The situation with refugees is a real version of the development parable about people discovering babies floating in the river. Some take the babies out while others go upriver to see who is putting the babies in. It’s a good way to distinguish charity from justice. The Immediate problem has two aspects.



1.  Charitable Aspect

There is a need for urgent and repeated help for those in difficulty: whether the newsworthy young men trying to leap on lorries or the tragically photogenic parents and children in the Mediterranean, drowned infants or indeed any of the completely ordinary people who, dispossessed and disoriented, are simply trying to reach a place where their humanity is acknowledged. Personal charitable action by individuals and small groups is inspiring, but constantly on the verge of being overwhelmed; with no noticeable end to the problem (indeed only an increase) in sight. In its way this is a humanitarian disaster like any other and requires the same kind of systemic joint action of agencies through the Disasters Emergency Committee.

It may not be self evident, particularly to a government so in thrall to nimbys that it can only see the problem in terms of barbed wire, exclusion and the abdication of humanitarian responsibility.

There is too, the longer term problem of dispersal and support of people in a profoundly alien and often antagonistic culture. In Germany, the most receptive of EU countries, there are tented refugee areas outside many of the towns which are served by willing local volunteers. But the system is stretched and socially destabilising as well as a focus for anti immigrant feeling.  There are existing projects underway in this country, some involving Citizens UK working to get local councils accepting an essentially symbolic number of refugees and supporting them for a year. Commission members have asked about initiatives with their local councils. Their response is that for cash strapped councils, even where individuals are personally supportive and compassionate, the initiative is liable to sink into the bureaucratic swamp. Furthermore, what does one do at the end of the year? In some ways the initiative is a mixture of tokenism and a problem deferred. Most of the other sanctuary type of initiatives seem unlikely to be able to match the problem with a requisite level of benevolent action and commitment. At root, an individual charitable response to the problem is not sufficient.

2.  Justice Aspect

While there is a humanitarian and compassionate responsibility to care for so many people cast adrift - not just at sea - there is also a need for some structured international assistance. No one has led the way and challenged public opinion better that Pope Francis: 'It is my hope that the international community should act in a fitting and effective way to prevent the causes of forced migration who seek a home where they can live without fear... I invite everyone to ask forgiveness for those persons and institutions that close the doors on these people who are searching for family, who are searching for safety' (Address before UN World Refugee Day June 2015).

But what of the justice implications? Who goes upriver to see who is putting the babies into the river? This might be the place for a prophetic and simple statement from the bishops pointing out this country's place in creating the refugee situation by policies of military destabilisation in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lybia. The statement might also criticise UK support for countries such as Saudi Arabia and Israel fomenting destabilisation or at least happy to profit from it.

And it might point out that so long as the members of the UN - particularly the five Security Council oligarchs - are willing to countenance massive human displacement and suffering as the acceptable price of turning large swathes of the world into a globalised marketplace for the continued enrichment of the few at the expense of the many, nothing will change.

UNHCR already has a long history of experience of the problems and possible strategies eg the Framework for Durable Solutions for Refugees and Persons of Concern  notably under the four Rs: Repatriation, Reintegration, Rehabilitation and Reconstruction. Elsewhere the UNHCR points out. ‘As the durable solution of choice for the largest number of refugees, voluntary repatriation in safety and dignity requires the full commitment of the country of origin to help reintegrate its own people. It also needs the continuing support of the international community through the crucial post-conflict phase to ensure that those who make the brave decision to go home can rebuild their lives in a stable environment’.

While articles 13-14 of the The Universal Declaration of Human Rights cover the right of movement and asylum; articles 15-17 on nationality, family and property presuppose, like most of the other articles, a stable life within a supportive culture. These rights are there for the 60 million internally displaced persons in extremis, not for those who do the displacing, trafficking, detention and turning back. 

We know that public attention and concern can be intense; but it is fickle. Even assuming a joint statement of all UK church leaders and other concerned parties could be coordinated, we know that if it doesn't catch public attention in the week of issue, you might as well forget it, because everyone else has certainly forgotten it.

Therefore, in terms of tactics, I suspect that two might be useful. On the one hand, there is a need to capitalise on the public sympathy and outrage at human distress before it turns into ‘I’d love to help, so long as you don’t ask me to do anything myself beyond offering some guilt money ’.

On the other hand the kind of ‘pester power’ mobilised by the likes of Avaaz could be energised in a sustained campaign of electronic writing to government ministers, ambassadors, media and international agencies demanding why they are not doing more to stabilise the situation beyond a limited and self interested attempt at containment and crisis management.

In a world of sinful humanity, there is something more powerful even than the threat of violence. That is the appeal to economic self interest and self improvement. If a way could be devised to offer a carrot (financial support for the four Rs, Repatriation, Reintegration, Rehabilitation and Reconstruction) and stick (economic sanction and embargo, notably of weapons), it might be more useful than the tired and inadequate resource to military barbarism. Which is worse after all: beheading people or blowing them to bits with drones?

Into this world of self preservation and lifeboat ethics, it is difficult to see, not only how to make an impact, but to avoid raising pointless discussion of the 'charity begins at home' sort. Our society has cultivated an antagonism to our neighbour through the media for electoral advantage. A fervent and evangelistic throwing open of doors will solve little; it will probably exacerbate the problem. A firm statement of moral responsibility needs to be combined with a strong challenge to structures, both governmental and non governmental to alleviate current suffering and distress as much as possible in a humane fashion; and to bring to bear the united weight of diplomatic and economic pressure on areas of conflict and displacement.

For us as people of faith, the traditional resources of prayer, fasting and alms deeds can be configured to deal with a problem which, while distinctively modern, is a variant of the old imperative: ‘I was a stranger and you took me in'