On the Farewell to Syrians

By Fahed Khitan

تم نشره في Tue 30 August / Aug 2016. 12:00 AM - آخر تعديل في Tue 30 August / Aug 2016. 07:43 PM
  • Fahed Khitan

A major western state just announced its intention to receive 10 thousand Syrian refugees this year. Its embassy held a farewell celebration in Amman in honour of a select number of families among those shortlisted into the asylum programme.

One can only help watch with mixed sentiment; partly joyful that some Syrians will find a way out of the hells and woes of war. On the other hand, one feels bitter over the certain fact that those refugees to soon go to a far way country will not be going back home to theirs; Syria. It is usually a one way ride west.

Perhaps, in some way, this also is a bit infuriating; how the Syrians’ tragedy is being turned into content and PR material to brighten up the image we have on western states!

This is exactly it. Unfortunately, many diplomatic envoys come hand in hand with much needed publicity, proudly, to announce their countries’ intentions to take in Syrian refugees, in order to a alleviate the suffering of Syrians and the weight of refugee on neighbouring countries.

Just a few years back, seeking refuge in any country around the world was not at all easy; it demanded applicants to line up in front of embassies for days. But in the Syrian case, a new category of refuge came about. Contrary to what it was, with tens of thousands of Syrians packed on European borders, western embassies have developed a 5-star refuge system; these states, through the programme, work on selecting and shortlisting candidates for refuge from camps in Jordan and Lebanon, and their embassies arrange their travels to the USA, Canada, and other European states.

These selectees undergo processes from evaluation to adaptation gauging as if they were normal immigrants; even their skillsets and qualifications are measured up to meet western states labour market demands.

Yet, this is marketed as if it were humanitarian assistance provided by these states for Syrian refugees.

Another more dangerous concern lies in the possibility of the placement of programmes to administrate the immigration of tens of thousands of Syrians to western states, which makes it seem as if these states do not care about resolving the Syrian crisis, and do not effort to resolve the conflict there. They only see the unfolding of the Syrian crisis as a humanitarian one, not political, can could therefore be resolved by integrating Syrian refugees into their countries to turn them into life-long immigrants.

On the other side of things, these organised humanitarian travels come across as incentive for the rest of the Syrians to leave their homeland and join the immigrating flocks!

So far, over 6 million Syrians have been driven out of their country; one million went to Europe and other distant lands, while millions reside still in surrounding states, undergoing difficult conditions. And there are millions dislocated inside Syria, waiting for a chance to leave.

If the war goes on like this, Syria will soon be vacant of Syrians within a few years.

Western countries adopt programmes to facilitate Syrian immigration, and this only proves the major powers’ inability to put an end to the crisis in Syria, rid Syrians of the woes of civil war, and help them stay steadfast in their lands.

While it is true that short term asylum helps many Syrians overcome the sufferings of war, and lightens their lives up a bit. But on the long run, it comprises a major threat to the identity of the Syrian people and Syria itself, turning this into no lesser a crime than those of the war itself; driving people out of a homeland desperate for its people to protect it, instead of helping the people get rid of the reasons of their suffering, and stay home!