Syrian Refugees

The strife in Syria between Bashar al-Assad’s government and numerous other forces that began in around May 2011 continues to cause internal and external displacement of Syrians and citizens of neighboring countries. OCHA (2014) and UNHCR (2015) indicate that by 31^st December 2014, Syria had had approximately 7.6 million of internally displaced people and 3.7 million of its population left the country because of the conflict. The conflict has brought about and continues to cause a severe refugee crisis that has placed enormous strain and pressure on its neighboring countries. Syrians have been seeking immunity since May 2011. Neighboring countries such as Iraq, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon comprise the most significant number of asylum seekers from Syria. The number continues to grow beyond these countries.

The current paper examines the weight and damage of the Syrian refugee crisis and assesses how the international community has, or has not handled the crisis. Additionally, it evaluates the degree to which Syrians have used the capacity to get immunity in countries outside the region. Germany and Sweden are the two countries outside the Arab region that had given protection to the most significant number of Syrian refugees by the end of December 2014. This paper likewise contends that generally, the international community has not adequately contributed to dealing with the burden of the Syrian refugee deluge, as far as both monetary help and refugee resettlement are concerned.

The paper proposes two general recommendations to decrease the strain on Syria’s neighboring countries that are comprised of increasing the level of weight sharing across the entire international community and uniformly distributing the weight amidst developed countries in Europe, North America, and the Asia Pacific region. Regarding the upgrade of the level of immunity for Syrians in countries beyond the region, it suggests three recommendations for these nations, in particular: increasing the displaced individual resettlement, encouraging family reunification and different types of lawful affirmation, and permitting refugees to look for immunity through government offices in the area.

The Civil War

The Syrian Civil War is the most exceedingly negative philanthropic emergency as of the recent times. The consequence of this ridiculous disarray is the death of more than 250,000 regular citizens, about a similar number injured or missing, and 11 million Syrians escaping from their homes (Gilsinan, 2015). In March of 2011, in the post-Arab Spring period, the enduring Syrian uprising was triggered. It was started when a couple of youngsters were captured and tormented because they vandalized a school divider by drawing progressive mottos on it. The general agitation began when security powers opened fire on peaceful protestors, and this way, caused much more to hold up. These dissents grew into countrywide demonstrations calling for President Bashar al-Assad’s resignation. Assad’s utilization of power persuaded the protestors, and by July of 2011, several thousands of them had rioted to display their disagreement with the Syrian administration (Rodgers, Griffin, Offer, & Asare, 2016). Supporters of the restriction eventually waged war to protect themselves against the harsh regime and later to go into an all-out attack mode to expel government security authorities from the regions they were guarding.

The Syrian Civil War is a war of its own kind. What started as Assad’s endeavor to reject the protestors disagreeing with his administration has developed into a conventional war, a partisan battle, and additionally an intermediary war in general. Various powers are participating in the war with many intentions. Thus, the contention in Syria is somewhat similar to a conventional war between the Assad administration and the general population. Partially, it is also similar to a religious clash between Assad’s Alawite organization, a branch of Shia Islam, sponsored by Shiite fighters from Iran and Lebanese Hezbollah, and various Sunni revolt gatherings. Lastly, it is similar to an intermediary war in which allied nations of Iran and Russia fight against the United States and its partners. The availability of ISIS in close proximity adds an entirely different measurement to this contention. Foes have regular adversaries, which aggravate this dispute even further.

The Free Syrian Army (FSA) was made up of just seven Syrian officers in July of 2011. The FSA was comprised of Syrian officers and troopers (Landis, 2011). The FSA’s point was to crumple the Assad administration with joined restriction powers. After a month, a coalition called the Syrian National Council located in Turkey was formed. The committee comprised anti-government factions that endeavored to merge and marshal the opposition. Their endeavor was unsuccessful since the gatherings involved were of political nature, including ousts, low-level associations, and furnished state armies who were partitioned ethnically and ideologically (Barnard). Since the beginning of the contention, there were many opposition powers that were not cooperating. In her article, Gilsinan (2015) states: “By one check from 2013, 13 “noteworthy” dissident gatherings were working in Syria; tallying littler ones, the U.S. Defence Intelligence Agency puts the number of gatherings at 1,200.” The Syrian government proceeded with its crackdown on protestors with their military. Various gatherings of radicals propelled an uprising effort in different parts of the country, which led to many fights between the Syrian armed force, the FSA and other revolutionary groups in their endeavors to capture specific urban communities. By October of the same year, Turkey backed the attempts of the FSA and enabled them to be headquartered on Turkey’s southern outskirt territory (Yezdani, 2012).

