The modern state monopolises power, and with it the capacity for violence. Yes it's true that in the USA there is an ardent belief that their constitution allows citizens to bear arms in order to confront this monopoly of power and violence, but strangely enough the kinds of people who subscribe to this view are also the most likely to support the kind of state power being exercised against minorities. That is to say, we would believe the protestations of the NRA more about the Second Amendment, if they were jumping up and down in support of black people getting shot by the police, and not the police. Still, this entry is not about that topic.
The ultimate state control of monopolised power is the modern military junta. Military juntas exist as proof that a stable state is not necessarily democratic or pleasant. People go on about stability ("vote Tony Abbott for Stability," the SMH said! Ha!) Many military juntas come into being at the end of civil strife, and enforce the military power as policing in order to keep a lid on the civil strife. This is true of Franco as it was of Pinochet, Saddam Hussein's or Bashar Assad's regimes. We in the democratised 'developed' world view these political arrangements with a great deal of contempt, but as the experience of Iraq has demonstrated, there are far worse things than the stability assured by a military junta.
Similarly, Syria is turning out to be the second recent case whereby our own idealism for democracy has brought to an end a stable junta government. In writing that sentence, I am overcome with a cultural revulsion, for I - in no way in hell - support military juntas anywhere on this planet. It is hard for me to write a sentence that even vaguely validates their existence. Yet the historic evidence is pretty clear that some of these juntas are sitting on great fissure lines of civil conflict and once unleashed, the state cannot even survive. This is a terrible state of affairs, where on one extreme you have the Orwellian regime and Room 101 and the torture never stops; and when we remove this horrible state that keeps the populace in a social stasis of uncomfortable peace, we end up with Bosnia and Kosovo, the battle of Fallujah, or the Islamic State which is an attempt to reconstruct a state, but around religious laws instead of common laws.
All of which is to say, military juntas come into being to stave off a slide into complete chaos, but then overstay their welcome as it goes through its own paranoia phase, torturing and killing people to maintain this uncomfortable stability. Again, I'm not writing this in praise of these horrible arrangements; I'm simply pointing out that in the absence of strong democratic credentials and traditions, a military junta ends up being the compromise arrangement to keep civil peace. You have to think of Tito's Yugoslavia as the shining example - but all these nasty regimes exist because of necessity. Nobody likes this stuff. And when they fail, they tend to fail spectacularly as they descend into chaos.
The refugee exodus of Syria isn't just an issue of Assad and his brutal regime or the fact that Vladimir Putin will not give-up his ally facing the Mediterranean Sea. To that end, Putin has now stationed his own warplanes in Syria. In the mean time we have Tony Abbott trying to engineer a 'request' from the President of the USA to enter into bombing runs on ISIL-held positions in Syria. Not only is Tony Abbott exacerbating the problems inside Syria which is already a war-torn post-apocalyptic landscape, he is adding to the reasons for residents to flee as refugees, while risking coming to blows with Russian warplanes. The people are running because civilisation has collapsed around them. Their civilisation collapsed because it was held together by the military might of the state, and then the state wasn't there any more - just the violence. And we want to ad to the violence.
The Syrian Collapse
Syria came to this collapse because of the Arab Spring. The Arab Spring of course was prompted by high commodity prices, which led to staple foods being too expensive to buy. Not even the long-standing regime of Muamar Gaddafi could hold on in the face of the high commodity prices. Similarly, in Egypt, the high commodity prices drove people into the streets to protest and that brought down Mubarak's regime which had stood solid since the assassination of Anwar Sadat. The irony is that the commodity prices surged because oil prices surged, and the oil prices surged because these very same OPEC regimes opted to make a killing out of surging oil prices thereby creating the conditions for their own demise. Oh the irony!
All the same, what is not well known is that Syria underwent a crippling drought between 2006 and 2011. This was such an historic drought that it decimated longstanding farming operations and communities. The drought pushed whole populations into urban areas without any means of survival. And the military junta remained locked in its rigid "maintain-order-at-all-costs" sort of thinking, which made things worse. The historic drought was most likely (nobody ever gets to prove these things) due to Global Warming and Climate Change. Again, these countries that export oil for combustion created the conditions whereby they strangled themselves. Oh the double irony!!
Today, Bashar Assad is in charge of his military, but Syria itself has collapsed as a civilisation. It is every bit like a failed state - much like Somalia, Eritrea, Sudan and on the same trajectory as Iraq and Afghanistan. As Global Warming and Climate Change continue, there will be more and more places that succumb to its effects. There will be more refugees from failed states. The wave of refugees coming from these places are people who want to remain civilised. It's time we accepted this simple fact. We could do much worse than to take in these people.
Syria today therefore offers us a glimpse into the post-apocalyptic future we ought to fear. The fragile, brittle state collapses as result of economic and environmental chaos, there's nowhere to run. We can't go around assuming this is stuff that only happens in far away lands.
How Many Refugees?
Before the recent surge of Syrian refugees, I did a quick search on Google and found that in 2015, the refugee count according to the UN was 60 million people. Out of the 195 or so UN member nations, let's hypothetically say 100 are up to receiving refugees. The other 95 are candidates to send out more, rather than receive, but we'll leave that issue for a moment. I know this is a gross oversimplification, but I want to lead you through this so you understand the scale of numbers. That would make it 600,000 per nation to take in from the refugees that exist right now. If we said the realistic number of nations that are able to take refugees was more like 50, we're talking about 1,200,000 per nation.
That's a big number, but it goes to show that Germany is doing pretty well when Angela Merkel says they will take 800,000 people. It's effectively saying they'll add 1% to their population with refugees. In any case, 800,000 is not entirely out of the order of magnitude that sits between 600,000 and 1,200,000 people.
Australia on the other hand, says it will take 20,000 this year. It's an amazingly paltry figure, really. It's a whole order of magnitude out from the problem as it exists. If it were left to Australia, it would take 60years' worth of refugee visas before it took in its share of 1,200,000. So one wonders just what on earth Peter Dutton is asking "what can Australia do to help?" when the mathematics are very simple - Australia needs to up its refugee intake to about 240,000 before it can claim it's punching its weight.
More to the point, that 1% rise in German population is probably going to add a whole bunch to GDP growth in the coming years. Think about all the new whitegoods and TVs and demand on real estate that will arise out of the arrival of these people. Its not a half-dumb move to be taking these people in. Australia's economy could do a lot worse than adding 240,000 people straight off the plane from Syria.
No comments:
Post a Comment