Moral responsibility outside our borders
The responsibility that citizens have towards their state and to the people living outside of their borders has long been a topic of discussion. Thoreau started the conversation by stating that the most important responsibility that a citizen has is to speak out against the government, but he was living in a democratic state as a libertarian. Goodin questions the responsibilities we have towards people because they are people and the special duties we have towards individuals in closer relationships to us. It is universally understood that certain rights are inalienable, but the idea of human rights (i.e. the right to shelter, healthcare, and to a basis standard of living) is often disputed amongst academics. Is there a certain way you should treat your countrymen in comparison to people of other nations? What is the proper amount of humanitarian aid to give to other states? Without becoming the global police, the United States and other Western states, should have the responsibility to protect against injustices through humanitarian aid.
Weiss writes about how globalization and the end of the Cold War has made it easier for wars to get more violent because of cross-border illegal activity. $1.5trillion is made annually from these organized crimes (Weiss, p. 60). Having porous borders is not the only thing that allows for this misconduct to go on. Federal officials, or lack thereof, in developing countries do not make enough money to live off of and are often bought/coerced by people that participate in illegal activities. Per capita spending on government services in the United States is $17,000 while in Afghanistan only $19 per capita is produced. (Fukuyama, p.470). Although I don’t usually support the spread of democracy, I think it is important to note that because of the larger sum in spending in the United States, there is less coercion among our federal employees.
There are many ways that human rights can be violated. States at war are not able to provide for their citizens, and states with economic difficulty cannot provide for their nations. Bellany writes a report of the R2P report, the Responsibility to Protect, adopted by the UN in 2005. Although the R2P was momentous, it only refers to the three most heinous crimes: genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Should other states only intervene when it becomes this horrific in states? Historically, we have either done too much, i.e. Iraq, or done too little, i.e. Bosnia and Rwanda.
The assigned-responsibility model that Goodin references to is the most beneficial for all, unlike the mutual-benefit model. Refugees, resident aliens, and disabled people often do not have a voice so it is up to the masses to stand up for their rights. It is the responsibility of the able to take care of those less unfortunate. High standards that state that the able must submit to this duty do not usually get met, but these high standards allow for more justice to be met. Often we look at the standard and think that we are failing, but realistic goals would not allow for progress to get done.
Humanitarian aid is used in many states around the world to allow for the able to fight for progress. Within the UN charter, it states that humanitarian intervention needs to be nonpartisan, but how can a peacekeeper be neutral when it comes to the violation of human rights? Not to mention, many crises do not get as much attention as others, as stated previously. This is a huge problem. Anytime a Western state has a bombing, it makes the news for weeks. The states of Syria, Palestine, and Yemen are in shambles, and there is nothing being done about this.
There are 6.5 million internally placed people in Syria, 4.5 million refugees on the run. The European Union took in over one million Syrian refugees within the last year, and the United States has taken in less than 12,000 (CRS Report, p. 1). Many Americans believe it is dangerous to allow “these people” in because of the likelihood that Arabs will be terrorists. Within the infographics from the White House, the screening/vetting process of refugees has nine steps and less than 1% of refugees are allowed into the United States.
Within the Regional, Refugee, and Resilience Plan (3RP), it states how much that funding for humanitarian needs is not being met. States that are bordering Syria (Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Egypt) are not given the option of turning refugees away and are receiving needy people without having the aid that they need. Not only are these states not able to take care of the refugees, but because they are developing nations, it is difficult for them to even take care of their nationals. In fact, 70 percent of Jordan’s population does not receive the national standard of 100 liters per person per day. (3RP, p. 8). The United States, as a developed state, has the moral responsibility to take in more refugees than it has been. It is actually disgusting to think of the amount of people in turmoil and the lack of resources being used to help.
We see idealistic standards, like the ones I have portrayed above, written in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). Obviously if every state followed the thirty Articles within the UDHR, that would be remarkable, but I believe that it is important to note that the United States of America do not follow many of the Articles, either. Should other states be responsible for helping the citizens of the United States and their lack of universal healthcare, leisure, and equal pay? Of course that’s an unrealistic expectation, but the idea of that is ridiculous so why should the United States be responsible for other states?
The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and Its 1967 Protocol help to protect refugees by stating that the 148 UN members are obligated to provide “the same standards of treatment enjoyed by other foreign nationals in a given country”, thus not giving them citizenship but treating them respectfully and not throwing them in an internment-like camp, as President-elect Trump has proposed for Muslims. There should be international solidarity and cooperation in trying to resolve issues that refugees come upon. (Convention, p. 2). This protocol first described a refugee as “a person that has a well-founded fear of persecution because of their religion, race, nationality, membership or a particular social group, and is unable to avail themself of the protection of their country.” (Convention, p. 3). This convention should be followed and states, like the United States and those of Europe should be willing to allow refugees into their states, especially since the protection is temporary and once crises has settled, refugees can go home to their nation.
Asking for refuge is not the same as asking for citizenship or residency, refugee seekers are persons that have seen and been in terrible situations and deserve to be placed somewhere safe, even if it is until the unrest ends within their state. It is illogical to think that the United States cannot control or handle refugees from Syria, Somalia, Honduras, etc. We should be bringing in refugees at an immaculate rate, but we allow less than 1,000 refugees monthly. Each US state, if they take them in equally, only take in 20 refugees per month, while 6.5 million people are internally displaced in a war state and another 4.5 million are risking their lives to get to Europe and to seek refuge or have settled in developing states around Syria.
Kateb writes about patriotism and the way that it affects the way that citizens of a state react to other states. Often republicans and post-modernists are the most patriotic because of the emotion and conservation of their state’s tradition that is ever so important to them. Is patriotism a problem when it comes to our responsibility to people outside of our borders? Kateb states that “a moral person often has to choose between attachment to country and adherence to moral principle” (Kateb, p. 13). Thus to be patriotic, the love of your country will overcome your moral principles which, in turn, will make a citizen believe that they do not have a responsibility towards peoples from outside of their borders. This is a toxic way to look at the world. We have the moral obligation and the responsibility to care for peoples living in unfair environments, throughout the world.
In conclusion, the moral responsibility we have to help peoples beyond our borders outweighs the strength that we have in being patriotic. Because of the 1951 Convention on Refugees, the R2P, and the UDHR, it should be universally understood that refugees are in need, hurting, and are not trying to start anything with nations that they do not believe. These documents, though some are not law binding, have helped the world in great ways. We must set bars high and understand our moral obligations so that all people living in the world have inalienable human rights.
