The refugee crisis in context

When viewed in the larger global context, it is apparent, says Matt Reichel, that the refugee is neoliberalism's refuse.

---

A REPORT issued by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in June provided a jarring statistical glimpse at the unprecedented crisis facing 59.5 million people who are currently displaced. With ongoing wars and sectarian conflicts raging in Syria, Iraq, Ukraine, South Sudan and Somalia, and record numbers moving in search of economic betterment, an additional 8.1 million people were uprooted in 2014. If all of the world's refugees were to form one independent country, it would be the 24th largest, just behind Italy and ahead of South Africa. This country would contain 0.8% of the global population, which means that if it were instead composed of the world's richest people, it would possess nearly half of the planet's wealth.

What's more, these two hypothetical countries would represent opposite sides of the same coin. It is no accident that the concentration of global wealth is accelerating alongside the numbers of the dispossessed. It is the very predictable result of a US-led system of economic and military hegemony that values the mobility of labour and capital, but not of people, and that reflexively destabilises any regime it views as being inadequately obsequious. Meanwhile, the market fundamentalism it espouses effectively turns farms into agribusinesses and cities into slums. It displaces as a matter of course. This is the part that the UNHCR report missed: the refugee is neoliberalism's refuse.

Unmanaged capitalism produces unmanageable waste, human included. The reserve army of labour has long been filled, and so the remaining population is superfluous. Meanwhile, the scope of neoliberalism is practically global. There is no longer a hinterland, nor much space for an alternative such as subsistence agriculture. Precarious, low-wage labour is the international norm, even increasingly so in the industrial North, where social-democratic protections are under steady assault.

Nonetheless, conditions remain superior enough in these countries to attract millions of migrants each year, though the centrifugal force that propels people out of their home countries continues to operate in their adopted lands, driving them to the margins. Quite often they will find themselves veritably stateless: lacking any foundation to return to, and having no visible path forward. They become trapped in a state of 'liminal drift', as Michel Agier calls it. They are permanently transitory, forever seeking a resolution that stubbornly remains out of reach.

Some migrants wind up in camps that are essentially prisons, often for protracted periods. Last year, Americans gained familiarity with their own numerous border detention centres and the abominable conditions that prevail therein, with people being held for months at a time awaiting determination on their cases. In Africa, the process can go on for decades. In Dadaab, Kenya, there are three migrant towns operated by UNHCR, primarily housing refugees from the Somali civil war. There are currently about 450,000 people in an area originally designed to handle only 90,000, and some have been there since the formation of the settlement in 1991. In April of this year, Kenya's Deputy President William Ruto demanded that UNHCR close the camp over security concerns stemming from the al-Shabab attack on the town of Garissa. The government has since backpedalled, though inhabitants continue to live in fear.

In all, UNHCR reports that sub-Saharan Africa accounts for 3.7 million refugees, with most coming from Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Central African Republic. The catalyst for these migrations is the growing instability of African states amidst civil war and regional sectarian conflicts, and the concomitant proliferation of terrorist organisations throughout the region.

The blame for the conflagration on the continent rests with the Obama administration and its substantial expansion of military operations under the auspices of AFRICOM, with 674 missions last year, up from 172 in 2008, together with its disastrous intervention in Libya. As the US moved to depose Qaddafi because he did not always bend to American dictates, the country was thrown into prolonged chaos, during which the former leader's weapons were dispersed throughout the continent, with many landing in the hands of militants in Mali, thus stoking the ongoing civil war there. Meanwhile, the continued conflict in South Sudan must be viewed as the result of a failure of state building by the United States, which was the principal proponent of the founding of that country. These examples provide but a small sampling of the ways in which Washington is responsible for the worsening situation in Africa.

Of course, the US role in creating humanitarian crises is nowhere clearer than in the Middle East. The conditions for the creation of ISIS, which is now the primary driver of refugees in Iraq and Syria, were born of the resentment fuelled by decades of American meddling and provocation. Meanwhile, a recently declassified US Defense Intelligence Agency document from 2012 (see following article) evinces the fact that the Pentagon understood that their support of the Syrian opposition would most likely benefit radical Salafists. Despite months of talk about supporting some imaginary, moderate rebels, we now know that the Defense Department knew better. They may not have appreciated just how brutally puritan the resulting form of Salafism practised by ISIS would be, but certainly possessed enough sound intelligence to prevent further exacerbating regional instability by throwing weapons and training at the then amorphous opposition.

