eCommerce

Refugees in Turkey between the logic of hospitality and the logic of the state

Refugees turned into a vital issue after the revolutions of the so-called Arab Spring, especially after the Syrian revolution, which left millions of displaced people and refugees who were displaced from their cities and homes, some of them “displaced” inside Syria, and some of them “refuge” in some neighboring countries and European countries. But the issue of Syrian refugees in Turkey in particular has turned into a crisis. For several reasons, the most important of which are three:

The first reason It is related to the legal status of asylum in Turkey, which stipulates specific conditions for accepting legal “asylum” in it. The 1951 agreement that Turkey signed limited the right of asylum to Europeans who left their country after World War II, and then that agreement was amended by the 1967 protocol, which abandoned that geographical restriction to include refugees. from the rest of the countries.

Syrians in Turkey do not have the legal status that the word “refugee” implies and assumes a set of rights such as those available in the case of Syrians seeking asylum in European countries such as Germany, but they fall under the status of “temporary protection” granted to those fleeing bad conditions in their country.

However, Turkey did not sign the final version of this protocol, and made amendments to it that made asylum in non-EU countries a temporary or conditional right, followed by either resettlement in a third country, voluntary return to the country of origin, or change of conditions in the country of origin.

Accordingly, Syrians in Turkey do not have the legal status that the word “refugee” implies, which assumes a set of rights such as those available in the case of Syrians’ asylum, for example to European countries such as Germany, but they fall under the status of “temporary protection” granted to persons fleeing from Poor conditions in their country, and they are at risk if returned to their country of origin. The meaning of temporary protection is that its holder has the right to remain in Turkey until a more permanent solution to his situation is reached, and he has protection from forcible return to Syria, as well as enjoying his basic rights and needs.

The second reason: that the refugees have turned into a political card that is used as part of the opposition to the ruling regime at times, and to flirt with the voters at other times, or to go along with the opposition and to withdraw the refugee card from its hand at times, meaning that the Syrian refugees have become a card in the hands of the regime and the opposition alike. But this means – in any case – that there is a popular segment in Turkey that sees it affected by the presence of Syrian refugees for various reasons, some of which fall within the rumors and rising racist and nationalist tendencies, especially in times of political and economic hardship.

third reason: The existence of some cultural and social differences (and perhaps similarities that generate dissonance sometimes!), especially that the influx of large waves of refugees in record time led to social manifestations and prominent economic effects that may have bothered groups of Turks who are not accustomed to cultural openness to other colors, In addition, these waves of refugees carried different types of people, as are the diversity within Turkish society itself, and therefore we are not talking about societies of angels on both sides.

Among the manifestations of the refugee crisis: the news that was recently circulated about the Turkish authorities’ intention to deport some Syrian refugees – among whom was a journalist who prepared a satirical program that touched the position of some Turks towards the Syrians – on charges of inciting sedition or insulting the Turkish flag, or the like. This incident sparked a great controversy among the Syrians, who were divided into two groups: opponents and supporters, and even justifications for deportation; It requires contemplation of what happened, as it is a symptom of turning the asylum itself into a crisis, as before. As asylum turns into a crisis, we are faced with three levels, some of which may be intentionally absent; As part of the policy of cornering refugees into reactive, guilt or vulnerable simply because they are refugees or “outsiders”.

level oneThe morals of the asylum community, especially in times of crisis, and the values ​​to which it appeals, and does it take some of it at the hands of others? Does this society have a civil vitality that is able to contain problems and play constructive voluntary roles to maintain peace and help refugees, as we have seen in some European countries?

Second Level: The image of the refugee community themselves, how they manage their affairs, and whether they invoke sound standards as a group with public interests, driven by a cause and a common destiny, and some of which are threatened by what others threaten.

The third level: The role of the state itself in such crises, and by the state I mean here its various political, judicial and legislative institutions.

