Here
and
Now

opinions

Are Syrian refugees a security threat?

30 Comments

Many of the hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees arriving in Europe were previously living in camps and cities across Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan. They are now leaving these countries because life there has become increasingly untenable: diminishing aid funds have left refugees with scant resources to buy food and other necessities; opportunities for work, study and accessing basic services are declining, and life has become more dangerous because of tension with the local populations.

But Syrian refugees are not the security threat that they are feared to be.

Refugees have become scapegoats for the deteriorating security climate in Syria's neighboring countries. Local residents of these refugee-hosting countries, particularly in the border areas, believe that Syrians pose a threat to their security. Host governments tend to share these concerns. As a result, Syrian refugees are often subject to restrictions on their mobility, such as when refugees in Kilis, Turkey were barred from leaving their camp when nearby clashes occurred. In Lebanon, nearly half of Syrians have been subject to some sort of assault, according to a 2015 survey by the University of Saint Joseph. (Mobility restrictions in Turkey for non-Syrian refugees such as Afghans are actually worse than they are for Syrians.)

Those who fear that refugees will become militarized or radicalized often point to historical examples, particularly the case of Palestinian militant groups in Jordan and Lebanon. In Lebanon, for example, politicians from the prominent Free Patriotic Movement party regularly cite the Palestinian role in the country's civil war and argue that the same could happen with Syrians.

However, history also provides examples of refugees having no negative impact on the security of their host countries: neither Iraqi refugees nor Lebanese refugees ever brought conflict to Jordan or Syria. The mere presence of refugees does not in itself create a security threat. Indeed, the vast majority of Syrian refugees today just want to survive without risking deportation.

Refugees who formed militant groups in the past did so with the support of external backers. Preventing the militarization of refugees is thus not only a question of how refugees are treated and monitored, but also depends on the policies of regional powers. Egypt and Syria at separate times backed Palestinian militant groups as part of their efforts against Israel. In the 1990s Pakistan, seeking strategic depth in its rivalry with India, is reported to have sponsored Afghan refugees to form the Taliban.

In order for Syrian refugees to form militant groups, they would likely need an external state backer. And to date, regional powers involved in the Syrian war have chosen not to use refugee-hosting countries as a battleground for any of their strategic goals.

Reports of refugees being recruited to return to Syria to fight are a valid concern, but spillover attacks in Syria's neighboring countries tend to be carried out by locals, not Syrians. For example, a Turkish militant was behind the Islamic State bombing this July in Suruc, Turkey, and a Lebanese militant was responsible for January's Al-Nusra Front bombing in Tripoli, Lebanon. Jordan, which hosts at least 630,000 Syrian refugees, has had no such attacks.

The refugee crisis could contribute to instability in Syria's neighboring countries in other ways, namely if residents of the host communities are not given adequate help to deal with the refugee influx. Because of insufficient funds and planning, the poorest Jordanians are not receiving the help they need to deal with the higher cost of living and lower wages that are linked to the refugee crisis. If people in these relatively underdeveloped areas continue to feel abandoned by their government and the international community, they could resort to behavior that destabilizes the region.

Refugees present a low threat. Operating as though all refugees are a security risk is counterproductive and runs the risk of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. Security measures that deny refugees their dignity are more likely to foster extremism and violent tendencies because they increase refugees' grievances against host governments and contribute to their sense of alienation. A study of Somali refugees in Yemen, for example, found that refugees who were mistreated by their teachers in Yemeni schools were more likely to join al Qaeda. A less securitized approach to the treatment of refugees is more likely to keep the threat of militarization and radicalization at bay.

Without this change in attitude toward Syrians in their host countries in the Middle East or new homes in the West, countries could end up creating precisely the problem they are hoping to avoid.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2015.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

30 Comments
Login to comment

The answer to if the refugees are a security threat is obviously yes. What a great opportunity for ISIS. Ramifications from treating them without dignity is also obvious - some of those will become 'bad guys'. There is no simple answer here.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

If you're a refugee, then obviously you're not a threat, unless conditions get bad enough for riots.

