Part II: Iraqi Refugees

7) Put the Refugee Crisis in Focus.

According to Refugees International:

"Almost 5 million Iraqis had been displaced by violence in their country, the vast majority of which had fled since 2003. Over 2.8 million vacated their homes for safer areas within Iraq, while 2 million were living in Syria, Jordan, Iran, Egypt, Lebanon, Turkey and Gulf States. Most Iraqis are determined to be resettled to Europe or North America, and few consider return to Iraq an option. Iraqis have no legal work options in most host countries and are increasingly desperate and in need of humanitarian assistance. They face challenges in finding housing, obtaining food, and have trouble accessing host countries’ health and education systems. Their resources depleted, small numbers of Iraqis have returned to Iraq in the past few months. Most of those who returned were subsequently displaced again."

The issue has largely been absent from the political debate. That needs to change.

For one thing, making this a more publicly visible issue will help rally support for NGOs, churches and civic organizations that are all ready helping to address the enormous needs of refugees. McCain and Obama should call on ordinary Americans and local organizations–especially those in places like Detroit and San Diego, where many Iraqis have settled–to welcome refugees into their communities. The handful of Iraqi refugees lucky enough to get into the United States still face serious challenges–and they are fleeing a humanitarian and political crisis that we helped create.

Colin Powell, in reference to the invasion of Iraq, advised President Bush that "if you break it, you own it". On a basic level I think all Americans understand that we have a moral obligation to address the consequences of this war.

8) Make a SERIOUS Commitment to Resettle Refugees. The United States has currently pledged to accept 17,000 Iraqi refugees during the 2009 fiscal year. We accepted 13,823 Iraqi refugees in the 2008 fiscal year (which ended on September 30th). These may seem like big numbers–and it's much, much better than our record in year's past–but it's still a drop in the bucket.

According to ElectronicIraq.net: "The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) estimates that in 2009, 90,000 Iraqi refugees in the region will be in urgent need of resettlement [my emphasis]. This number does not include vulnerable Iraqis who remain inside their country, or Palestinian refugees from Iraq, who live in desperate conditions at the Syria-Iraqi border."

Unlike Syria or Jordan, who are currently absorbing the vast majority of Iraqi refugees, we're a big country. We can absorb political refugees on a large scale without suffering from major destabilizing effects on our economy or on our system of governance (as in: our government won't be overthrown if we let in a few thousand Iraqis). The plight of Iraqi refugees is a humanitarian crisis that we helped create and, because of that, we have a moral responsibility to help clean up our own mess. Beyond that, however, is an even greater consideration: what is the long term impact of a massive influx of Iraqi refugees into these neighboring countries? We've learned from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that an influx of long term refugees on a massive scale can have a destabilizing effect on the entire region. When the size and scope of the problem reaches a certain level, it isn't just a humanitarian issue anymore–it's also a security issue.

Because there are also bureaucratic obstacles to resettling refugees, it's hard to pull a number out of a hat. The next president needs to sit down with his advisors and experts on the issue and ask a single question: "If we eliminate the red tape and make this a priority, what is the maximum number of vulnerable Iraqi refugees we can reasonably admit into the United States within the span of a year?" My guess is that you will be playing with much larger numbers than 17,000.

There is also a perception among many European countries that "this is America's problem, America can fix it" which has prevented a fuller response from our European allies on this issue. This also needs to change. The next President will have to spend some of his political capitol overseas by prioritizing this issue.

9) Reinstall the U.S. Ambassador to Syria. After the assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, the United States brought home it's ambassador to Syria as a sort of penalty against Syria's perceived involvement in the murder. We didn't close the U.S. Embassy in Syria, so it was, more than anything, a symbolic gesture. There's a lot that we would like to change about the Syrian regime: we would like them to see improvements on the human rights front (including a release of bloggers arrested for criticizing the government), we would like to see greater cooperation in preventing insurgents from crossing the Syrian border into Iraq and we'd like to see Syria play a positive role in the Arab-Israeli peace process. We're not going to get everything we want, but Syria is moving in the right direction on several issues, including the issue of peace negotiations with Israel.

