No Place for Climate Change Refugees

It has been estimated that the world may see upwards of 200 million climate change refugees by the year 2050. These people may be forced to leave their homes for a number of reasons: rising sea levels, natural disasters, and shifting weather patterns that make farming and everyday life impossible. However, as with much of the discourse on climate change, there is a problem with the farsighted nature of such an estimate. This is not an issue that can be dealt with at any point between now and 2050. The refugees and political tensions over climate change are already here.

As merely one example, the border between Bangladesh and India has seen rising tension, particularly in the past six years. Many people used to disregard the border, crossing it for work, shopping, and particularly immigration. As well as by poverty, Bangladeshis are driven to migrate to India by the massive  climate change the country is seeing. Rising temperatures affect water availability and viability of farmland, floods devastate villages, and countless fishermen are seeing their catches decline. The number of illegal Bangladeshi migrants in India is not known, but estimates range up to 10 million. In reaction to this, the Indian government fenced much of the Bangladesh-India border in 2007, and began boat patrols for the parts of the border spanning water. However, the most controversial part of the border control is the shoot-on-sight policy enforced by the Indian border patrol.

In its efforts to prevent cross border migration, the Indian Border Security Force (BSF) has been reported to have killed many hundreds of Bangladeshis. The BSF has also been accused of abducting and killing children, and arbitrarily killing civilians. The Human Rights Watch has condemned the BSF, but though this policy has ended lives, broken families, and terrified countless Bangladeshis, many continue trying to cross.

Indo-Bangladeshi Barrier

People who are braving bullets for the chance of a better life are clearly facing some sort of desperation. And yet at this point in time, many countries, including Canada, do not accept climate change as a reason for a refugee claim. When homes and livelihoods are being destroyed by environmental events, it can pose as much risk to these people’s wellbeing as many forms of persecution. Why then, aren’t they being protected? The executive director of the Bangladesh Center for Advanced Studies has stated the belief that the Western countries, which played the greatest role in triggering climate change, should take these refugees in, since they are the ones who indirectly displaced them. Do you think such an arrangement would be just? Does India also have an obligation? Solutions for dealing with people displaced by climate change will be crucial in the near future, but they are also crucial now.

A Multidimensional Developing World

Last term a professor told my class that the country Somalia is practically synonymous with “failed state” and that it has not had a functioning government for decades. Irked, I raised my hand to say that Somalia has had a centralized, internationally recognized, and functioning government for years now.

Many of my school projects in the last two years have focused on Somalia, and the events that have occurred in this time have being astounding. Effects of the 2011 famine and violence between militant group Al Shabaab and government led forces are still being felt. However, since the government regained control of Mogadishu there has been dramatic reconstruction in the capital city and surrounding areas. Online we can read anecdotes about assassins retiring to become drivers and the start of Somali Idol. The flurry of ambitious repairs to infrastructure and communities show that development is alive in Somalia.

Destruction in Somalia’s capital city.

This is not to say that Somalia is now fixed; there are still thousands of internationally displaced persons and refugees, violence continues, and rural areas lack the same attention Mogadishu receives. Most of all, the country continues to receive inadequate attention and support from the rest of the world. Nonetheless, it must be pointed out that the situation is leaps and bounds better than what most people believe to be true. Somalia is not a forsaken place and we cannot afford to treat it like it is.

When we only see badness in the Global South, we do a disservice to developing countries and those who live in them. Complex problems can only be improved after their complexity is acknowledged, and one-sided negativity prevents this from happening. Even a country with a weak government, food insecurity, and civil unrest should not be called a failed state. Besides the fact that there is no universally accepted definition of “failed state”, this phrase implies that an attempt is over; Somalia tried and failed. This is incredibly unsophisticated thinking and we must embrace humility in order see the world how it is instead of how we imagine it to be.

Where else do you think we see the developing world too simplistically?