Do Countries Have Responsibilities to Accept Refugees?

The image of a Syrian boy named Aylan Kurdi whose dead body lied lifeless on the beach has sparked a wave of discussions about Syrian War and the issues of accepting refugees all around the world. Nowadays, Syrian refugees flood in Europe, bringing a significant change to European society. However, shortly after European countries accepted Syrian refugees, the terrible shooting in Paris which killed hundreds of people haunted Europeans. It was said that the initiators were those terrorists who pretended as refugees to sneak into Europe and planned the terrorist activities. The sudden influx of Syrian refugees paralyzed European security system, increasing the unrest of Europeans. The heated debate about whether Europeans should accept Syrian refugees or not is still going on. Some people claimed that it was America which involved in the war; hence, it was Americans’ responsibility to take the refugees. Others claim that Europeans should take those refugees out of humanitarianism. Although no any side takes the wind, the issue of if countries have responsibilities to take refugees gained the world’s attention again. Personally, I think accepting refugees is a two-way street. Countries have responsibilities to take appropriate refugees based on the following reasons. And countries who have direct relationship with wars should have more responsibilities than those who do not.

To begin with, the regulations of Universal Declaration of Human Rights state that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood (Article 1). In other words, we should have universal love and treat everyone in the world as brothers and sisters. Hence refugees are also our brothers and sisters. When they lose their homelands and have nowhere to go, we should lend them a hand. Out of humanitarianism and universal love, many countries such as Northern European countries accept refugees every year even when there is no war. Besides, it is regulated that no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 5). War brings infinite damage to human beings, for it destroys many people’s homes and thousands of people lose their lives and beloved ones during wars. Hence, refugees experience great torture when there are wars in their homeland. Again, out of humanitarianism, if we could offer any help and provide refugees with asylum, the act of any kindness would save many people’s lives. Hence, from the viewpoints of morality, countries have the obligations to accept refugees. Declining refugees of war to enter any country is against Human Rights Charter. In short, from the angles of acting out of compassion or protection for the entire human rights, countries have duties to accept refugees of wars.

Also according to the regulations of Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persucution (Article 14). No one wants to be refugees. Many refugees have no options but to flee their homecountries. At this momement, it is time to show our humanity and help them. Besides, countries that have abilities to accept refugees of war can take talents, which does great help to their countries. On the one hand, they could help those in urgent need. On the other hand, they are beneficial to get geniuses who would contribute a lot to their society. In this way, it is a win-win situation.

However, as it is mentioned above, every coin has two sides. Accepting refugees have lots of drawbacks. To start with, no countries especially developed countries want to open the door for potentially millions who seek for better life. There may be lots of social problems brought by accepting refugees. For example, this time lots of Syrian refugees are swarming into Europe. The cultural conflicts between local people and refugees occur. Although globalization has swept all around the world, it is still hard for Muslims to integrate into western culture and lots of crimes such as stealing follow. According to MacMillan, globalization paradoxically fostered localism and nativism. Hence, local people may feel frightened if a large number of immigrants involve into their society. Many local people feel society being instable. When a large number of immigrants come, social crisis may occur. What’s more, some terrorists may pretend as refugees. When they come into asylum countries, they may start a string of violent incidents, which brings social instability. When some refugees come to asylum countries, the situations does not change much, which deepens the despair of refugees. Terrorists may utilize this to wage terrorist activities on purpose. Incapable of distinguishing terrorists and refugees sometimes, local people attribute all the fault on all refugees. In this way, the gap of misunderstanding between locals and refugees broadens.

In addition, there is one critical issues for some countries to accept refugees – financially they are incapable of dealing with refugees of wars. For example, when faced a large number of Syrian refugees coming to Europe, some countries such as Italy and Spain suffer severe economic depression find it impossible to handle such huge immigrant trends. Those countries could not even settle down the financial difficulty for their countrymen, let alone mention accepting refugees. Therefore, if countries sacrifice their countrymen’s benefits and happiness or bring disaster to their countrymen because of accepting refugees, it is not worthwhile. The most important responsibility for a nation is to guarantee his countrymen to have a good life first. If the principle responsibility could not be fulfilled, there is no point in mentioning whether a country has responsibility to accept refugees or not.

Furthermore, as to me, those countries which involve in wars or have any indirect relationship with waging wars should take more responsibilities to accept refugees. Let’s take Syrian War as an example. The countries which should take the biggest responsibilities should be those providing arms and funds during Syrian conflicts, especially Iran and some Gulf states. America also has responsibility because it also provided arms during the conflicts. And American used to involve in Iraq war which exerted leverage on Syrian war. In this way, those countries which involve in wars would think twice before taking actions. If they know that the involvement has relationship with being responsible for thousands of refugees’ life in the future, they may consider not to participant in wars. Unfortunately, until now, those countries involving in the Syrian war do not take many refugees. On the contrary, those countries which open their doors to refugees such as Germany and Sweden did not have strong relationship with the war. Those countries offer the help based on the theory of Practical Universal Theory which states that rich countries have responsibilities to accept refugees. However, there are already problems brought by taking refugees in those countries. Hence, whether the theory is useful or not has been questioned by many Europeans.

In conclusion, based on the regulations of Universal Declaration of Human Rights, contries have duries to accept war refugees. However, accepting a large number of refugees bring lots of drawbacks to societies such as instabilities.For some countries who suffer severe financial problems and could not satisfy their countrymen’s basic needs, talking about responsibilities of taking refugees is pointless. And those countries which involve into wars have more responsibilities to accept refugees than those which do not.