We should telegraph to the Syrian regime that we will reinstall the U.S. ambassador in Damascus with one precondition: that we have their full cooperation on the issue of resettling Iraqis. This shouldn't be hard–both Syria and the U.S. understand at some level that they need to cooperate on this issue. We can also make it clear that the reinstalling of our U.S. ambassador is more of a response to the refugee crisis than an affirmation of the Syrian government's behavior and that we will expect our ambassador to have a laser-like focus on assisting vulnerable Iraqis.

What the Candidates Would Actually Do:

Obama: Neither candidate has made the Iraqi refugee crisis a major issue on the campaign trail (see Obama, McCain Skirt Iraqi Refugee Issue). Obama has also failed to offer specific targets on how many Iraqis we should seek to resettle within the United States.

Senator Obama did, however, address the issue in a major foreign policy speech on September 12, 2007. Here is an excerpt from that speech:

"Two million Iraqis are displaced in their own country. Another two million Iraqis have fled as refugees to neighboring countries. This mass movement of people is a threat to the security of the Middle East and to our common humanity. We have a strategic interest - and a moral obligation - to act.

"There's no military solution that can reunite a family or resettle an orphaned child. It's time to form an international working group with the countries in the region, our European and Asian friends, and the United Nations. The State Department says it has invested $183 million on displaced Iraqis this year -- but that is not nearly enough. We can and must do more. We should up our share to at least $2 billion to support this effort; to expand access to social services for refugees in neighboring countries; and to ensure that Iraqis displaced inside their own country can find safe-haven.

"We must also keep faith with Iraqis who kept faith with us. One tragic outcome of this war is that the Iraqis who stood with America - the interpreters, embassy workers, and subcontractors - are being targeted for assassination. An Iraqi named Laith who worked for an American organization told a journalist, "Sometimes I feel like we're standing in line for a ticket, waiting to die.' And yet our doors are shut. In April, we admitted exactly one Iraqi refugee - just one!

"That is not how we treat our friends. That is not how we take responsibility for our own actions. That is not who we are as Americans. It's time to at least fill the 7,000 slots that we pledged to Iraqi refugees and to be open to accepting even more Iraqis at risk. It's also time to go to our friends and allies - and all the members of our original coalition in Iraq - to find homes for the many Iraqis who are in desperate need of asylum."

The above gives us a pretty clear view of how Obama would address the issue of Iraqi refugees. Though he failed to offer specifics, he stated that we should be "open to accepting even more Iraqis at risk." Hopefully this "openess" will mature into a firm resolve if Senator Obama wins the election.

In a January 30th, 2008 primary debate, Obama stated that both he and Senator Clinton understood the importance of this issue:

"Both of us have said we would make sure that our embassies and our civilians are protected. Both of us have said that we've got to care for Iraqi civilians, including the 4 million who have been displaced already. We already have a humanitarian crisis and we have not taken those responsibilities seriously."

In a July 14th, 2008 Op-ed in the New York Times, Senator Obama repeated his pledge to "commit $2 billion to a new international effort to support Iraq’s refugees."

McCain: If you search for the term "refugee" on John McCain's presidential campaign website, it turns up only one result. The term is used in a quoted statement from General David Petraeus as he, in passing, mentions how a failed state in Iraq would make the Iraqi refugee crisis worse. Nothing in the Iraq policy section of McCain's website references the Iraqi Refugee Crisis. This makes it very difficult to gauge McCain's views.

Clearly, if he became President, Iraq would be one of his top priorities, he has made it the signature issue of his campaign. But how would this translate into tangible, humanitarian action? Would he see tackling the Iraqi refugee crisis as a means of preventing the conflict in Iraq from destablizing the region? Or would he simply ignore the issue since the mere existence of large numbers of displaced Iraqis conflicts with any attempts to paint a rosy potrait of the U.S. "winning" in Iraq? McCain supporters should press him on this issue. The American people deserve an answer. A comprehensive Iraq strategy must address the needs of refugees both in Iraq and neighboring countries such as Syria and Jordan.

One thing we CAN be certain of: McCain will NOT increase diplomatic ties with Syria. In his own words, he will seek to "further isolate" Assad and the Syrian regime. Although the U.S. has legitimate grievances against the Syrian government, isolating rather than engaging Syria would significantly diminish our ability to effectively work with Iraqi refugees in that country. Ultimately, engaging rather than isolating Syria will also prove a more effective means to convince the Syrian government to work with us on other crucial issues that face the region (the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Iraq, etc.)

Next Week: Negotiating Iran