Taking into consideration that the economic crisis beginning in 2009 has had a limiting impact in budgetary policies, the main practical question is where to find the resources to cope with the migration of refugees – be it nationally, regionally or internationally. The second set of questions concerns what to do about the conflicts themselves.
The first logical answer is to divert financial resources away from military spending, especially by reducing the acquisition of expensive conventional weaponry. The logic of this step is that they will not be of much use in future conflicts due to the changing nature of political and military relations into the 21st century. From another angle, the non-treatment of migration-refugee crises can generate a new type of conflict that will deeply affect the big spenders on military hardware. This kind of change implies profound reforms in military structures from the point of view of personnel, training and organization. We should remember that planning the wars of the future on the basis of experiences of the past may be a great mistake, especially in an era where the acceleration of changes is what marks the future.
The other military point is politically-agreed upon military intervention in order to placate violence and structuring political compromises. I am well aware that this sounds “imperialistic” – developed powers intervening in the less developed world – but since the financial and weapons sources that feed conflicts are tied to these powers, there seems to be no alternatives to the negotiation between them in order not to allow the continuation of conflicts. A political agreement between the relevant powers about Syria (Russia, USA, Iran Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the EU and others) could undoubtedly lower the level of violence, destruction, economic damage and, as a consequence, the number of migrant-refugees. It is very difficult to achieve, but not impossible, especially if we take into consideration the - at least declared – common denominator of the war “against terror.” It is true that long-term solutions have to do with the imperial divisions of the periphery areas that created modern nation-states highly heterogeneous from a religious, ethnic, tribal, and even racial point of view with consequent national, political, demographic, cultural and socio-economic differences in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Resetting these processes is a long and complex task, but meanwhile, reigning violence, restoring political order and economic viability in “failing states” is an urgent objective. Peace-keeping multinational forces may play positive roles but only if they work in coordination with comprehensive plans of socio-economic and political-administrative reconstruction.
Even if all the above is carried out, we will still be left with a huge problem of migrant-refugees populations in need of support. Supporting financially the states that have absorbed the largest amount of migrant-refugees is a first logical step and it has been already done in many cases, in order to avoid chain processes of failing states. However, the UNWRA example with the Palestinian population of refugees in the Middle East, and the counter-example of Jordan that integrated a large number of these refugees prove that policies have to be formulated both in the sense of local integration as well as a return to places of origin. Perpetuating refugee problems and maintaining large refugee camps seems to be a recipe for the perpetration and strengthening of conflicts and violence.
Studies of migration also show that those that migrate beyond the neighboring state to their home countries are in many cases people with initiative and personal resources that may be transformed into positive migrants who contribute to the societies that are willing to receive them. Examples of positive integration of migrants-refugees abound in Post-War World II in Europe and elsewhere. Migrants escaping conflicts have, in many cases, proved to be very valuable contributors to the societies willing to host them. There exist many examples in the USA, Canada and all over Latin America, as well as in other parts of the world.
CONCLUSIONS
As with any other human problem migration, of refugees can be addressed in different ways. Its scale in the 21st century is such that it requires the attention of civil societies, governments and regional and international institutions. Moreover, coordination between all the levels of intervention is essential when the problem of scarcity of resources as well as the need to generate positive public opinion and empathy are taken into consideration, in order to create the political will to act.
It is clear that the causes of migration-refugee crises are the direct result of armed conflicts – wars, in the most modern sense of the word – that make life impossible where they take place - not only because of the high levels of personal danger but also because they destroy any future positive perspective. This is done not only through the installation of sectorial hatreds but also by the destruction of the economic and social fabric of life. People will prefer to flee a war zone than to die as a result of violence, lack of medicine or hunger. Once peace is achieved, high levels of destruction and economic and social non-viability prevent return. One of the main factors that may make return possible is not only “normalization” but the creation of a positive perspective of the future, through both expectations and mainly, the execution of rehabilitation plans.
Research carried out in the area of contemporary return from exile and expatriation shows that the longer the period of absence from the home country, of the less likely are the chances of returning, especially from places where the migrants-refugees have in some way been integrated. Return to home countries is important from the point of view of recovering human capital lost through forced migration. Moreover, human capital may be enriched by those who have managed to integrate in host societies and are willing to return or to rebuild active links with their home countries. However, even after long periods, some of them will return if the circumstances – pacification, economic prosperity, ruling of law, democratization - will make returning home possible, and more so if plans of support for the returnees are implemented by host and home countries. We have to take into consideration that globalization has made possible levels of communications, transport and translocation that allow for transnational phenomena such as sojourning, double or triple residency, the creation of international networks and communities that may become part of future solutions. Post-migratory transformations take place in a context of dispersion and globalization, which have created new forms of residence, work and retirement - many of them bearing a transnational character. The countries that generated massive exile in the last phases of the Cold War suffered the loss of large numbers of politically mobilized and culturally-active citizens. Once abroad, many of these individuals professed to return once conditions allowed it, while undergoing multiple personal transformations in the host environments. Diaspora and return are indeed inscribed in the experience of thousands of displaced citizens whose scientific, educational, cultural and political development weighed heavily on each of their fields of knowledge, as well as in the political landscape.
Nevertheless, the main way of solving these problems is by avoiding them. This means not allowing violent conflicts to evolve, supporting weak states in order to avoid their becoming failing states, supporting those that support and those that host refugee-migrants and expanding economic development in the periphery of the more developed world. All these require social constructs that do not