Almost three weeks since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, millions of Ukrainian refugees have flowed across its borders into neighbouring European countries.
Another really good post, Al. My thoughts are still a bit of a jumble on the refugee issue, as I have been more focused on the NATO/WMD aspects. However, if you will excuse the these not being properly considered:
1) I think there may be a degree of male disposability at play. All of the news coverage has been about Ukrainian men being forced to stay and fight and the refugees being women and children. Compare with the news coverage of “military-age males” leaving Syria. When the refugees were women or children (I’m thinking the body on the beach photo), those got a lot of attention.
2) To me at least, refugee means you go to the nearest country that will give you safe haven, not across an entire continent to the strongest economy. I think this kind of movement risks the narrative turning away from people seeking refuge and towards people capitalising on a crisis to emigrate for a better life.
3) We are approaching these two conflicts through a western lens because we consume western, English-speaking media. I’d be interested to know if there has been a difference of treatment from Asian or ME media outlets and, if so, whether the “whiteness” criticism holds up.
Thanks Pabs. You're right about the male disposability, that's a really interesting observation.
Refugee law doesn't require that a refugee stop in the nearest country of safe haven, they are entitled to a choice. But I take your point - the mass movement narrative often blurs migrant and refugee status - I dare say dependant on how the west feels at any given moment.
From discussions I've had with folks in north Africa at least, the western difference in the treatment of refugees is apparently quite obvious. From locations there and in the ME, (being countries who took large volumes of ME refugee's when Europe wouldn't) it certainly looks hypocritical. But of course there are many factors playing in to all of this, and this is just one view of it all. Thanks for the commentary!
Another really good post, Al. My thoughts are still a bit of a jumble on the refugee issue, as I have been more focused on the NATO/WMD aspects. However, if you will excuse the these not being properly considered:
1) I think there may be a degree of male disposability at play. All of the news coverage has been about Ukrainian men being forced to stay and fight and the refugees being women and children. Compare with the news coverage of “military-age males” leaving Syria. When the refugees were women or children (I’m thinking the body on the beach photo), those got a lot of attention.
2) To me at least, refugee means you go to the nearest country that will give you safe haven, not across an entire continent to the strongest economy. I think this kind of movement risks the narrative turning away from people seeking refuge and towards people capitalising on a crisis to emigrate for a better life.
3) We are approaching these two conflicts through a western lens because we consume western, English-speaking media. I’d be interested to know if there has been a difference of treatment from Asian or ME media outlets and, if so, whether the “whiteness” criticism holds up.
Thanks Pabs. You're right about the male disposability, that's a really interesting observation.
Refugee law doesn't require that a refugee stop in the nearest country of safe haven, they are entitled to a choice. But I take your point - the mass movement narrative often blurs migrant and refugee status - I dare say dependant on how the west feels at any given moment.
From discussions I've had with folks in north Africa at least, the western difference in the treatment of refugees is apparently quite obvious. From locations there and in the ME, (being countries who took large volumes of ME refugee's when Europe wouldn't) it certainly looks hypocritical. But of course there are many factors playing in to all of this, and this is just one view of it all. Thanks for the commentary!