If you're a covert operator entering under the cover of a refugee, then obviously you're a threat.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Glad to hear the likes of "Jihadi John" represent at worse a "low risk." Too funny.

Several of the notorious Muslim terrorists in Europe are refugees or their children. The rest are of immigrant parents.

Well, "Jihadi John" was a refugee from Kuwait. The Danish cartoonist death sentence was issued by imam asylum seekers. Just to cite 2 examples which I happen to be aware of offhand, There are surely many more if one were to look into it.

In Canada, the Somali refugees are a piece of work. They immediately engaged in gang and narcotics violence at a level unknown in the country's modern history. One took an Ak-47 to a house party...and fired it off, leaving carnage in its wake.

The author is clearly ignorant, deluded or just plain insane.

3 ( +9 / -6 )

What turbosat said. Only, I think much too much is made of the potential for covert operators. It would be a big help to find ONE. Who is he? But even one would not be enough to suddenly look at the other thousands as a threat. Nor 2. Nor 5. Nor 10.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Yes.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Only if you're insecure.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Sickly white liberals just do not get it. Christian Europe does not need more Muslims. Islam=conflict.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Yes, there must be some of them who will end up seeking to do harm to the EU.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

The riots in Hungary yesterday didn't need Jihadist infiltrators... the migrants can cause trouble without them. Refugees, economic migrants, terrorists... how can you tell if they refuse to be fingerprinted and processed until they reach a rich country?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Yes they are. They are not all refugees . It won't be long before all the problems start.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Are Syrian refugees a security threat?

Unlikely. They are, however, in the aggregate likely to do nothing for their new host nations other than add to a minority underclass. I think the Germans, who've never been than enamored of their Turkish "guest" workers who stayed, are to be commended for all they have done so far. They've set a sterling humanitarian example. But the long term question is whether all these new Muslims become Europeans. If after a couple of generations they cling to their religion and the culture that comes from it (and visa-versa), they will remain a part from the larger society.

The one, uncharitable question I ask when I see pictures of the refugees leaving Syria and elsewhere is how the overwhelming majority of the people appear to be able-bodied men. I was never interested in joining the military. But I would most assuredly would join in the unlikely event the U.S. was directly attacked or would enlist as Americans did during WWII to fight for Europe. So, why have so many men left their homes rather than fight for them?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

It's funny how the people who think Muslim refugees are a security threat overlap almost perfectly with people who claim Islam is inherently dangerous and who espouse the quite bizarre belief that Europe, which has been famously secular for the last several decades, is suddenly a Christian community that must be "protected" from outside influence.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Are all refugees Syrian?

4 ( +4 / -0 )

"Tens of thousands of refugees just want a chance to live a normal life outside of their war-torn homelands?

Exactly! And who is responsible for their homes being war-torn? who invaded Iraq on false pretenses and destabized that region on a pack of lies? The west is responsible for this. we are always going on about Abe and Japan taking responsibility for their crimes in WW2.

What about the west owning up to its mistakes. They screwed up the MidEast with their meddling, installing then toppling dictators under the guise of humanitarianism. How did they think this would end? If they can intervene and bomb countries because they care about those people so much, let them show their humanitarianism by letting them live in the west. If you burn someone's house down for humanitarian reasons it would be humane to let them live in yours.

You break it. You own it. Simple as that

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Simple answer to simple question.

Yes

2 ( +4 / -2 )

"The west is responsible for this."

Whenever the West has intervened in the Mideast, it was mostly to prevent the local people from slaughtering each other. The "Arab spring," which was an organic grassroots movement, is largely responsible for the current mess.

