There are times when I feel really quite ashamed to be a European. In the last year, more than a million people arrived in Europe in need of our help, and our response, frankly, has been pathetic.
Batzuetan oso lotsatuta sentitzen naiz europarra izateaz. Azken urtean, milioi bat pertsona baino gehiago iritsi dira Europara laguntza beharrean eta gure erantzuna benetan penagarria izan da.
There are just so many contradictions. We mourn the tragic death of two-year-old Alan Kurdi, and yet, since then, more than 200 children have subsequently drowned in the Mediterranean. We have international treaties that recognize that refugees are a shared responsibility, and yet we accept that tiny Lebanon hosts more Syrians than the whole of Europe combined. We lament the existence of human smugglers, and yet we make that the only viable route to seek asylum in Europe. We have labor shortages, and yet we exclude people who fit our economic and demographic needs from coming to Europe. We proclaim our liberal values in opposition to fundamentalist Islam, and yet -- we have repressive policies that detain child asylum seekers, that separate children from their families, and that seize property from refugees.
Kontraesan asko daude. Negar egiten dugu bi urteko Alan Kurdi-ren heriotza tragikoaren aurrean baina, geroztik, 200 haur baino gehiago ito dira Mediterraneoan. Nazioarteko itunak ditugu, iheslariak guztion ardura direla aitortzen dutenak, baina onartzen dugu Libano txikiak Europa osoak baino Siriar gehiago hartzea babesean. Giza trafikatzaileez kexatzen gara baina hori bihurtzen dugu bide bakarra Europan asiloa eskatzeko. Eskulan urria dago, baina gure behar ekonomiko zein demografikoak betetzen dituztenei ez diegu Europara etortzen uzten. Gure balio liberalak aldarrikatzen ditugu Islam fundamentalistaren kontra, baina... politika zapaltzaileak ditugu, asilo eske datozen haurrak atxilotzen dituztenak, umeak beren familiengandik banatzen dituztenak, eta iheslarien jabetzak konfiskatzen dituztenak.
What are we doing? How has the situation come to this, that we've adopted such an inhumane response to a humanitarian crisis?
Zer ari gara egiten? Nola iritsi gara egoera honetara? Nola hartu dugu horrelako jarrera ankerra krisi humanitario bati erantzuteko?
I don't believe it's because people don't care, or at least I don't want to believe it's because people don't care. I believe it's because our politicians lack a vision, a vision for how to adapt an international refugee system created over 50 years ago for a changing and globalized world. And so what I want to do is take a step back and ask two really fundamental questions, the two questions we all need to ask. First, why is the current system not working? And second, what can we do to fix it?
Ez dut uste jendeari axola ez zaiolako denik edo, behintzat, ez dut hori sinetsi nahi. Arrazoia gure politikarien etorkizun-sen falta dela uste dut, duela 50 urte baino gehiago sortu zen iheslarientzako nazioarteko babes sistemari egokitzeko sen falta mundu aldakor eta globalizatu bat lortzeko. Pauso bat atzera eman nahi dut eta funtsezko bi galdera egin, guztiok egin beharreko bi galdera. Lehena: zergatik ez dabil oraingo sistema? Eta bigarrena: zer egin dezakegu konpontzeko?
So the modern refugee regime was created in the aftermath of the Second World War by these guys. Its basic aim is to ensure that when a state fails, or worse, turns against its own people, people have somewhere to go, to live in safety and dignity until they can go home. It was created precisely for situations like the situation we see in Syria today. Through an international convention signed by 147 governments, the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees, and an international organization, UNHCR, states committed to reciprocally admit people onto their territory who flee conflict and persecution.
Indarrean dagoen iheslarientzako babes sistema Bigarren Mundu Gerraren ondoren sortu zuten tipo hauek. Oinarrizko helburua, estatu batek porrot egitean, edo okerrago, bere jendearen kontra jartzean, herriarentzako tokia bermatzea zen babesean eta duintasunez bizitzeko etxera bueltatu arte. Siriakoa bezalako egoeretarako sortu zen hain zuzen. 147 gobernuk sinatutako nazioarteko hitzarmen baten bidez (1951ko Iheslarien estatutuari buruzko hitzarmena) eta nazioarteko erakunde baten bidez (UNHCR), estatuek hitzeman zuten beren lurraldean onartuko zituztela gatazka eta jazarpenetik ihesi zebiltzanak.
