mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn
the new world disorder
Obama’s Humanitarian Report Card Looking Grim

A new UN report captures the unprecedented scale of the global refugee crisis:

The number of people displaced from their homes due to conflict and persecution last year exceeded 60 million for the first time in United Nations history, a tally greater than the population of the United Kingdom, or of Canada, Australia and New Zealand combined, says a new report released on World Refugee Day today.

The Global Trends 2015 compiled by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) notes that 65.3 million people were displaced at the end of 2015, an increase of more than 5 million from 59.5 million a year earlier.

The tally comprises 21.3 million refugees, 3.2 million asylum seekers, and 40.8 million people internally displaced within their own countries.

Measured against the world’s population of 7.4 billion people, one in every 113 people globally is now either a refugee, an asylum-seeker or internally displaced – putting them at a level of risk for which UNHCR knows no precedent.

On average, 24 people were forced to flee each minute in 2015, four times more than a decade earlier, when six people fled every 60 seconds.

And 51% of them are children.

There’s a lot of bad stuff going on; this is, as we’ve been covering for the last few years, a truly global refugee crisis. Even this week, the plight of Rohingya refugees from Burma is back in the news, while displacement within Africa continues to be a problem.

However, the UN report makes it uncomfortably clear that the worst situations on the planet are those, starting with Syria, of which President Obama has ostentatiously, even proudly, washed his hands:

Syria, Afghanistan and Somalia produce half the world’s refugees, at 4.9 million, 2.7 million and 1.1 million, respectively.

Colombia had the largest numbers of internally displaced people (IDPs), at 6.9 million, followed by Syria’s 6.6 million and Iraq’s 4.4 million.

The UN’s spokesperson, reviewing the severity of the crisis, points towards the UNHRC’s #WithRefugees social media campaign and a High-Level Meeting of world leaders to discuss the global crisis on the sidelines of this September’s UNGA as glimmers of hope. But we all know what would do most to help: for the U.S. to get off the sidelines, starting but by no means ending with the situation in Syria. Sadly, that’s not likely to happen before January 20, 2017.

Features Icon
Features
show comments
  • Jacksonian_Libertarian

    “Sadly, that’s not likely to happen before January 20, 2017.”

    So you agree that “Obama is the Worst President in American History”.

  • Arkeygeezer

    What, exactly, would you have the U.S. do to resolve the situation?

    • f1b0nacc1

      Precisely the question that needs to be asked. What is the US supposed to do here, and why should we have any expectation whatsoever that our efforts would have the desired effect?

      • Boritz

        I blame George W Bush and predatory lending.

        • f1b0nacc1

          Bravo….find a way to throw in the repeal of Glass-Stegall, and you will have a Lefty Trifecta

    • QET

      Yes, articles exhorting one to “get off the sidelines” can’t be taken seriously. What does that even mean? (that was a rhetorical question; obviously it has no meaning whatsoever). Another limp offering from TAI, amounting only to a demand that “somebody do something.” Perhaps now is a good time to allow the kind of “regional power” structure to develop that many modern liberal cognoscenti advocate when complaining about US hegemony. Let those new powers deal with the crisis; that is the measure of a power, after all. But there is no reason to make it easy for them. Keep the refugees out of Europe and America.

      Every time I hear of refugees rising up in their camps, marauding innocents on the streets of Cologne or Copenhagen or wherever, or battling the Calais police, forcing their way onto trucks and trains and boats to get across/under the Channel, I think: how is it that such people, who are obviously capable of being violent, were unable to exercise that violence in their own defense in their home countries? Why did they have to flee, exactly? Maybe by forcing them to remain in those countries, they will eventually decide not to be slaughtered by Assad or ISIS or whomever, and will organize themselves into an effective deterrent and re-take control of their own lives and homelands. But that won;t happen if we keep bleeding off that kind of energy by resettling them here or in Europe.

      • Jim__L

        The US could supply arms (which Obama refused to do), air superiority, and organization to a resistance movement.

        But Obama doesn’t want to do any of these things, because he believes that whenever the US tries, it makes the situation worse.

        Right.

      • Arkeygeezer

        Isn’t there a prominent businessman-politician saying the same thing? Obama got elected twice on the promise to get out of Iraq. Now a much maligned businessman is campaigning on promises to keep America first and control the immigration of Islamic refugees and the Washington elites are going crazy.

  • FriendlyGoat

    “Getting off the sidelines” means getting fewer people to believe in Islam in the first place—–and no one seems to have any idea how to do that. We thought that Islamic places cleared of terrorists and/or dictators would elect western-style secularism. Then, during the last 15 years we found out that, “oops, they didn’t, they don’t and maybe they never will”.
    This lessens the popular will to go “clear” Syria or other places using our previous understanding of methodology of how that is to be done (Afghanistan and Iraq). We are going to need new strategy, because we are in a world messaging war and barely know it.

    • Jim__L

      Make it clear that any Islamic government will get pounded into dust, that has anti-apostasy laws, interferes with any non-Islamic missionaries, or attempts to enforce any “dhimmi” clauses of Islam.

      Within about a decade, you’d see real progress.

      • FriendlyGoat

        The answer to mistaken notions about religion is not to just kill larger numbers of people. The answer is to turn people away from the sayings of Mohammad—-BECAUSE—-taken as a whole they amount to an indefensible mess. Why am I having to tell you this?

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2016 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service