Rich countries should not slam the door on refugees from Arab countries, United Nations Special Envoy to Iraq, Dutchman Ad Melkert has said. The former Labour politician told Radio Netherlands Worldwide that the Arab Spring should be seen as a wake-up call for the rich countries.
"Don't shut out refugees or migrants, but recognise what is happening in the Arab countries. They are our neighbours and therefore we have to support them. Not only by letting people in who have nowhere to go, but also by investing in the region. That's the only way to prevent people from fleeing on irresponsibly rickety boats," Mr Melkert said, speaking in Amsterdam on Monday on the occasion of International Refugee Day.
Iraq not an example
Events in the Arab world have lent extra weight to Ad Melkert's UN work. He said the Arab world has changed for good, even though no-one knows which way the cookie will crumble. The genie is out of the bottle, according to Mr Melkert, and people will no longer let themselves be bullied. Nor are they prepared to tolerate the state's information monopoly any longer.
"These developments will change the face of society in this part of the world, and the UN's role is crucial. I would not call Iraq an example, given the way we got involved. But there is a constitution now, there have been elections, all of which contains elements which are also relevant in Egypt, Tunisia and other places," the UN envoy explained.
Demos instead of bombs
The improved security situation has increased the focus on how Baghdad deals with human rights. Mr Melkert identifies a number of bottlenecks in Iraq, including press freedom, the position of women and the situation in prisons. Quite a change from two years ago when everyone was concerned about the violence and the incessant bomb attacks, he said:
"In the past two years a situation has developed which is favouring more attention for such things. The successful elections and the formation of the cabinet have raised voters' expectations of the Iraqi government, more so than in the violent period. But it's a long haul, there's no doubt about that."
(rk/tf)
Email this Article
Printer-friendly version
"... people...who have no where to go." These over 40,000 "refugees" are an invading army of able-bodied young males who should stay in their home countries and help in the struggle. Many of them are not even from places where the fighting is happening, but from sub-Saharan Africa. They are illegal aliens, not refugees, and the early arrivals
should have been processed, put on ships and returned to North Africa. That would have discouraged others from leaving. Many of them have stated that their aim is to get to UK and go on the world-renowned welfare system where they can live well without working.
A few will find jobs that should be reserved for legal residents and citizens; the remainder will wander homeless and/or turn to crime. Most will find girlfriends and produce more children to be signed up for welfare benefits. You Europeans had better open your eyes to the dangers of letting in millions of Muslims whose morals and values are in conflict with the liberal values of Europe. Your way of life is well worth saving.
Anyone interested in democracy, reducing human suffering, or improving international relations understands that this is no time to turn our backs. We need to encourage the change from tyrannical regimes. Refugees from war zones should not be turned away.
"We need to encourage the change from tyrannical regimes."...and, how do "we' do that?" Do we encourage by giving advice? We give advice all the time to Iran, Syria, and Korea. Do they take our encouragement and stop killing their people? No! Question JW, if you see someone beating an old woman who can not defend herself, do you give advice to the one doing the beating by please stop or do you expect someone to come toher aid? If you can't and will not help her, do you call the police or get enough others around you and defend her? The U.N. should hold those tyrants guilty of murder and remove them from power. Those refugees need to stay and fight those tyrants. Are you telling me you wouldn't fight for your freedoms? I bet you would run to the U.S. the first chance you had and expect others to defend your liberties.
The following is what I'm gleaning from your contradictory statements:
1) NATO, led by the US, is doing all the bombing in Libya, But it's somehow the UN which is in control. Because of oil, this is wrong.
2) Though a useless organisation, the UN should engineer invasions of Syria, Iran, and North Korea. Because of the injustices done to their citizens, this would be right.
3) All refugees from war-torn regions are cowards.
Is this really what you think? Feel free to write volumes on each topic.