But I agree the 2003 Iraq invasion was a mistake. OK, Saddam was brutal and sadistic. OK, he slaughtered a million or so of his own people, BUT he certainly knew how to keep the Islamists and the rest of his people under tight control.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

The Japanese government thinks all foreigners are a security risk. That is why they have to be fingerprinted. In fact, terrorists in Japan always seem to be Japanese. Think of Aum Shinrikyo, the Japanese Red Army, Chūkaku-ha. All consisted of Japanese. Other acts of terrorism in Japan have been perpetrated by Japanese,yet the Japanese always worry about and fear the foreign threat even if it is non-existent.

Syrian refugees are less dangerous than many Japanese groups.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I think the generation that is born in the new country is most apt to radicalization. They do not know what their parents fled in the country that have only heard good things about and many have a tendency to resent their host country later. They more they assimilate into the host culture the better it is. Not all immigrants are created equal in my humble opinion.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

It's funny how the people who think Muslim refugees are a security threat overlap almost perfectly with people who claim Islam is inherently dangerous and who espouse the quite bizarre belief that Europe, which has been famously secular for the last several decades, is suddenly a Christian community that must be "protected" from outside influence.

I agree to an extent. Many EU countries originated from Christian beliefs, and are more secular now but what helped inspire their path to a democratic society? But to put it in more simple terms Islamic ideology is completely incompatible with actual democratic societies. Where democracy believes in the rights and freedoms of each individual, Islam only believes in religious law and individuals must obey that law regardless of their actual beliefs. It's a oil and water problem.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The title is rude, first you call them refugees and then you call them a threat. first their rulers were suppose to a security threat and Europe was suppose to free them, these innocent civilians. now when Europe started wars in all the middle east from Iraq to libya, the messes were bound to flee no one can stay in the hell. now these people reaching to the countries who were responsible for all these stuff, they now declaring them a security threat.

The only question why Europe destabilized the middle east at least the people were living in their homes.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

JeffLeeSEP. 18, 2015 - 03:08PM JST "The west is responsible for this."

Yes. Specifically the U.S. invasion of Iraq. While the germ of ISIS existed prior to the invasion, the civil war in Syria gave ISIS a base of operation to expand into Iraq, where they control more territory than they do anywhere else. Had we not destabilized Iraq, the likelihood of ISIS gaining a foothold there was nil.

Whenever the West has intervened in the Mideast, it was mostly to prevent the local people from slaughtering each other.

Of course! I forgot all about the White Man's Burden version of history. Name a single instance of this.

The "Arab spring," which was an organic grassroots movement, is largely responsible for the current mess.

The mess in Syria resulting from the civil war did not cause the instability in Iraq, which was actually better off with Saddam still in power.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

"Name a single instance of this."

There are many, many. You should read a history book or two.

Let's start with 1915: three genocides (three!) instigated by the great Muslim Ottoman empire against: the Armenians, Assyrians and the Greeks, (all infidels, naturally).

France and UK, appalled by the bloodshed taking place, moved in troops to fight the Ottomans, whose empire was collapsing and were intent on bringing the whole region down with them, and also stick up for their victims, who also included Arab groups.

The Eurpeans like Lawrence of Arabia worked with the most reasonable local people they could find to install some semblance of administration amid the anarchy and carnage. No, they didn't take any colonies, as the apologists so often claim.

After things quieted down, the Europeans quickly transferred power back to the best local people they could find, like King Faisal I, and left.

The West's solutions havent always been successful, but nothing ever has been in that blighted region for 2000 years. But if they stayed away, all sorts of groups would be extinct by now: the Kurds, the three groups above, the coptics and most other non-Muslim groups.

That's a start. As I said, do some reading (as I have done) and you'll learn more.

"better off with Saddam still in power."

I agree. He tortured and killed about a million of his people, but he did know how to keep them in line. I guess you're suggesting that murder and torture is the only solution for that region.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

HonestDictator SEP. 18, 2015 - 09:20PM JST But to put it in more simple terms Islamic ideology is completely incompatible with actual democratic societies.

