem of its people who are indulged in unemployment, poverty, crumbling health system particularly after the outbreak of COVID-19. The health system of United States has proven to be fragile. Despite of being the wealthiest country, its health system crumbled within days leaving thousands of people to die in waiting for their appointment. Many of the people had severe financial crisis that refrained them to go to the hospital and get them treated.

According to some sources many hospitals in New York were running out of financial and had to send people on leave because they were unable to pay them. This led to massive unemployment during such desperate times of the year. Developing countries like Pakistan coped with the virus in a better way despite of having poor health facilities.

Under Trump, USA is moving towards “American First” strategy that will lead towards massive shrinkage in the defense budget of US military. The strategy of retrenchment and aversion of foreign intervention might help Trump in winning the next elections because right now United States has more domestic issues than international problems. The flag of truce in the hand of Trump and aim of brining peace in the world might bring him back in the oval office. It seems like Trump will make USA resign from its self-proclaimed post of “world policemen” that will benefit the world and the people of USA.

Continue Reading

Americas

Mistrust between Russia and the United States Has Reached an All-Time High

Igor Ivanov

Published

on

In August 2020, Politico magazine published three letters outlining their authors’ views of the ways the United States, and the West in general, should build relations with Russia. The first, published on August 5 and signed by over 100 prominent American politicians, diplomats and military leaders, states that Washington’s present policy towards Moscow “isn’t working” and that it is time that the United States “rethink” it. The gist of the proposals is that the United States “must deal with Russia as it is, not as we wish it to be, fully utilizing our strengths but open to diplomacy.”

This letter prompted a response, first from another group of former American ambassadors and political scientists (Politico, August 11) and then from several eminent politicians from Poland, the Baltic states, the Czech Republic and Slovakia (August 13). Both groups agree that now is not the time to reconsider policies toward Russia.

I am well acquainted with many of the signatories to these three statements. I worked closely with some of them during my tenure as Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation and met some of them during negotiations. I still keep in touch with several of them, as we participate in various informal international projects. Since most parties to the emerging discussion are both highly experienced professionals and public figures, their stances on Russia are well known. The list of signatories under each statement hardly came as a surprise to anyone.

I do not think it makes sense to dwell in too much detail on the arguments presented by the parties. At the same time, proceeding from my own experience of U.S.–Russia relations, I would think that I have the right to put forward some considerations of my own.

First of all, on whether a “new reset” in relations between Washington and Moscow is either possible or desirable. One gets the impression that the authors of the letters see the “old reset” spearheaded by the Obama administration as a kind of bonus or advance offered by the United States to Russia in the hope that the latter would “behave” properly. The debate focuses on whether or not Russia has justified this “advance,” and whether or not it deserves a new bonus. Personally, I cannot recall a single instance where the United States (during Barack Obama’s presidency or under any other administration) gave Russia a “bonus” or “advance” of any kind, made a unilateral concession or indeed did anything that was not in the interests of the United States.

As I see it, the “reset” fully met the long-term interests of both states, particularly in security. Only a very biased observer would claim that the New START Treaty constituted a unilateral concession to Moscow on the part of Washington. Similarly, NATO’s call at the 2010 Lisbon Summit for a true strategic partnership with Russia can hardly be viewed as a unilateral concession. In both instances, the interests of both parties were taken into account, as were the interests of international security in general.

Russia and the United States remain the world’s leading nuclear powers, boasting the largest strategic weapons capabilities. Moscow and Washington have been engaged in mutual deterrence for decades now. However, an objective analysis of the challenges and threats to Russian and U.S. security shows that the very real dangers that do exist emanate not from the two countries themselves, but rather from processes and trends that lie outside the bilateral relations. Accordingly, any predictions about the possible and desirable prospects for interaction between the two states will be incomplete at the very least if they are taken out of the overall context of the development of the international system.