1. No, NATO in Libya was led by the French and British. You got your facts wrong. Oil is a wrong reason to fight a war,regardless if it is led by the U.S.are any country. 2. The U.N. would be an excellent organisation if it defended the freedoms of "all" humans but it does not and that is what makes it usless. 3. Since the U.N. does not protect anyone, it is the responsibility of the citizens to overthrow their tyrants. No one said they were "all" cowards. That is your comment. In conclusion, the U.N. is worthless because it allowed a couple million people to be slaughtered in Africa. It didn't go in and defend those humans who had every right to expect help. What good is a police department that does not give it's best to defend all of it's citizens. If we are going to use the excuse that we helped the Libyans because of the crimes of it's tyrant and to protecthem, then we should be helping the people of Syria, Iran, and Korea. Your spineless JW, you are the type who would expect help but you are not willing to help. You are the type who demands of others but have nothing to give. You would step around a person who has been injured or stay seated in a bus while an injured person stands-up. In comparison, you and the U.N. have a lot in common. Both you and the U.N. have no moral compass.
You're going in circles.
1) Wrong. The war is led by, mostly executed by, and primarily financed by the US.
2) You can't declare the UN to be responsible for the attempt to get rid of Ghaddafi, then claim that they do nothing. It has to be one or the other.
3) Your attempt to insult me does not distract us from the key point of the article. During and after a war, people are victimised. Civilised people should help them regardless of where they end up. I shouldn't expect you to understand.
1. The war is being being led by the French and British. 2. I delcared the U.N. would be good but it is not because they are selective in who they help or do not help. That is what makes them no good. 3. You insult yourself. My whole arguement was civilised people should help people from tyrants but they do not and they should help themselves. Again, you don't pay attention. Again, the U.N. is worthless and it is not civilised because it does not help. It is all about oil and that is why the French and British are in Libya. You have tunnel vision and you wear blinders that are self induced. You know nothing about civilised. You have the moral compass of a grasshopper in a a garden of flowers.
I hope the dizziness abates so you can your weekend Hiram. Keep avoiding those newspapers and other relevant sources of information...
On no!!!not him again. let him stay away from Holland please. That guy has done more wrong to our country than good.
Irak is were he belongs..
"Don't shut out refugees or migrants, but recognise what is happening in the Arab countries. They are our neighbours and therefore we have to support them."...That is exactly what the U.N. is doing when they fail to protect those citizens from their tyrants. Remove those leaders and make sure no other tyrant tries to take over. It is the U.N. and their lack of leadership that causes tyrants to do whatever they want. You justified your attack on Libya by stating you were defending the people but you don't attack Syria, Korea, and Iran when they murder their citizens. Why? Because Libya has the oil you need and the other countries will smack you back. You only attack those who can't fight back. Why didn't you attack Russia when they invaded Georgia? The envoy is full of bull and so is the U.N. Oh, I almost forgot. You don't get involved because it does not affect you, personally.
Whose attack on Libya? The oil who needs? Who are you talking to? The world's largest oil consumer is the same entity which has done the lion's share of bombing in Libya. It's not the UN. (The UN only sanctioned the use of force) It's the country in which you live. The US. Is that too embarrassing for you?
The war against Libya was instigated by the French and British. It was also the British who fed the U.S. with the wrong information against Iraq. The Dutch company "Shell" has very large stakes in keeping the Libyan oil. It is the U.N. that runs the world and decides who will or will not get attacked or be put on trial for war crimes. I do not believe in the U.N and I believe the U.S. should not be a member of it. It serves no purpose. There isn't any justice for people in Syria, Iran, and Korea. If "we" are going to defend people like they say they are doing in Libya then it is just as applicable for those humans in the previous mentioned countries. JW, you are an embarrassment to yourself because you walk through life with blinders on. You have been hoodwinked and you did it to yourself. You have tunnel vision. Leave the wacky tobacco and Dutch gin alone. It ain't good for you.
Post new comment
Please be reminded all comments must be in English, short and to the point - guideline 250 words. Abusive and inappropriate comments will be removed.