With regard to the refugee community, the issue presupposes the existence of a legal and political awareness under the idea of ​​a responsible state with duties (not with grants and gifts), but such awareness appears to be absent, and its absence confirms three things:

First orderThe circulation of some statements that not only support the deportation process, but also justify it under various pretexts, the most prominent of which are two statements: the first: “O stranger, be polite,” meaning polite, and the second statement bears responsibility for the behavior of the Syrian refugees and that they are the reason for the aggravation of such a situation; Either because they did not take into account the privacy of Turkish society, or because they acted “naturally” not as “refugees” strangers, or because they crowded the Turks in the workplace and others! Such flexible statements are used as pretexts to justify the facts of racial discrimination by groups of the country of asylum, or to justify a political decision so that its owner proves his loyalty to the local authority, or to relieve himself of the requirements of his duty to defend these vulnerable people by proving that they are guilty, or to prove his superiority over the behavior of “These Syrians” as if not one of them!

But the most important problem here is that the two statements do not include the role of the state and the legal descriptions previously mentioned (refugee and temporary protection), as they refer us to an individual perspective on relations and rights. A refugee or a person who enjoys legal protection is not a guest or a wayfarer until he is crammed into a corner and bears the burden of asylum in this country. Rather, he has a legal status that must be guaranteed by the state of asylum, in addition to the other human and religious dimensions assumed here, which do not enter into the functions of the state but affect The functions of society and the ethics of individuals themselves.

The division that occurred among the refugee community themselves towards the news of the deportation reflects the absence of a human rights perspective on the part of at least a group of them, as this issue is supposed to be a unanimous and self-evident issue; Because it is a human rights issue, regardless of the details of its personalities.. Who are they? And what did they do? Will this be a judicial ruling or a political decision?

Concepts such as alienation, hospitality and the wayfarer refer to an individual and voluntary pattern of relations characterized by the characteristics and natures of individuals. As for the talk about refugees, it is a discourse that is linked to the action of the state and is based on legal and institutional frameworks. Accordingly, the growth of manifestations of racial discrimination or aggression against refugees reveals the absence of the state itself and its failure to perform its role, whether in developing appropriate legal legislation or in its application, and it is not the duty of the “literate refugee” to bear this legal vacuum or the state’s failure to fulfill its duties.

The performance of any “Syrian” body in Turkey can be evaluated and the positions of its members held accountable based on two things: the first: the extent to which it cares for the interests of Syrian refugees and residents, and the second: the presence of a distance between it and its conformity with the interests of the country of asylum at the expense of the interests of the national group to which it claims to represent. These two criteria are what determines the extent of that entity’s Syria, and the extent to which it represents or does not represent the Syrians.

second command: that the division that occurred among the refugee community themselves towards the news of the deportation reflects the absence of a human rights perspective on the part of a group of them at least, as this issue is supposed to be a unanimous and self-evident issue; Because it is a human rights issue, regardless of the details of its characters (who are they? What did they do? Will this be done by a court ruling or a political decision?…). On the part of the state of asylum, it is assumed that the ruling in this is the law and the judiciary (if a crime or violation of the law occurred), and this is what expresses the presence of the state and the performance of its tasks. On the part of the refugee community, this incident touches them all. Because its occurrence with some of them makes them all exposed to it if it takes place outside the framework of the law and institutional work, and we exclude here the privileged who see themselves as safe from this as a result of special considerations.

The third commandThe absence of any prominent or explicit movement by the Syrian councils and bodies that were established in Turkey in the name of the Syrians and claim to represent them, whether under an Islamic or national banner. Such a crisis is a real test of the feasibility and effectiveness of these bodies and the extent of their representation. Especially since the requirements of the “Islamic” and “national” necessitate carrying out tasks and providing services that take care of the general interests of the Syrian refugees. What if some of these people supported the idea of ​​deportation and did not see anything wrong with it!

On this last point, we can observe similarities between the Syrian regime on the one hand, and some Syrian bodies that arose out of and thanks to the Syrian revolution on the other. Both parties claim to represent the people in the absence of democratic foundations or free and fair elections, in light of the subordination of each party to other international parties, and in the absence of accountability, accountability and transparency. It is not possible to claim a revolution against a regime by imitating it with its most important characteristics and features.