In December of that year, NATO bolstered the resistance powers by providing them with arms and ammunition through Turkish army installations which were near the Syrian fringe. Volunteers from the Libyan Transitional National Council alongside unique strengths coaches from France and England were helping the Renegades while the CIA was giving an insight into the work of Syrian radicals to support their primary goal (Giraldi, 2011).

In January 2012, the Assad administration started massive operations against the agitator factions, which caused the annihilation of non-military personnel properties. Furnished clashes kept on heightening as the Syrian armed forces assaulted revolt fortifications in their endeavors to regain control over the land territories. Now, the dissents declined as a result of the spread of outfitted clash. Soon after that in April, Kofi Annan, the UN– Arab League Joint Special Representative for Syria, formed a peace path for Syria, which actualized a truce. Amid the arrangements, the Syrian Army proceeded with its operations. Soon after that, the two sides of the contention entered the UN-intervened truce period. It failed on account of infractions from the two parties of the dispute. Annan sought help from Iran in the intercession of the contention. The peace design was entirely destroyed by early June, and the UN was pulled back from Syria (2012). The battling for the regions went on.

In September 2012, the Syrian Government carried out air strikes in the Kurdish neighborhood murdering 21 regular Kurdish people. The Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) struck back by catching and slaughtering Syrian officers. There was yet another power on the grounds associated with the contention. In the midst of the dispute, the dissident powers also conflicted with the YPG powers. The YPG powers ousted the Syrian government from oil-rich ranges. In April of 2013, Hezbollah helped the Syrian forces in the retaliation to regain control over the territories. With the assistance of Hezbollah, the Assad administration captured urban areas and towns near the Lebanese outskirts.

Amidst the confusion in Syria, ISIS took advantage of the circumstances and seized vast regions of Syria when it guaranteed a caliphate in June 2014. ISIS was engaged in fighting against revolt gatherings, the Nusra Front, the Syrian administration, and the Kurdish powers. As a rule, foes have regular adversaries, and they are not companions. In September 2014, the US led a coalition that targeted ISIS in Syria with air strikes. The alliance must have been exceptionally crucial for the hits as they did not need any forces to help Assad. After a year, the Syrian government asked Russia to start an air strike battle which was planned to target ISIS; however, the dissident gatherings that were aimed at asserting the strikes have largely murdered the revolutionaries. As Russia turned out to be more engaged with the contention, the US for the first time started providing rebels with anti-tank rockets. By October 2015, opposition powers had moved to request for anti-jet missiles. The request was dismissed by the West due to the fears that the weapons may fall into the wrong hands, i.e., ISIS or Nusra Front. Another US program was executed to train thousands of renegades to have the powers to conquer ISIS on the ground and not merely in the air, but it failed to achieve its goal.

The war in Syria started as one of the uprisings in the times of Arab Spring. In any case, it transformed into an intermediary war. Russia and Iran are backing the Assad administration and giving them bolster. The Iranian government is providing Assad with military counselors, weapons, and oil as a credit, while Russia is making airstrikes evidently targeting ISIS. The West claims that Russia is deliberately focusing on the West-sponsored radicals to help Assad. In any case, it is evident that Russia’s airstrikes are carried out in support of Assad. Iran-sponsored Hezbollah has been offering help to the Alawite Syrian government since 2013. The more significant part was Sunni restriction by Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Jordan. The West, specifically, the United States, United Kingdom, and France have likewise bolstered the opposition faction in Syria.

By the end of October 2015, peace talks had started in Vienna concerning Syria in the course of which engagements were made with the United States, Russia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. The two sides were not able to concur on the eventual fate of the province of Syria. President Obama encouraged Iran and Russia to stop supporting Assad. In late February 2016, the United Nations Security Council embraced a determination that required all gatherings engaged in the contention to stop hostility. By the end of March, Assad had regained control over the city of Palmyra and conquered ISIS with the support of Russia and Iran. By early July, the truce was for the most part fixed, and the fighting started.

More than 4.5 million have fled Syria looking for shelter as well as refuge in neighboring countries and Europe (Rodgers et al., 2016). This has been the most significant refugee emergency in the recent years. Another 6.5 million Syrians are dislodged inside Syria alone (Rodgers et al., 2016). The dominant part of Syrians stays without clean water and lives in destitution. Offices providing help to refugees are experiencing severe difficulties in helping the Syrians since they are in hard-to-reach regions.

The fighting proceeds to date. Syria on the ground is hugely political. Dissident gatherings are highly separated as the opposition factions are fighting against each other for predominance. ISIS and the agitators are fighting against Assad and each other as well. The Western coalition is likewise battling Assad and ISIS while ISIS is battling Assad and the West. The Kurds are battling ISIS, but the radicals, however, have no enthusiasm in fighting against Assad. Because of the partisans’ motivation, Iran has supported Assad, while the Gulf Nations have upheld the extremists. Syria continues to be a multidimensional war area to various gatherings. There have been many endeavors to build up peace in the locality yet they have all failed, causing the utmost humanitarian emergency as of the recent times.

