Kyle Kopta DTC 375

   This week’s section of our reading focuses on the importance of considering autonomy when drafting refugee policy, especially in the sense of alleviating post-conflict tensions. While our current system only values immediate and short-term responses, it is important that we take into consideration the restoration of the life of those who are displaced (primarily through the right to work and general economic participation). Uganda, the third-largest host country in Africa, is one such success story of a system in which refugees are allowed to work and cultivate land. 1.  Is there a sense of xenophobia amongst the general public in the U.S. that prevents us from taking in a mass amount of refugees and allowing them to contribute to the economy? 2.  How does the media coverage of post-conflict countries affect the degree to which we think we can help?

   This week’s reading opens with an exploration of the ethical precedent that has been set by past refugee situations – the need to help refugees is not a new phenomenon, and we have certainly responded with generosity in the past. Through the principles of a “duty to rescue” and ethical dilemmas presented by the author, we are given insight into how we have failed not only through political process, but also through a timely application of the “head and the heart”. Finally, Chapter 5 discusses the shortcomings of our “humanitarian silo” system in which we focus on the small percentage of refugees who are able to reach the developed world, and that a better system would provide autonomy to refugees in appropriate haven countries. 1. The opening section of our reading gives the examples of Russia, Poland, and Germany as refugee situations that we have accommodated in the past. Does this have anything to do with those countries’ refugees being white Europeans? 2. This...

   This section of our reading explores the historical context in which our current refugee regime was created. While some aspects of our current approach to the refugee crisis may still be relevant to our current climate, the majority of our policies that have been left unchanged are not relevant to the politics and attitudes of today. Not only has this resulted in general ineffectiveness, but the Eurocentric political response to recent refugee crises have contributed in part to the unfortunate outcomes we see today.  1. In what ways has the UN's refugee agency standing as a "non-political character" affected the efficiency of the organization? What are the benefits of being a "non-political character", and do they outweigh the detriments? 2. Because our current refugee regime has its roots in Cold War ideals, do we still see a desire to "control and discredit" in our discourse surrounding the refugee crisis today?

   In a world where there are more displaced individuals than at any time since World War II, our current approach to the refugee crisis is clearly not working. The introduction and first chapter of Alexander Betts' and Paul Collier's Refuge: Rethinking Refugee Policy in a Changing World explores the origins of our current refugee system and how and it has become antiquated for our current situations. In response to the many factors that can contribute to a fragile state and, consequently, displacement, our system must evolve from one of anachronistic humanitarianism to continued and effective international reaction. 1. Geopolitically, how does the acceptance of refugees from other countries affect international relations and/or contribute to further state fragility?  2. Does the "Red Scare" (McCarthyism) rhetoric of our refugee system created in the 1940s reveal itself in the way that populations respond to refugee issues?