The performance of any “Syrian” body in Turkey can be evaluated and the positions of its members held accountable based on two things: the first: the extent to which it cares for the interests of Syrian refugees and residents, and the second: the presence of a distance between it and its conformity with the interests of the country of asylum at the expense of the interests of the national group to which it claims to represent. These two criteria are what determines the extent of that entity’s Syria, and the extent to which it represents or does not represent the Syrians.

In contrast, the establishment of Syrian entities claiming to represent a particular group can be used in two opposite directions: it is either to protect the interests of the refugee group, defend them, support the oppressed, and preserve their rights and dignity, or to further deprive them of their rights by claiming that they are represented by entities that neither represent nor defend them, but rather contribute to the Their side and function is to give a supposed “Syrian” legitimacy to the decisions directed against them in the first place. Hence, the establishment of such entities is a “foreign” need more than a Syrian one. Because it is used in this case to serve the interests of others, unlike the interests of the Syrians themselves!

In order to maintain this clarity and to monitor these standards; We need critical journalistic work, monitoring the performance of these “Syrian” entities, and taking their hand when they make mistakes or some of their members err. Without this oversight and criticism, we will face great corruption and corruption that harms public interests.

As for the role of the state, the issue starts from the problem of the legal description of the Syrians residing on its lands, which makes Turkey a country of temporary protection or a country of transit to a third party, which is an old problem as previously mentioned. However, temporary protection imposes – from a legal point of view – rights and services As shown on the page of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Turkey, which has devoted instructions to Syrians to educate them about their rights and the legal description of them and the necessary conditions for this.

The most important issue here is that the distinction between the descriptions of a citizen, resident, refugee, temporary protection, and others, is an issue related to the modern legal framework and the dictionary of the nation-state that is based on geographical borders, people and land with borders and sovereignty. This means that the system of rights is limited by a legal framework determined by the nature of the ruling political system, the form of the state and its international obligations, and the covenants that it signed or did not sign, and this will bring us back to two very important issues here:

The first: the separation of the moral from the legal, for the moral is much broader than the legal, and the legal may not be moral.

The second: that non-democratic regimes will narrow the margin of rights for the citizens themselves, so how about other refugees and immigrants? Hence, European criticism was raised of the countries of the region, especially the Gulf countries, for not accepting refugees from the region that is full of crises and exporting refugees, as well as the mistreatment of refugees in some neighboring countries where they are subjected to racial discrimination with the absence of legal frameworks and the narrowness of local cultures to assimilate them.

Thus, we find ourselves in front of legal, political, economic and social complications as well, which makes the “right of movement” stipulated in modern human rights charters a dilemma from the outputs of the modern nation-state, while the pre-national human being enjoyed great freedom to move and move and live wherever he wanted, and a quick look The translation books are enough to realize that.

The nation-state system returned us to the sphere of sovereignty that encloses the land and the people together with a closed system of rights, and then it began to try to solve the problems that resulted from that. International law came to fill some gaps, but it lacks binding; Because it will collide again with the issue of sovereignty, and in this context are the asylum laws that begin by allowing refugees to enter and reside in their lands and guaranteeing their rights. Thus, we are faced with the requirements of three circles: the humanitarian, the Islamic, and the international (relative to the state), but when these circles conflict in the field of application, the international, whose reference is to sovereignty that prevails, will precede them.

The humanist imposes that the human being – as a human being – requires rights that must be fulfilled and preserved, and the Islamic imposes a moral system of rights and duties on its members, whether towards themselves, or towards each other, or towards others who are not Muslims (the concept of dhimma here has a moral content). Rather, Islamic jurisprudence – in its entirety – is a system of rights in a broad sense that extends beyond the legal to include the religious and the moral as well.

Turning refugees into a crisis or a political card that is thrown into the furnace of partisan and political conflicts, or the causes of political and economic distress are suspended on them as the “foreign” and weaker party, only becomes stronger when the idea of ​​the state, its institutional frameworks and the effectiveness of its appropriate legislation that seeks to serve the public interest of all residents on its land weaken. Regardless of their legal designation, whether they are citizens or refugees. Mere asylum is not a crime or a shortcoming that must be apologized for, or the consequences of which must be constantly borne by every deputy!



Reference-www.aljazeera.net

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *