Pakistan

A biased perception of the refugee crisis

It should be recognised that Western governments are not suspicious of all Syrian refugees

Unushay Ashfaq December 02, 2015

The debates surrounding refugees have, unfortunately, led to a divide that has pushed East-West relations to a low ebb. Most see the opposition to refugees as an expression of xenophobia or racism, but refuse to take into account other concerns related to fear.

Such fears not only highlight the threat of terrorism, crime and economic concerns (especially in the case of welfare states), but also an alteration of state identity. To rid ourselves of the view that Islamophobia is the overpowering idea behind Western states’ hesitation to take in refugees, it is essential to consider the repercussions of this cultural divide; what most Muslims choose to ignore in their biased perception of the refugee crisis.

It is important to note that since most refugees are not voluntarily leaving their homes, they might not be enthusiastic about assimilating into Western culture. This could bring a change in the host country’s social environment. As an effort is made by states to create a society tolerant of different cultures, some believe that this strips away the country from its own culture. While some view cultural diversity positively, others prefer a culturally homogenous society, holding the view that acculturation is slowly blurring the purpose of borders. The latter seems to represent those people who for instance, are against the opening of mosques. Although the reasons behind such demands can be linked to Islamophobia, not all of these voices project religion-based views.

Those who perceive such actions by frustrated citizens as Islamophobic, adopt anti-Western sentiment, making extremist views against the West seem legitimate, culminating in a threat to national security for Western countries.

It should be recognised that Western governments are not suspicious of all Syrian refugees. If a state was to accept the surge of thousands of refugees into its borders, and even one of them turns out to be involved in a terror attack in the future, it could lead to severe instability within the host country and blame would be heaped on the political leader in power. To avoid this possibility, many leaders remain stuck between morally correct directives, and their national interest. This argument can be explained by the theory of classical realism in international relations that holds national interest as the most essential part of the decision-making process of a political system. This should be acknowledged in our assessments before associating all opposition to refugees in Western countries with Islamophobia.

Published in The Express Tribune, December 3^rd, 2015.

COMMENTS (1)

G. Din | 8 years ago | Reply "...since most refugees are not voluntarily leaving their homes, they might not be enthusiastic about assimilating into Western culture. " Though I find myself in a broadly general agreement with your views, I ask you to name one country to which Muslims begged to be admitted (therefore were voluntarily doing so) over the years, where they have assimilated. You can't name any simply because there is a fundamental schism between Islamic culture and western culture. Hindus and others have assimilated very well which can be seen by the trust of their western hosts that they command. They have reached high positions in all spheres, including governments. There is a fundamental conflict of the huge expectations of these refugees and real world expectations their hosts can satisfy. Inevitably, it is just a matter of an year or two when they all will make a beeline for the same ghettos those before them set up to live in.

Replying to X