We have to admit that mistrust between Russia and the United States has reached an all-time high. It will take years, maybe even decades, to rectify this situation. However, I am confident that, sooner or later, we will have to start moving in that direction, not because one party will “wear” the other down, forcing it to make unilateral concessions or even throw itself at the mercy of the winner. First, each side has a large safety margin and is willing to continue the confrontation for many years to come. Second, history shows us that peace achieved through unilateral concession rarely lasts.

Life itself, by which I mean each side understanding the long-term need of its own security, will force the United States and Russia to resume progress towards cooperation. Such an understanding, in my opinion, has nothing to do with the elections in the two countries, or with the opportunistic calculations of individual political forces. Regardless of these calculations, the world is rapidly moving towards the line beyond which a global disaster looms with increasing clarity. Once we take a peek beyond this line, the entire world, primarily its leading states, which bear special responsibility for the fate of the world, will have to make decisions that go beyond their own immediate interests.

As for the debates on when and with whom the United States should enter into a dialogue with Russia, I believe such discussions have zero practical value. It would be extremely unreasonable and even irresponsible to defer talks in the hope that more convenient or more accommodating interlocutors will appear in the partner country or, alternatively, that a more favourable general political situation for negotiations will appear.

I would like to refer to my own experience. As Minister of Foreign Affairs, I constantly kept in touch with U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, and then with U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell. That was in the late 1990s–early 2000s. The bombings of Yugoslavia, the war in Iraq, the Middle Eastern crisis, the expansion of NATO and many, many other events objectively made the U.S.–Russia dialogue more difficult. Obviously, our views on many issues differed greatly. But we never broke off our dialogue, not for a day, no matter how difficult it was. Strictly speaking, this is the art of diplomacy: conducting a dialogue with a difficult partner, achieving agreements where the stances of the parties veer widely and the chances of reaching a comprise appear minimal.

Critics will hasten to say that the U.S.–Russia dialogue in the early 21st century failed to prevent many conflicts and wars, and that is true. But it also helped prevent far graver consequences and, where possible, even led to the signing of important mutually acceptable agreements (New START, etc.). The experience of global diplomacy tells us that the only way to find solutions is through dialogue. The sooner our leading politicians realize it, the faster we will step away from mutual public accusations and destructive information wars waged with cutting-edge technologies and move towards earnest talks on the crucial issues of the 21st-century agenda.

Giving general advice is easy. It is even easier to take the high horse, insisting on staying faithful to one’s values and principles. It is much more difficult for those who have been accorded the requisite powers to make specific decisions. As the great American economist John Kenneth Galbraith once said, “Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable.” All we can do is hope that politicians in Russia and the United States will prefer the unpalatable to the disastrous.

From our partner RIAC

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Newsdesk38 mins ago

Reimagining Economies: The Move Towards a Digital, Sustainable and Resilient Future

Under the patronage of His Highness Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice-President and Prime Minister of the UAE and Ruler of Dubai, The Annual Investment Meeting, organized by theUAE Ministry of Economy,...

Europe1 hour ago

EU acting a “civilian power”: Where & How

Authors: Yang Haoyuan, ZengXixi & Hu Yongheng* In 1946 when Winston Churchill addressed in Zurich, Switzerland, he called on urgent...

Africa3 hours ago

Nigeria’s Youth Face Growing Challenges

Nigeria is the most populous country in Africa. It has approximately 210 million population. Nigeria has the third-largest youth population...

Americas5 hours ago

Minor Successes And The Coronavirus Disaster: Is Trump A Dead Duck?

That reminder from the Bible, ‘He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone’ may give us pause...

Middle East7 hours ago

The Forgotten African Slaves of Lebanon

In April 2020, authorities in Lebanon arrested one Wael Jerro after posting an advertisement to sell a Nigerian lady, Peace...

EU Politics9 hours ago

Green Deal: €1 billion investment to boost the green and digital transition

The European Commission has decided to launch a €1 billion call for research and innovation projects that respond to the...

Southeast Asia11 hours ago

Uncreative Teachers: Online Learning Is Ineffective

Inevitably, Indonesia has to apply online learning (in the network) during the Covid-19 pandemic, this aims to anticipate the spread...

Trending