Eventually, the group that coalesced into ISIS was able to commandeer a vast array of weapons from the demoralised Iraqi security forces. This includes 74,000 machine guns, and 2,300 of the 3,500 Humvees that the US provided, which are now busily being converted into mobile suicide bombs. From exploding tanks to graphic beheadings, this spectacle of terror has led to millions fleeing persecution. As such, Syria has now surpassed Afghanistan as the world's largest source of refugees. Among them are 2,000 Palestinians who had to flee from Yarmouk during an ISIS and al-Nusra takeover earlier this year. Like the aforementioned African migrants, many members of this community were caught in a liminal state for decades, only to then become double-refugees: leaving one indeterminate situation for another. The displacement of the already displaced is an unmistakable characteristic of the neoliberal order.

In contrast to the long-term camps seen in Third World countries, their industrialised counterparts have been markedly less hospitable and patient in the face of the growing crisis. This lack of compassion is witnessed in Australia's refusal to accept members of the Rohingya community from Burma, desperately fleeing political persecution there. Meanwhile, tensions have flared in Europe over how to distribute the refugee 'burden'. France has returned some 6,000 migrants to Italy so far this year, claiming that the latter has failed to properly process them. Most recently, France has closed the border near Ventimiglia, prompting Italian police to forcibly close a camp of mostly Ethiopian and Eritrean refugees. The Italian state is desperate for help from its European partners to absorb the flow, as some 57,000 displaced people have landed in the country so far this year.

For its part, France has played a particularly disgusting role in this saga, which is hardly surprising given its recent history of treatment of minority communities within its borders. This is the land of the burka ban, where Nicolas Sarkozy rose to power on promises to hose the scum ('les racailles') out of the streets of the suburban ghettos, and both he and his Socialist successor, Francois Hollande, forcibly expelled Roma communities in 2010 and 2012, respectively. Likewise, the French government has broken down several makeshift camps in recent years in the port city of Calais, and Human Rights Watch has documented widespread police abuse and harassment of migrants living there. Reports include unprovoked beatings and deployment of pepper-spray, even on people obeying orders. Volunteers have found evidence of physical abuse, including scars and broken bones, which victims claim were inflicted by French authorities.

News coverage of these stories of the dispossessed tends to look at the issue in isolation, while policymakers generally seek easy scapegoats. Smugglers are often portrayed as the cause of the crisis. Other times, Western leaders point to war and poverty in the Global South, without acknowledging the forces behind the privation prevailing throughout poor countries of the world. Rarely do mainstream commentators draw lines between the Mediterranean, the Rio Grande and Yarmouk. If they were to do so, they would see that the story of the refugee has some terrifying implications for all of humanity.

Neoliberalism has transformed the secure into the precarious and the subaltern into refuse. It has created previously unknown flows of information and capital, while holding the displaced in captivity. Indeed, the ever-rising American prison population must be seen as a connected phenomenon.

Far from enshrining freedom, market fundamentalism converts flesh into monetary quantity. It also provokes fear, because we are able to witness the hardships endured by the underclass, thus reminding us of our own expendability. Zygmunt Bauman notes: 'Rather than remaining a misery confined to a relatively small part of the population, as it used to be perceived, assignment to "waste" becomes everybody's potential prospect - one of the two poles between which everybody's present and future social standing oscillates.'

As long as one of us is deemed rubbish, the rest of us have a vested interest in identifying and addressing the underlying cause. The refugee crisis riddle will not be solved until we repel the forces that created it.

Matt Reichel is a freelance writer and PhD student at Rutgers University in the US. This article is reproduced from CounterPunch.org.

