With 35 years of experience in international refugee institutions, the British Jeff Crisp says he is positively surprised by Europe’s receptivity to Ukrainians fleeing the war. The other side of this reception, however, is having exposed the difference with which these same countries deal with refugees of other nationalities, such as Syrians and Afghans.
In an interview with sheetCrisp, who was policy director at UNHCR (UN High Commissioner for Refugees) and the Global Commission on International Migration, analyzed what is behind this “double standard” of reception, the reasons for the Ukrainian exodus to be so fast and the impacts that this mass migration is likely to have on the global humanitarian system.
“It is likely that European countries will become even more restricted to refugees from other parts of the world,” he says. For Crisp, there is no global refugee crisis, as they are concentrated in a few countries — 85% of them in the global South.
The Ukrainian exodus is one of the fastest in European history. What are the reasons for so many to leave in such a short time? First, the brutality of the Russian invasion. The attacks have been concentrated in urban areas, where the civilians are. When bombs drop every night on your town, it’s no surprise that you’ll go out of your way to get out.
Another reason is the fact that Ukraine shares borders with several countries, which gives options to those who want to flee. Many Ukrainians have friends and family in these countries, and people are more likely to leave when they have someone to greet them on the other side.
The fact that the borders are open to the Ukrainian people is also an incentive to migrate. In other contexts, if you think you won’t be let in or that you’ll be treated badly, you’re more hesitant to leave.
And I would add a fourth not so obvious reason, which is the quality of transport in Ukraine. Even the trains continued to run. In some refugee movements, it is necessary to walk long distances. In Ukraine, you can take a car, train or bus and get around quickly. It’s an incentive.
This opening of borders to Ukrainians has generated comparisons with Europe’s response to other recent refugee flows, such as those from the Middle East. Is there a double standard of hosting?There is clearly a double standard. The attitude towards asylum seekers in Europe has been quite negative since 2015, when large numbers of refugees arrived, especially Syrians.
Eastern European countries such as Hungary and Poland have been blocking the European Union from maintaining a more open policy. So even those experienced in this area were pleasantly surprised to see such a positive reaction from Europe.
But that contrasts with what happened just half a year ago, when the Taliban seized power in Afghanistan and the general tone was that the massive influx of Afghans would be a disaster. And now these same countries say: “Let’s be as generous as possible to the Ukrainians.”
Does this double standard have a racist origin?There’s no denying that. Ukrainians are perceived as more “like us”: white, Christian, similar lifestyle. They are not associated with terrorism, like refugees from Iraq, from Syria, who face many prejudices.
But there are debates about how far we should expect the public to have an absolutely equal attitude towards all foreigners. Some colleagues argue that it is natural to feel more compassion for those we feel closest to.
I’m not very clear on this discussion. I agree that there are elements of racism, but I also see logic in the argument that it is normal to give more support to those closest to you.
It may be that Ukrainians are no longer welcome if the crisis extend?We have to watch what will happen if they have to stay in these countries not just for months but years or even forever. It may be that the population comes to see these refugees as a pressure factor for their public services. Poland and Moldova have already said that they are unable to receive more people.
Another issue is that, if at first Ukrainians are going to neighboring countries, then many will end up going to Germany, Austria, richer countries in western and northern Europe.
Sweden has already expressed concern about the number of Ukrainians arriving there.
Is there an expectation that Ukrainians will be in exile for an extended period? Or should they come back once things get better?One thing I’ve learned in these 35 years of working with refugees is that even movements that appear to be short-term almost always last much longer than expected. And not all refugees choose to return, even if the situation improves in their home country.
Because?First, by the level of economic devastation and destruction. Why would you go back to a country where you won’t have a job, where your apartment was bombed, where you have to start from scratch? Then there is the issue of trauma. Some have been so traumatized by the experience that just the thought of returning is unbearable.
As they integrate into the new country, they feel less inclined to return, especially those with children. Children go to school, learn the language, make friends and feel that they belong to that country.
Some governments allege security reasons for not taking in Islamic refugees. To what extent is it a legitimate concern and to what extent is it Islamophobia?We cannot deny that Middle Eastern refugees have been involved in terrorist or sexual harassment incidents. But these acts are exaggerated by politicians and receive disproportionate media coverage. In the UK, most of those involved in terrorist acts are British citizens.
In the United States, a large study has shown that the proportion of refugees involved in terrorist acts is very, very small. Far-right terrorism appears to be much more of a threat.
Many of these refugees are even fleeing terrorism in their countries.Many are victims of the crime of which they are accused. I am not a fan of completely open borders and I am in favor of governments checking who enters the country. The problem is targeting specific groups based on inaccurate information.
Some are opposed to taking in refugees from different cultures and religions to protect a certain European identity. Does this make sense in a global society?There are few relatively homogeneous countries. One of them is North Korea, but who wants to go to North Korea? Even Japan, which adopts very restrictive migration policies, is already beginning to recognize that it needs to open up its labor market to foreigners, as the population is aging, they need people to work, especially for the care sector.
Everything points to a world in which countries will become multinational, multicultural and mixed. And governments that try to resist this trend will find that history is not on their side.
​What should the situation of refugees of other nationalities look like after this great Ukrainian exodus?It would be great if welcoming Ukrainians would lead to a more positive attitude towards refugees in general. But what must happen is European governments become even more restrictive of people from other parts of the world. They will say: we were generous, but we received so many Ukrainians that we cannot welcome people from Africa, from Latin America.
Should there be a concentration of resources in the Ukrainian crisis?The global humanitarian system was already under great pressure. When the United Nations issues appeals for refugees from Myanmar, Syria, Sudan, etc., they only get 30% or 40% of what they need. Now, given Ukraine’s leading role in world geopolitics, countries that contribute to humanitarian programs will be tempted to direct resources to Ukrainians.
A minority of refugees are in rich countries. The crisis in Ukraine could change this?More than 80% of refugees are hosted by countries in the global South, which is why I am against the idea of ​​a global refugee crisis.
This concept became very popular after the 2015-2016 emergence in Europe, but it is a false perception and very convenient for developed countries as it is as if they are equally affected. With the Ukraine crisis this proportion may change slightly, but the balance will not change significantly, even with an exodus of more than 3 million Ukrainians.
X-ray
Jeff Crisp, 68
Researcher at the Center for Refugee Studies at the University of Oxford, a fellow in international law at Chatham House and a PhD in African Studies at the University of Birmingham. He was policy director at UNHCR (UN High Commissioner for Refugees), Refugees International and the Global Commission on International Migration. He worked for the British Refugee Council and the International Commission on Humanitarian Affairs.
