The tidal wave of refugees fleeing Syria's civil war has presented Europe's leaders with a Hobson's choice.
If they follow the lead of Germany's Angela Merkel, and welcome hundreds of thousands of newcomers, they will likely inflame the nativist passions already rumbling across the continent, and drive a wedge between the more prosperous northern European states and EU members to the east and south that are hardly disposed to compassion for the less fortunate after years of austerity.
Worse, an open invitation will inevitably lead to a much larger migratory flow, from conflict-ridden areas like Syria and Libya, from neighboring countries like Turkey that have already absorbed large numbers of refugees, and from across the region where economic and political pressures increase the relative attractiveness of pulling up stakes and heading north.
The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
SUBSCRIBE & SAVE
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
Join more than 350,000 subscribers and keep yourself informed with a selection of The Week’s most interesting, enlightening and entertaining stories - plus daily puzzles.
Join more than 350,000 subscribers and keep yourself informed with a selection of The Week’s most interesting, enlightening and entertaining stories - plus daily puzzles.
Latest Videos FromThe Week
On the other hand, if they follow the lead of Hungary's Viktor Orban, and shut their gates unilaterally, they will invite chaos on the EU's borders, and potentially unravel the collective institutions of the EU — not to mention deepening the human tragedy of the refugees themselves. And a closed door would set its own dark precedent, potentially setting off a cascading nationalist backlash that could get far bloodier as it moves back down through the Balkans and across the Mediterranean.
Europe's immigration policies should be driven by Europe's own needs, whether for an expanding workforce or for cultural cohesion. Balancing those needs is a proper topic for democratic deliberation within Europe. If those who see immigration as a great economic opportunity for Europe are right, they should be able to win that debate. And when they do, there will be no difficulty in finding immigrants eager to move to some of the most prosperous and liberal societies on earth.
But a crisis atmosphere is not ideal for engaging in that kind of deliberation. So we should strive to separate that question from the plight of Syria's refugees, which demands an immediate humanitarian response. To get out of a Hobson's choice, Europe needs to create new choices.
Here's one: Pay Iran to take in Syria's refugees.
The moral logic of such a proposal is not hard to articulate. Iran, as the main supporter of the Syrian regime, bears a heavy responsibility for the refugee situation in the first place. So it makes sense to demand that it take a primary responsibility for caring for the refugees, along with the Gulf states and Turkey, the main supporters of the rebels. The main moral claim on Europe with respect to the refugee crisis is that it has greater financial wherewithal to shoulder the burden than countries in the region. Shouldering a large share of the financial cost would show that Europe's states recognize the justice of that claim.
The practical logic is also clear. In general, it makes sense to settle refugees near their homes, because the goal should be for them to return home after the conflict that displaced them is settled. And, indeed, the bulk of the refugees have settled in countries neighboring Syria: Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan — but not in Iran. Moving displaced populations on to Europe relieves pressure on those neighbors to resolve the conflict, and in fact abets Syria's government (and some rebel groups) in their efforts to "cleanse" the areas under their control of populations deemed insufficiently loyal.
Finally, economic migrants might be far less interested in making a home in Iran than in Germany — so such an arrangement would deter them from trying to blend in with the refugee population to take advantage of Germany's generous one-time offer of asylum.
Politically, meanwhile, this would be a substantial coup for the Iranian regime. It would highlight the country's return to good standing in the international community, and show that it is capable of playing a constructive role regionally. It would enable Iran to brag of its tolerance in accepting non-Shiite, non-Muslim, and non-Persian refugees. It would embarrass the Gulf states, which have also taken in no refugees in spite of their wealth and direct responsibility for the conflict. And it would earn Iran some much-needed hard cash.
And if Iran said no, that would put the spotlight on the regime's role in prolonging the conflict, potentially bolstering regional and European opposition to Iran. Hardly the diplomatic climate Iran sought in the wake of the historic nuclear accord — which is one reason why it's worth making the overture rather than dismissing the idea out of hand.
The old cliche holds that every crisis is also an opportunity. If there's an opportunity to be seized here, perhaps it's the chance to find a response rooted in the region where the crisis originated.
