The Syrian refugee crisis continues; everyday more Syrians are displaced by circumstances beyond their control. Western leaders know this and have intelligence on the matter that is more comprehensive than even the best newspaper articles. However, the attacks in Paris, like the 9/11 attacks, have compelled policymakers and elected leaders alike to shift focus from “What can we do for the refugees?” to “How can we protect ourselves?”. The two questions aren’t mutually exclusive, but try telling that to a security or foreign policy analyst in Paris, Brussels, London, or New York who has to answer for why they didn’t know what was going to happen and what they know now.
ISIS attacked a Western city, so there could be reluctance on the part of leaders in Asia and other regions to wait for what their counterparts decide before making specific policy statements. It seems to be such a given that peace and security in the Middle East, an Asian region, is a Western responsibility that even leaders in China and India, eager for more opportunities to increase international prestige, are less demanding about participation in processes like the Iran nuclear or the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. I can’t blame them, but the Syrian refugee crisis, and how it’s been exacerbated by the response to the Paris attacks, should be a reason for India to be more engaged. India shouldn't even consider taking cues on this issue from Western countries. Sadly, the West is still addressing basic and fundamental questions around immigration and integration that countries like India, with its staggering cultural and religious diversity, have dealt with.
This humanitarian and security crisis presents an opportunity for India - country with the second largest Muslim population, top 10 largest economy, world's largest democracy - to take the lead and secure its position as a preeminent dispenser of “smart power”. While Western cities are debating whether and how many armed guards to post at malls and movie theaters, India can address more enlightened issues like how many cities should be enlisted for settlement of Syrian refugees.
India has many challenges, but integration isn’t one of them. Somehow, in contrast to the theories of social science, people’s duty to family, caste, or state supplements rather than supplants an Indian identity. Free and fair elections are held, the central government still sets the economic and foreign policy agenda, and there are no separatist/secessionist movements that seriously undermine the Centre’s control of security and the borders. For all the fascinating stories about dynamic state politicians and battles between states, the concept of state’s rights doesn’t manifest itself as dramatically as in the United States.
Indian policymakers and citizens will have many questions about the refugees - Where will they live? Where will they work? Will they take jobs from Indians? How can we verify their claims for asylum? Policymakers in the West are thinking the same thing (or trying to avoid thinking about it), but India has socioeconomic structures that support people who have fallen beneath the cracks. Besides the strong family ties that ensure most people have stable housing and consistent access to food, employers already accept resumes from jobseekers at colleges and companies they don’t recognize; homeowners hire maids and cooks without a background check; and we all ride autos and cabs driven by people who may or not have a license. People in this country are predisposed to give people a chance and make changes with little difficulty if things don’t work out: the employee will be fired if she falsifies her resume, the cook will be arrested if he steals, and you can refuse to pay a driver if he doesn't know where he’s going.
Sadly, many Indians don’t see India as a destination, somewhere you can aspire to be, so it might be hard to imagine that refugees might choose to come here. To the people who think that, including people who ask me why I’d want to work here, I’ll ask this: What about the Tibetans in Dharamsala? What about Auroville? This country is already a haven, so why not burnish that reputation and offer a home to these refugees?
Even if several American mayors and governors hadn’t used the attacks in Paris as an excuse to shirk their humanitarian (and legal?) responsibilities, a Middle Eastern immigrant would not have been made to feel very comfortable in the United States. Fourteen years after 9/11, even in liberal cities like New York and LA, people still don’t know the difference between Sikhs and Muslims, the significance of the Sunni-Shia schism in Islam; or that not all people from the Middle East are Arabs and not all Arabs are Muslims. More importantly, a lot of people don’t care.
As vocal as President Obama has been in response to governors and mayors, it’s these local and state officials who will have to implement whatever immigration the federal government enforces. Local/state officials will decide what housing is reserved for refugees; whether they receive in-state tuition for public universities; and the prerequisites for accessing public services. Even in the best of circumstances, fleeing your home and moving to a new country is stressful and bewildering; these officials have basically committed to making it even more difficult. And being an English-speaking, college-educated, and/or urban-dwelling refugee won’t make you less susceptible to discrimination and ignorance. There are many successful and articulate people of color - business executives, doctors, and more - who have been mistaken for assistants and orderlies. Prejudice and discrimination don’t look for reasons to not manifest themselves; once those feelings are present - in police officers, social workers, school administrators, clients, and colleagues alike - no amount of reason can make them recede, even if it’s to enforce the law.
India has its issues with race and skin color, but this is a country dominated by “people of color” (to use a Western term). Syrian refugees who arrive here will see maids and drivers who look like them, but also doctors, executives, teachers, and artists. They will see movies and TV shows where people who look like them are depicted as criminals, but also as people who are affected by crime and as people who thwart the spread of crime. They will see happy families and unhappy families who look like them and drive by ads where even the lightest Indian is still Indian, a person of color, an Asian. That positive reinforcement has its benefits for everyone, but it would be particularly resonant for people who have been physically and psychology displaced.
I also predict that with India leading the charge, other SAARC and ASEAN countries would step up. How nice would that be, to see a pan-Asian response to an Asian crisis? What a display of moral imagination it would be for leaders of so-called developing countries to say “We don’t have much, but we’ll give you what we do have” as opposed to Western leaders who say “We’re sorry for you and we hope you figure it out.” Those leaders would be saying a lot more than their counterparts in the West.
Anyone who’s read a newspaper in the past year can surmise that Prime Minister Modi is in pursuit of statesman status. He’ll have to do more than travel abroad and sign MOUs to accomplish that. This move would establish India as a country the West should do more than consult - on Indian Ocean affairs, international trade, reform of international organizations like the UN and IMF, even a comprehensive Middle East peace process. If India can extend a helping hand in these dire times, then how could Israel, the Arab League, Iran, or the the EU deny India a chance to broker peace?
Delhi might not want that burden anymore than Beijing, but it would be a signal of increasing global prestige to be asked.
And what better way to shame the current permanent members (P5) of the Security Council than by offering support more substantial than a harshly-worded resolution? Even if India never receives a permanent Security Council seat, it could demand regard that the P5 accord to Germany; if there can be a “P5 + 1”, why not a “P5 + 2” that has two Asian countries and addresses major international issues in concert with, or outside of, UN structures when they’re too slow? It would honor India’s role as a leading democratic power outside of the West and give it the clout to not just hope the US will be a counterweight to China in Asia, but be a counterweight in its own right.
International prestige and world power status won’t just come for India with GDP growth. China can make foreign policy demands based on population size, economic strength, and permanent Security Council membership. India has the first two, but lacks the third, so it has to put some skin in the game. Delhi can demand a seat at the meeting, or even sit at the head, after it sets the agenda for why everyone is meeting. And India has a real chance to do that by responding effectively, substantially, and promptly to this crisis in a relatively cheap way that doesn’t involve military action.
No comments:
Post a Comment