Skip to main content

FM
Former Member

Migrant crisis: Why the Gulf states are not letting Syrians in

 


 

Images of Syrian refugees stuck at borders and at train stations, not to mention the harrowing picture of three-year-old Alan Kurdi lying dead on a Turkish beach, have spurred on an outcry for more to be done to help those fleeing the war.

 

Particular anger has focused on the Arab states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman and the UAE), who have kept their doors to refugees firmly shut.

 

Amid the criticism, it is important to remember that the Gulf states have not stood by and done nothing for Syria's refugees.

 

The generosity of individuals has at times been quite remarkable.

Individual charitable collections have totalled hundreds of thousands of dollars, and when workers at national industries (for example, Qatar Petroleum) were asked if they wished to place part of their salary aside every month for Syria's refugees, many obliged.

The Gulf states have provided in total around $900m (ÂĢ600m) through charitable organisations, and individual donations.

 

However, as Syria's war has dragged on, providing resources for refugees living in camps has become inadequate.

 

The world has had to find other solutions to cope with this mass population movement, as Syrians tired of war and of languishing in camps with little hope of social or financial betterment have begun to leave the conflict zone in search of a more secure and prosperous future.

 

In short, providing food and shelter for people living in camps was a solution for yesterday's problem. The most pressing issue is now finding hundreds of thousands of people somewhere to live, and it is here where the Gulf states have really begun to struggle for answers.

Instability fears

While the Gulf states have allowed some Syrian nationals in (Saudi Arabia says it has let in 500,000 since 2011), primarily as migrant workers, there has been no explicit policy from any of these countries to house refugees arriving en masse without sponsors or work permits.

 

To explain this requires delving deeper into Gulf states' fears regarding political stability within their own borders, and into larger questions of civic identity and the notion of what being a citizen of a Gulf state means.

Image copyright AFP Image caption Gulf states are concerned about infiltrators wanting to avenge support for anti-Assad rebels

 

In 2012 as the war with Bashar al-Assad began to become a more clearly established competition between Sunni Gulf Arab interests and Iranian aligned allies, deep fears began to pervade the Gulf states that Syrians loyal to Mr Assad would seek to infiltrate the Gulf to exact revenge.

Screening of Syrian travellers to the Gulf began apace, and it became markedly more difficult for Syrians to receive work permits or renew existing permits.

 

The policy has not yet changed, with Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE in particular extremely concerned about the potential for Assad loyalists to strike back.

 

Rumours have persisted in the Gulf for the past three years of cells of terrorist suspects being rounded up quietly and detained, although no direct proof of a plot by Assad supporters has ever come to light in public.

Demographic balance

Additionally, the influx of thousands of Syrians at once would threaten to overturn a highly delicate demographic balance that the Gulf states rely on to keep functioning.

For example, citizens in the UAE and Qatar number a little over 10% of the resident populations in their respective countries. The vast majority of residents are transitory economic workers.

 

Foreigners are only allowed residency if they or their spouse have full-time jobs - there is no possibility to remain permanently in the Gulf without work - and once their contracts are up almost all migrants return home.

This is how the Gulf works - with a high turnover of low and high skilled labour, which allows the native Gulf Arab populations to maintain their dominant status without being overrun by Arabs from other countries, or South Asian labourers.

Muted discourse

So the idea of thousands of foreigners coming in, without employment or any definite return date, is deeply uncomfortable for Gulf states.

There is no precedent (not even the Palestinian exodus of 1948) that matches the scale of the demographic threat Syrian refugees pose to Gulf identity and social composition. And the Gulf states simply have no response to questions the Syrian refugee crisis poses.

 

Image copyright EPA Image caption Criticism has been directed at Gulf states for not opening their doors

 

It is very difficult to see how these ingrained fears of demographic change and threats to civic identity can be overturned through public pressure or diplomacy, particularly from Western countries.

 

There is very little public conversation to pressure the Gulf's ruling families to change course.

 

Furthermore, Gulf elites feel this mess would never have happened in the first place had the West done something sooner to deal with Mr Assad and his regime. Pleas from Western diplomats are likely to fall on deaf ears.

Michael Stephens is Research Fellow for Middle East studies and Head of Rusi Qatar. Follow him @MStephensGulf

Replies sorted oldest to newest

The sad part of all this is that Syria as well as Iraq have enough resources to sustain their populations. Had they known how to get along amongst themselves they would not be any need to leave. The gulf states while willing to part with their money are not willing to take them in. I believe that they should because those refugees are more familiar with that community. Shame on them for not doing so.