Impact of the Civil War

The strife in Syria between Bashar al-Assad’s government and numerous other forces that began in around March 2011 continues to cause internal and external displacement of Syrians and citizens of neighboring countries. OCHA (2014) and UNHCR (2015) indicate that by December 2014, Syria had had approximately 7.6 million internally displaced individuals and 3.7 million of its population had escaped the country because of the conflict. According to OCHA (2014) and UNHCR (2015), Syria’s neighboring countries registered over one million new refugees during 2014. These statistics had multiplied the general number of enlisted displaced individuals in the Arab region to over 3.5 million by the end of that year. As extensive as the quantity of recently enlisted refugees may be, to some extent it belittles the prevailing crisis as it does not include 117,590 Syrians who were anticipating enrollment toward the end of 2014 (UNHCR, 2015), and actual Syrian refugees who were living in the area despite not being formally enrolled or awaiting enlistment.

The Syrian strife has put tremendous strain on its neighboring nations, with Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan being affected the most. UNHCR (2015) indicates that by December 31^st, 2014, Lebanon that initially had an estimated number of population of 4.8 million people before the start of Syria’s refugee emergency, had facilitated 1,146,405 enlisted Syrian refugees, which means that about one out of every five individuals presently living in Lebanon is a Syrian refugee. As of December 31, 2014, Turkey facilitated the biggest Syrian populace, with 1,552,839 registered refugees; Jordan housed the third biggest number of populace with 622,865 enrolled displaced people (UNHCR, 2015). By comparison, Iraq and Egypt suited a smaller yet generous number of Syrians, facilitating 228,484 and 137,812 enrolled evacuees, respectively (UNHCR, 2015).

María Eugenia Casar, Under-Secretary-General and Partner Head of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), has announced that “nations facilitating Syrian displaced people are battling with the huge effect on their economies, social orders, and foundation. This undermines their dependability as well as the soundness of the whole region” (UNHCR, 2015). The seriousness and extended nature of the Syrian strife have made the conditions for Syrian evacuees and their host groups exceedingly troublesome. Syrian refugees are faced with pressure from the host group populaces and struggle to secure essential needs such as security, sustenance, and asylum (Orhan, 2014). With the philanthropic circumstances caused by the Syrian clash that continues to fall apart, Syrians are progressively looking for shelter in the states outside the Arab region.

In 2013, Syria turned into the first country with asylum seekers in 44 industrialized nations in Europe, North America, and the Asia Pacific region (UNHCR, 2015). UNHCR (2015) indicates an approximate number of 56400 Syrian nationals who applied for refugee status in developed countries during 2013. This number is twice as great as the number of Syrian refuge guarantees of the previous year that recorded 25,200 people and six times greater than the number recorded in 2011 standing at 8,500. In 2014, the number of Syrian asylum seekers in the 44 industrialized nations achieved 149,600, the highest number recorded by a single gathering since 1992 (UNHCR, 2015).

The conflict has brought about and continues to cause a severe refugee crisis that has placed considerable strain and pressure on the neighboring countries. Syrians have been seeking immunity in numerous neighboring countries such as Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Turkey, and Jordan since May 2011. This number continues to grow beyond the listed states. According to UNHCR’s yearly asylum pattern reports of developed countries, close to 2009 and 2013, the United States, Sweden, Germany and the United Kingdom, were ranked among the leading five states that receive refuge claims (UNHCR, 2014d). Each nation has likewise shown a noteworthy sense of duty regarding the mitigation of the Syrian refugee crisis. According to Ostrand (2015), the United States and the United Kingdom are the most significant single-state two-sided contributors to the Syrian emergency, and Germany and Sweden have conceded the most significant number of Syrian exiles in the developed countries outside the Arab states region.

When analyzing the commitments and reactions of industrialized states to each other and the responses of Syria’s neighboring countries, this paper proposes two kinds of suggestions. To begin with, to lessen the strain on neighboring nations, it suggests increasing the level of weight shared by the entire international community and also expanding the conveyance of this weight among industrialized states. Secondly, to improve the level of assurance accessible for Syrians in the countries apart from the locale, this paper suggests that states are to: (1) increase refugee resettlement; (2) enable displaced people to look for security through international safe havens in the area; and (3) encourage family reunification and other legitimate ways of confirmation. For example, private sponsorship, restorative departure, humanitarian visas, scholastic grants, and work versatility plans.

Related Free Political Essays