Britain should “hang its head in shame” over Syrian refugee crisis

Amnesty International condemns Europe's failure to resettle Syrian refugees.

As winter settles in, the dangers faced by Syrian refugees will increase – many lack adequate shelter, fuel, food or medicine. Around 2.3 million people have fled the civil war in Syria, most to neighbouring countries. According to UNHCR, 838,000 have fled to Lebanon, 567,000 to Jordan and 540,000 to Turkey – the three countries bearing the greatest refugee burden. These countries are not only struggling with the economic cost of the refugee crisis, but face serious political repercussions too, with fears that sectarian violence is spilling beyond Syria’s borders.

According to an Amnesty International has said that European leaders should “hang their head in shame” at their failure to take in Syrian refugees. Only ten European countries have agreed to host and resettle Syrian refugees – and the UK is not one of them. The most generous is Germany, which has agreed to take 20,000 and the remaining countries are taking on just 2,340 refugees together.

In the UK, some have responded by pointing out that its pledge of £500m of humanitarian aid to Syria is more than all other EU countries combined. According to Oxfam in September, the UK has given 154 per cent of its fair share to Syria (relative to its GDP) so this is something to be proud of. In contrast, France – which has consistently taken a more hawkish stance on Syria – has only given 45 per cent of its fair share.

Britain’s commitment to humanitarian aid is a positive, but this shouldn’t be used as an excuse to close the door to refugees. Perhaps the government, wary of anti-immigration rhetoric, is afraid of how the public might react to several thousand Syrians being resettled here. But the reality is the UK can, and should, absorb and resettle several thousand refugees.

Meanwhile, thousands are dying attempting to make it into Europe anyway. In October 650 migrants and refugees died trying to enter Europe by sea from North Africa. Greece has been pushing Syrian migrants back to sea, and Bulgaria has detained around 5,000. It’s not enough to simply hand over cash to a crisis we pretend is far away, while the victims of war are dying on our doorsteps.

Syrian refugees take part in a demonstration at the Zaatari refugee camp, near the border with Syria. Photo: Getty.

Sophie McBain is a freelance writer based in Cairo. She was previously an assistant editor at the New Statesman.

GETTY
Show Hide image

Stephen Hawking's enthusiasm for colonising space makes him almost as bad as Trump

The physicist's inistence on mankind's expansion risks making him a handmaiden of inequality.

“Spreading out may be the only thing that saves us from ourselves,” Stephen Hawking has warned. And he’s not just talking about surviving the UK's recent run of record breaking heat. If humanity doesn’t start sending people to Mars soon, then in a few hundred years he says we can all expect to be kaput; there just isn’t enough space for us all.

The theoretical physicist gave his address to the glittering Starmus Festival of science and arts in Norway. According to the BBC, he argued that climate change and the depletion of natural resources help make space travel essential. With this in mind, he would like to see a mission to Mars by 2025 and a new lunar base within 30 years.

He even took a swipe at Donald Trump: “I am not denying the importance of fighting climate change and global warming, unlike Donald Trump, who may just have taken the most serious, and wrong, decision on climate change this world has seen.”

Yet there are striking similarities between Hawking's statement and the President's bombast. For one thing there was the context in which it was made - an address to a festival dripping with conspicuous consumption, where 18 carat gold OMEGA watches were dished out as prizes.

More importantly there's the inescapable reality that space colonisation is an inherently elitist affair: under Trump you may be able to pay your way out of earthly catastrophe, while for Elon Musk, brawn could be a deciding advantage, given he wants his early settlers on Mars to be able to dredge up buried ice.

Whichever way you divide it up, it is unlikely that everyone will be able to RightMove their way to a less crowded galaxy. Hell, most people can’t even make it to Starmus itself (€800  for a full price ticket), where the line-up of speakers is overwhelmingly white and male.

So while this obsession with space travel has a certain nobility, it also risks elevating earthly inequalities to an interplanetary scale.

And although Hawking is right to call out Trump on climate change, the concern that space travel diverts money from saving earth's ecosystems still stands. 

In a context where the American government is upping NASA’s budget for manned space flights at the same time as it cuts funds for critical work observing the changes on earth, it is imperative that the wider science community stands up against this worrying trend.

Hawking's enthusiasm for colonising the solar system risks playing into the hands of the those who share the President destructive views on the climate, at the expense of the planet underneath us.

India Bourke is an environment writer and editorial assistant at the New Statesman.

0800 7318496