11/5/2015
There’s no perfect answer to the migrant crisis – and we must face that | Jeffrey Sachs | Comment is free | The Guardian
There’s no perfect answer to the migrant crisis
– and we must face that
Jeffrey Sachs
To block the refugees would fail – but to open Europe’s doors without limit is reckless. Finding a
solution means addressing root causes in migrants’ countries
Monday 2 November 2015 10.49 EST
T
here are no easy answers to Europe’s migration crisis. Perhaps that fact alone – the
reality that all options are insufficient – could be the basis to build a consensus out of
the bitter divisions that now grip the continent. The answer to the crisis in the longer
term will depend less on migration policy and much more on smarter ways to avoid such
crises in the first place.
Those brave politicians who welcome the refugees, like German chancellor Angela Merkel,
take a stand of basic human decency. People are fleeing for their lives from terror and war.
To deny them asylum would violate the most basic standards of compassion. For you were
strangers in a strange land, God reminds the Israelites in setting forth the principles of
social justice.
Those favouring asylum are also in fact pragmatic. The international law of refugees
(including the 1951 refugee convention) bars the forced return of refugees to their
homeland. The European court of human rights has long upheld this principle. And with all
the walls, and border patrols, Europe is no island. Nor for that matter is the US. Trying to
forcibly stop the migrant influx into Europe would fail.
Yet those who oppose the refugees have their own valid points. It is true, and not simply
cruel, to point out that the flow of refugees reflects the massive and repeated failures of
western foreign policies. The US in particular has repeatedly used military force to try to
impose its preferred regimes in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and beyond. This regime-change
policy lies in tatters and more than 10 million displaced people are the consequence.
It is also sensible, and not merely cruel, to demand from the politicians a longer term
strategy. Accepting a one-time influx of refugees is compassionate. Asserting that Europe’s
door is open to migrants and refugees without limit is reckless, not compassionate. No highincome society can throw its doors open to all interested comers: the press of humanity to
Europe (or the US) would be essentially unlimited. Gradual migration is important and
replenishes our societies; wide-open doors are unfeasible and unmanageable.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/02/answer-migration-crisis-refugees-europe
1/3
11/5/2015
There’s no perfect answer to the migrant crisis – and we must face that | Jeffrey Sachs | Comment is free | The Guardian
In the 19th century migrants to the US came with nothing and expected little from the state
when they arrived. There were no social transfers; no public healthcare; no guaranteed
housing. And only a modest gap between the incomes they were leaving behind and those
they would find upon arrival. They came poor but they did not create an underclass, just
another addition to the poor they found on arrival.
Today, the migrants are leaving societies with incomes a fifth or a tenth of those of their
target destinations in Europe and the US. An economist might say open the borders but
withhold the social payments that currently attract the numbers, thereby reducing the flow.
Yet the refugee sceptics know better. They don’t want to create a new, large and persistent
underclass within their own societies. Even without social benefit the numbers would be
huge; and the populations on arrival would create new subgroups of penury and social
dislocation. The sceptics judge rightly that this is a realistic risk. Nor are the new host
countries able to commit large social transfers to an unending, and essentially unlimited,
number of new arrivals. Withholding benefits would lead to a new underclass; paying
benefits would lead to a fiscal crisis.
There is, in short, no good answer. Such an honest reflection could, by itself, help our
societies think more clearly about the least bad options. The first implication, in my view, is
to accept the humanitarian responsibility of taking in the refugees while simultaneously
moving to end the Syrian bloodbath. This can be done if the US and its allies (Saudi Arabia
and Turkey) stop trying to overthrow President Assad; and if the US, its allies, and Russia
and Iran – with the support of the UN security council – back a joint action against Islamic
State.
Once peace is restored, most of today’s refugees should return home; and would do so if
there were a viable future. In our madness – for what else is it? – the US and its allies spend
trillions of dollars on useless wars but then typically balk at funds to rebuild homes,
schools, clinics and the rest. The irony is that Europe’s aid budgets are being swallowed in
caring for refugees on European soil, when that money should be used to build stable
economic futures in the source countries.
The second step for Europe and the US is to finance the investments needed for a viable life
in the fragile regions of Africa, the Middle East and Asia that otherwise will be unremitting
sources of mass migration. Europe and the US increasingly reject foreign assistance
because, they claim, budgets are tight. Yet how foolish it is to believe that cuts in foreign
assistance will be real savings in the long term. If conditions abroad are unviable, the wars,
migrations and environmental catastrophes driving today’s crisis will continue to be
replicated and expanded.
A serious agreement on climate change is also an insurance policy against future mass
migration. We know well that the Syrian disaster had some of its roots in the megadroughts of the last decade. Many more environmental refugees are sure to follow a
business-as-usual trajectory of global warming. The climate negotiations in Paris are
therefore a key piece of the puzzle.
The right wing is cruel to reject the humanity of those whose lives depend on our succour.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/02/answer-migration-crisis-refugees-europe
2/3
11/5/2015
There’s no perfect answer to the migrant crisis – and we must face that | Jeffrey Sachs | Comment is free | The Guardian
Yet the pro-refugee politicians will not win the day if they fail to address the deeper causes
of the crisis. Accepting the refugees today has to be accompanied by a rapid end to the
Syrian war; an end to the US-led wars of regime change; more cooperation in the UN
security council; and long-term investments in sustainable development. The flood of
refugees will abate to a manageable level only when people everywhere, including in poor
and unstable regions, see a safe future for themselves and their children in their home
countries.
More comment
Topics
Migration
Refugees
Syria
Middle East and North Africa
United Nations
More…
Save for later Article saved
Reuse this content
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/02/answer-migration-crisis-refugees-europe
3/3