The Islamic State, a strategic asset 'to isolate the Syrian regime' - US intelligence document A formerly classified US Defense Intelligence Agency report has revealed that as early as 2012, US intelligence had predicted the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS). Far from viewing it as an enemy, it welcomed it as a strategic asset to isolate the Syrian regime of President Assad. Brad Hoff ON 18 May, the conservative government watchdog group Judicial Watch published a selection of formerly classified documents obtained from the US Department of Defense and State Department through a federal lawsuit. While initial mainstream media reporting is focused on the White House's handling of the Benghazi consulate attack, a much 'bigger picture' admission and confirmation is contained in one of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) documents circulated in 2012: that an 'Islamic State' is desired in Eastern Syria to effect the West's policies in the region. Astoundingly, the newly declassified report states that for 'the West, Gulf countries, and Turkey [who] support the [Syrian] opposition … there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in Eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime.'. The DIA report, formerly classified 'Secret/NOFORN [not releasable to foreign nationals]' and dated 12 August 2012, was circulated widely among various government agencies, including CENTCOM, the CIA, FBI, DHS, NGA, State Department and many others. The document shows that as early as 2012, US intelligence predicted the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS), but instead of clearly delineating the group as an enemy, the report envisions the terror group as a US strategic asset. While a number of analysts and journalists have documented long ago the role of Western intelligence agencies in the formation and training of the armed opposition in Syria, this is the highest-level internal US intelligence confirmation of the theory that Western governments fundamentally see ISIS as their own tool for regime change in Syria. The document matter-of-factly states just that scenario. Forensic evidence, video evidence, as well as recent admissions of high-level officials involved, have since proven the State Department and CIA's material support of ISIS terrorists on the Syrian battlefield going back to at least 2012 and 2013 (for a clear example of 'forensic evidence', see the UK-based Conflict Armament Research's report which traced the origins of Croatian anti-tank rockets recovered from ISIS fighters back to a Saudi/CIA joint programme via identifiable serial numbers). The DIA report makes the following summary points concerning 'ISI' (in 2012 'Islamic State in Iraq') and the soon-to-emerge ISIS: * Al-Qaeda drives the opposition in Syria * The West identifies with the opposition * The establishment of a nascent Islamic State became a reality only with the rise of the Syrian insurgency (there is no mention of US troop withdrawal from Iraq as a catalyst for the Islamic State's rise, which is the contention of innumerable politicians and pundits; see section 5.D of the report excerpted below) * The establishment of a 'Salafist principality' in Eastern Syria is 'exactly' what the external powers supporting the opposition (identified as 'the West, Gulf countries, and Turkey') want in order to weaken the Bashar al-Assad government * 'Safe havens' are suggested in areas conquered by Islamic insurgents along the lines of the Libyan model (which translates to so-called no-fly zones as a first act of 'humanitarian war'; see section 7.B below) * Iraq is identified with 'Shia expansion' (8.C) * A Sunni 'Islamic State' could be devastating to 'unifying Iraq' and could lead to 'the renewing facilitation of terrorist elements from all over the Arab world entering into Iraqi arena'. The following is excerpted from the seven-page DIA declassified report (bold-facing is my own): THE GENERAL SITUATION: A. INTERNALLY, EVENTS ARE TAKING A CLEAR SECTARIAN DIRECTION. B. THE SALAFIST [sic], THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD, AND AQI ARE THE MAJOR FORCES DRIVING THE INSURGENCY IN SYRIA. C. THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND TURKEY SUPPORT THE OPPOSITION; WHILE RUSSIA, CHINA AND IRAN SUPPORT THE REGIME. … 3.(C)  Al QAEDA - IRAQ (AQI): . B. AQI SUPPORTED THE SYRIAN OPPOSITION FROM THE BEGINNING, BOTH IDEOLOGICALLY AND THROUGH THE MEDIA. … 5.D. THERE WAS A REGRESSION OF AQI IN THE WESTERN PROVINCES OF IRAQ DURING THE YEARS OF 2009 AND 2010; HOWEVER, AFTER THE RISE OF THE INSURGENCY IN SYRIA, THE RELIGIOUS AND TRIBAL POWERS IN THE REGIONS BEGAN TO SYMPATHIZE WITH THE SECTARIAN UPRISING. THIS (SYMPATHY) APPEARED IN FRIDAY PRAYER SERMONS, WHICH CALLED FOR VOLUNTEERS TO SUPPORT THE SUNNI'S [sic] IN SYRIA. … 7. (C)  THE FUTURE ASSUMPTIONS OF THE CRISIS: A. THE REGIME WILL SURVIVE AND HAVE CONTROL OVER SYRIAN TERRITORY. B. DEVELOPMENT OF THE CURRENT EVENTS INTO PROXY WAR: . OPPOSITION FORCES ARE TRYING TO CONTROL THE EASTERN AREAS (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), ADJACENT TO THE WESTERN IRAQI PROVINCES (MOSUL AND ANBAR), IN ADDITION TO NEIGHBORING TURKISH BORDERS. WESTERN COUNTRIES, THE GULF STATES AND TURKEY ARE SUPPORTING THESE EFFORTS. THIS HYPOTHESIS IS MOST LIKELY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DATA FROM RECENT EVENTS, WHICH WILL HELP PREPARE SAFE HAVENS UNDER INTERNATIONAL SHELTERING, SIMILAR TO WHAT TRANSPIRED IN LIBYA WHEN BENGHAZI WAS CHOSEN AS THE COMMAND CENTER OF THE TEMPORARY GOVERNMENT. … 8.C. IF THE SITUATION UNRAVELS THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME, WHICH IS CONSIDERED THE STRATEGIC DEPTH OF THE SHIA EXPANSION (IRAQ AND IRAN). … 8.D.1. . ISI COULD ALSO DECLARE AN ISLAMIC STATE THROUGH ITS UNION WITH OTHER TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS IN IRAQ AND SYRIA, WHICH WILL CREATE GRAVE DANGER IN REGARDS TO UNIFYING IRAQ AND THE PROTECTION OF ITS TERRITORY. Brad Hoff is Managing Editor of Levant Report (levantreport.com), from which this article is reproduced.

*Third World Resurgence No. 300, August 2015, pp 30-33