FM
Originally Posted by ksazma:

The sad part of all this is that Syria as well as Iraq have enough resources to sustain their populations. Had they known how to get along amongst themselves they would not be any need to leave. The gulf states while willing to part with their money are not willing to take them in. I believe that they should because those refugees are more familiar with that community. Shame on them for not doing so.

Sad, but sectarian and tribal cleavages run deep in that ME hood. The governments have to weigh the pros and cons of accepting shias in sunni land and vice versa. I think they want to avoid potential social conflict which in those parts is deadly and destructive. I don't blame them.

FM
Originally Posted by Gilbakka:
Originally Posted by ksazma:

The sad part of all this is that Syria as well as Iraq have enough resources to sustain their populations. Had they known how to get along amongst themselves they would not be any need to leave. The gulf states while willing to part with their money are not willing to take them in. I believe that they should because those refugees are more familiar with that community. Shame on them for not doing so.

Sad, but sectarian and tribal cleavages run deep in that ME hood. The governments have to weigh the pros and cons of accepting shias in sunni land and vice versa. I think they want to avoid potential social conflict which in those parts is deadly and destructive. I don't blame them.

That is a problem they created though. They need to come up with a solution.

FM
Originally Posted by ksazma:
Originally Posted by Gilbakka:
Originally Posted by ksazma:

The sad part of all this is that Syria as well as Iraq have enough resources to sustain their populations. Had they known how to get along amongst themselves they would not be any need to leave. The gulf states while willing to part with their money are not willing to take them in. I believe that they should because those refugees are more familiar with that community. Shame on them for not doing so.

Sad, but sectarian and tribal cleavages run deep in that ME hood. The governments have to weigh the pros and cons of accepting shias in sunni land and vice versa. I think they want to avoid potential social conflict which in those parts is deadly and destructive. I don't blame them.

That is a problem they created though. They need to come up with a solution.

Kaz, I think solution in the same sentence with Middle East is an oxymoron. That region is synonymous with prablems bai. One after another. Of course, most of the problems were generated by external powers. And those powers don't intend to let the people deal with their own issues among themselves.

FM
Originally Posted by Gilbakka:
 

Kaz, I think solution in the same sentence with Middle East is an oxymoron. That region is synonymous with prablems bai. One after another. Of course, most of the problems were generated by external powers. And those powers don't intend to let the people deal with their own issues among themselves.

Then they are doomed. I am finished making excuses for the people in the Middle East. There are external influences everywhere even in the case with Guyana. But one has to be sensible and do the right thing. At some point they have to find a way solve their own problems. I don't even agree with them relocating themselves to Europe. Migration should be by choice. Until the people in the Middle East learn to live amongst themselves, they will continue to destroy each other.

FM
Originally Posted by ksazma:
Originally Posted by Gilbakka:
 

Kaz, I think solution in the same sentence with Middle East is an oxymoron. That region is synonymous with prablems bai. One after another. Of course, most of the problems were generated by external powers. And those powers don't intend to let the people deal with their own issues among themselves.

Then they are doomed. I am finished making excuses for the people in the Middle East. There are external influences everywhere even in the case with Guyana. But one has to be sensible and do the right thing.

External influences are strong in the Middle East because that is petroliferous terrain. With ExxonMobil's recent confirmation that Essequibo has a petroliferous seabed, external influence perked up in the form of Maduro. I hope Granger is doing the right thing by taking the matter to the World Court. Anyway, we're diverting, so let's pause. I appreciate your position on the issue.

FM
Originally Posted by Gilbakka:
Originally Posted by ksazma:
Originally Posted by Gilbakka:
 

Kaz, I think solution in the same sentence with Middle East is an oxymoron. That region is synonymous with prablems bai. One after another. Of course, most of the problems were generated by external powers. And those powers don't intend to let the people deal with their own issues among themselves.

Then they are doomed. I am finished making excuses for the people in the Middle East. There are external influences everywhere even in the case with Guyana. But one has to be sensible and do the right thing.

External influences are strong in the Middle East because that is petroliferous terrain. With ExxonMobil's recent confirmation that Essequibo has a petroliferous seabed, external influence perked up in the form of Maduro. I hope Granger is doing the right thing by taking the matter to the World Court. Anyway, we're diverting, so let's pause. I appreciate your position on the issue.

It is the only reasonable position one can take. Diversion is not a useful tool.

FM

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×