Figures as at end 2015
Amnesty International: Rich nations’ self-interest means refugee crisis set to get worse, not better
Wealthy countries have shown a complete absence of leadership and responsibility, leaving just 10 countries, which account for less than 2.5% of world GDP, to take in 56% of the world’s refugees, said Amnesty International in a comprehensive assessment of the global refugee crisis published today.
The report Tackling the global refugee crisis: From shirking to sharing responsibility, documents the precarious situation faced by many of the world’s 21 million refugees. While many in Greece, Iraq, on the island of Nauru, or at the border of Syria and Jordan are in dire need of a home, others in Kenya and Pakistan are facing growing harassment from governments.
The report sets out a fair and practical solution to the crisis based on a system that uses relevant, objective criteria to show the fair share every state in the world should take in in order to find a home for 10% of the world’s refugees every year.
Read more ....
More News On Amnesty International's Report That Ten Countries Host More Than Half Of The World's Refugees
Rich countries are doing less than poor countries to help refugees, Amnesty says -- France 24
Ten countries host more than half of world's refugees – and the UK urgently needs to do more, says Amnesty -- The Independent
Rich nations 'shirking' responsibility to refugees - Amnesty -- BBC
More than half of the world’s 21 million refugees live in these 10 countries -- L.A. Times
Ten countries host half of world's refugees: report -- Al Jazeera
10 nations host over half of world's refugees, Amnesty slams rich countries -- IBTimes
Rich countries shirking responsibility in refugee crisis: Amnesty -- DW
Where Are Refugees Going? Map Shows Richest Nations Aren’t Taking Their Fair Share As Crisis Worsens -- IBTimes
3 comments:
"Wealthy countries have shown a complete abscence of leadership and responsibility..." what ridiculous nonsense.
Why should a "wealthy" country agree to be invaded and conquered? At a minimum, a "wealthy" country would fight off an invader and not voluntarily allow the invader to conquer them without a fight.
While it's regretable that the countries where the "refugees" are going may not have the means to resist the invaders, this isn't the fault of the wealthy countries nor should the wealthy countries be expected to come "charging to the rescue" of these other countries.
54% of all Global refugees come from Syria, Somalia and Afghanistan. If you add in Kosovar, Iraqi, and Lybian refugee's, 71% of the Global refugee population comes from the wars of choice the West has waged on those countries.
We stll have lots of money for bombing countries, and no interest in helping the people fleeing those bombs.
Jay,
We suffer from "cultural Stockholm syndrone." I think we thought if only we could bring them "democracy" perhaps we'd be worthy. In the case of the United States, we think if only we could find approval in the eyes of our Canadian superiors whom we worship, perhaps we'd be worthy. (I respect Canadians but do not express the holy reverence for them most Americans including our leaders have.)
Now if we want to "help" them perhaps we could commit the neccessary forces to provide security for these people within those countries. This may even mean a dtaft, which I'm not opposed to provided the leadership is commited to the mission and our people will not simply be used as cannon fodder.
In any event, we cannot allow ourselves to be invaded by "refugees" who wish us harm. Unfortunately what is done is done and can't be changed.
We likely expected different behavior from the folks that "cultural Stockholm syndrone" said we needed to help. I could have very easily told our "leaders" what would happen. Unfortunately they didn't consult me.
In the case of Saddam's Iraq, this was an existential threat to the United States. Many of our "allies" had economic ties to this entity and would have been perfectly willing to sacrifice America to preserve those interests.
While other nations could have and should have behaved differently, they did not. "Wealthy" nations should not be expected to sacrifice their own survival in service of the invaders whom the media calls refugees. As I've stated "cultural Stockholm syndrone."
The best that can probably be done at this point is to wall off the invasion as the kind of troop commitments to provide security for the populace of these countries from us isn't possible. The sooner we jettison "cultural Stockholm syndrone" the better.
Their suffering while gut wrenching is not our fault nor can we stop it. Maybe they will survive. Maybe they want. While we pray they do survive, we can do nothing else for them nor should we commit suicide for them. In other words, stop the invasion.
Post a Comment