Malaysia and Singapore would like a word with you. They're both thriving democracies with substantial, and in the case of Malaysia, majority populations. Oops. Not to mention Turkey, which has been a fairly stable republic for a long time, at least until western powers went adventuring in the Middle East and threw a few of Turkey's neighbors into complete chaos.

Where democracy believes in the rights and freedoms of each individual, Islam only believes in religious law and individuals must obey that law regardless of their actual beliefs. It's a oil and water problem.

Islam doesn't believe in anything. It has no mind. It is an abstract concept. Muslims believe the teachings of Islam, and I emphasize teachings because they don't all believe Islam teaches the same things. As much as Islamophobic westerners like to pretend that Islam is a unified bloc out to get us, it is anything but. There are deep divisions even within Sunni and Shia practitioners. Muslims, like all human beings, adapt their interpretations of their religion to suit their emotional needs. One of the things I overwhelmingly hear from stories interviewing members of Daesh (who call themselves ISIS) is that these people join up because they crave moral certainty. Which isn't really surprising. When colonial powers from Europe and the US install brutal and oppressive dictators in your country in order to ensure a stable supply of oil, then turn around and overthrow those dictators to ensure a stable supply of oil, when they militarily adventure in your country and destroy your infrastructure and ability to make a basic life for yourself, when they eliminate government institutions and then leave it to the survivors to figure out how to get the lights on and the garbage collected, people are going to crave moral certainty. When the children of immigrants from these communities see Western countries preach democracy and freedom and anti-discrimination and then turn around and practice vicious discrimination against Muslims, it's no surprise these people would crave the moral certainty that radical Islam claims to provide.

Westerners created Daesh. It's our baby. But we're so ignorant that in our rush to pretend we aren't the father by blaming it on Islam, we feed it and make it stronger.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Honest DictatorSEP. 19, 2015 - 11:56AM JST Malaysia ...That's not democratic now is it?

It is if the people voted that rule into law. Democracy is a system for deciding who gets to make the laws. It says nothing about the quality of the laws the people choose to make.

The State religion is Islam. That's not democratic now is it?

Why not? Anglicanism is the state religion of the countries of England. Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Finland, and Sweden all have Lutheran religions as their state religions. State religions are not incompatible with democracy.

2nd Singapore's major religion is Buddhism, not Islam.

Doesn't matter. Your claim was that Islam is incompatible with democratic societies. If that were true, any population of Muslims in a democratic society no matter how small should destabilize it. If there exists even a single democratic country with a single practicing Muslim living there, then it must be said that Islam can be compatible with democratic society. Your beef is not with Islam, but with a certain subset of Muslims you've mistaken for representing the religion as a whole.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Akula: Sickly white liberals just do not get it. Christian Europe does not need more Muslims. Islam=conflict.

Europe needs something to keep them busy so they'll quit messing with the rest of us.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Are Syrian refugees a security threat?

Bet your bottom dollar, Yeah they are a threat. You know that it's reasonable to suspect a small percentage of them "radical islam" and or possible converters to a "radical" cause. To think not is simple naive- sorry no links.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Doesn't matter. Your claim was that Islam is incompatible with democratic societies

No matter how you want to twist it, it is incompatible if you've taken any time to actually read about the religion from it's own perspective. Not some lala dream land perspective of what you want it to be. The example you gave is only 1 country that evolved to the state it is by adapting to the world around and cultural influences beyond the ME nations. Islam didn't originate in Malaysia, it originated in the ME. Islam affected Malaysian society and culture, but it also had the benefit of being influenced by other Asian cultures and society. Even in Malaysia some fundamentalist Islam exists in a chunk of their own society. As I said, Malaysia could be a LOT WORSE, but Malaysian society is also very different than the majority of Islamic governments.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Personally, I think many of the anti Muslim people here deserve their treatment in Japan

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Watch this: http://www.vagabomb.com/The-Syrian-Refugee-Crisis-Explained-Perfectly-With-a-Simple-Animation-Video/

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites