Humanitarian News
W A B I P N E W S L E T T E R P A G E 12
them from Iraq and Afghanistan, trapped on Belarus's borders with Poland and Lithuania) tried to cross its border with Bela-
rus and were brutally pushed back by security forces with water cannons and tear gas. However, we can see that aer the
conict in Ukraine most of the European Union polical leaders have said publicly that refugees from Ukraine are welcome
and countries have been preparing to receive refugees on their borders with teams of volunteers handing out food, water,
clothing, and medicines. Slovakia[and Poland have said that refugees eeing the war in Ukraine will be allowed to enter their
countries even without passports, or other valid travel documents; other EU countries, such as Ireland, have announced the
immediate liing of visa requirements for people coming from Ukraine. Even free public transport and phone communica-
on is being provided for Ukrainian refugees. Legal reforms are being prompted that may allow refugees from Ukraine be
oered up to three years temporary protecon in EU countries, without having to apply for asylum, conceding rights to a
residence, permit and access to educaon, housing, and the labour market
Of course, facing such a huge crisis as this war is, that generous collaboraon is welcome and perfectly understandable. The
horric situaons created by the Russian invasion to Ukraine turned thousands and thousands of people into refugees from
one week to the other, triggering one of the largest and fastest refugee movements that Europe has witnessed since the end
of World War and the one of the largest humanitarian crisis that Europe has seen. But we should remember that it was not
so long ago that the connent faced another crical humanitarian challenge, the 2015 refugee "crisis" spurred by the conict
in Syria.
The current refugees eeing from Ukraine made their way to the borders of Poland, Slovakia, Romania, and Hungary. But
unlike many others who, over the past decade, have sought to escape conict and oppression by eeing to European coun-
tries, they were welcomed inside. We have heard (and found it natural?) some reporters covering the war saying “These are
not refugees from Syria. . . . These are Chrisans, they are white, they’re very similar to the people that live in Poland.” Or
referring to Kyiv, “With all due respect, these people do not come from Iraq or Afghanistan or Syria, they come from a rela-
vely civilized, relavely European city.” We have also witnessed that the non-European refugees from Ukraine (thousands
of Africans living in Ukraine, mainly students), struggled to enter Poland and other countries as refugees being violently
stopped by the Ukraine authories at the border or unwelcome in any of the receiving countries.
This current scenario obliges all of us as mankind to reect on the uerly dierent responses the Western world has had at
these two situaons of “humanitarian crisis”. It should provide a cauonary lesson for those hoping for a more humane, gen-
erous Western democracies. This is indeed how the internaonal refugee protecon regime should work, especially in mes
of crisis: countries keep their borders open to those escaping wars and conict; temporary eliminaon of unnecessary iden-
ty and security checks; permission to arrive without valid identy and travel documents; and of course, no detenon
measures or impediment to freely join family members in other countries. Communies and their leaders should always
welcome refugees with generosity and solidarity.
Bes and Collier argue that providing refuge ‘is about fullling our duty of rescue’. According to them, the duty of rescuing
refugees is born out of a common humanity that we share with other human beings. It creates moral obligaon to assist
strangers who are in desperate need when we can do so at no signicant cost to ourselves, so, the well-known principle of
the Good Samaritan. An the parable of the Good Samaritan points out that there is no connecon between the rescuer, the
Samaritan, and the person in need of help; the Good Samaritan simply helps out of human decency, not because they were
responsible for harming the person lying by the side of the road.
On the one hand, we are urged to confront the uncomfortable electoral reality of widespread public hoslity towards great-
er immigraon, and the increasing acceptance of the immense suering caused by real-world border enforcement pracces
and the undisputable racism that lays under those “public opinions”. It implies that how ambious the migraon and asylum
law reforms should be in order to fulll the moral call will be a maer of vigorous dispute at a me when fundamental as-
sumpons about movement and membership are in queson.
However, it should be considered that the world today is parcelled up between sovereign states whose legimacy derives
from their role in protecng the human rights of those individuals within their territory. Owen argues that the mere exist-
ence of refugees is always evidence that some states are failing in their role, requiring internaonal society to oer subs-
tute protecon. In his words, the instuon of refugeehood acts as a ‘legimacy repair mechanism’ that rearms ‘the mini-
mal condions of the imagined reconciliaon of an internaonal order of sovereign states and a cosmopolitan order of hu-
man rights’. It means that the protecon of refugees not only answers to the morally urgent need of the world’s most vul-