But today, that system is failing. In theory, refugees have a right to seek asylum. In practice, our immigration policies block the path to safety. In theory, refugees have a right to a pathway to integration, or return to the country they've come from. But in practice, they get stuck in almost indefinite limbo. In theory, refugees are a shared global responsibility. In practice, geography means that countries proximate the conflict take the overwhelming majority of the world's refugees. The system isn't broken because the rules are wrong. It's that we're not applying them adequately to a changing world, and that's what we need to reconsider.
Baina gaur egun, sistema hori huts egiten ari da. Teorian, iheslariek asilo eskubidea daukate. Praktikan, gure immigrazio politikek babesa lortzeko bidea oztopatzen dute. Teorian, iheslariek integraziorako eskubidea daukate edo beren jaioterrira bueltatzekoa. Baina praktikan, linbo batean geratzen dira harrapatuta. Teorian, iheslariak guztion ardura dira. Praktikan, geografiak adierazten duenez, gatazkatik hurbil dauden herrialdeak dira munduko iheslarien gehiengo izugarria hartzen dutenak. Sistema ez da hautsi arauak gaizki daudelako, aldatzen ari den munduan modu okerrean erabiltzen ari garelako baizik, eta hori da hausnartu behar duguna.
So I want to explain to you a little bit about how the current system works. How does the refugee regime actually work? But not from a top-down institutional perspective, rather from the perspective of a refugee. So imagine a Syrian woman. Let's call her Amira. And Amira to me represents many of the people I've met in the region. Amira, like around 25 percent of the world's refugees, is a woman with children, and she can't go home because she comes from this city that you see before you, Homs, a once beautiful and historic city now under rubble. And so Amira can't go back there. But Amira also has no hope of resettlement to a third country, because that's a lottery ticket only available to less than one percent of the world's refugees.
Hala, egungo sistemaren funtzionamendua azaldu nahi dizuet. Nola funtzionatzen du sistemak benetan? Baina ez goitik beherako ikuspuntu instituzionaletik, iheslari baten ikuspuntutik baizik. Imajinatu Siriako emakume bat. Amira deituko dugu. Eskualdean ezagutu nuen jendea irudikatzen du Amirak. Amira, munduko iheslarien % 25 inguru bezala, seme-alabak dituen emakumea da, eta ezin da etxera joan hiri honetatik etorri delako, aurrean daukazuen hori: Homs. Noizbait eder eta historiko izandako hiria orain hondakin azpian dagoena. Amira ezin da hara bueltatu. Baina ez dauka beste herrialde batean geratzeko itxaropenik ere, munduko iheslarien %1ak baino gutxiagok soilik lor dezaketen loteria txartela baita.
So Amira and her family face an almost impossible choice. They have three basic options. The first option is that Amira can take her family to a camp. In the camp, she might get assistance, but there are very few prospects for Amira and her family. Camps are in bleak, arid locations, often in the desert. In the Zaatari refugee camp in Jordan, you can hear the shells across the border in Syria at nighttime. There's restricted economic activity. Education is often of poor quality. And around the world, some 80 percent of refugees who are in camps have to stay for at least five years. It's a miserable existence, and that's probably why, in reality, only nine percent of Syrians choose that option.
Amirak eta familiak ia ezinezkoa den aukera bati egiten diote aurre. Oinarrizko hiru aukera dituzte. Lehenengoa: Amirak kanpaleku batera eraman dezake familia. Kanpalekuan, laguntza jaso dezake, baina ez dago aukera handirik Amira eta familiarentzat. Eremu latz eta lehorretan kokatzen dira kanpalekuak, basamortuan askotan. Jordaniako Zaatari kanpalekuan, jaurtigaiak entzun daitezke gauean Siriako mugan zehar. Jarduera ekonomikoa mugatuta dago. Hezkuntzaren kalitatea baxua da sarritan. Eta munduan, kanpalekuetako iheslarien %80 inguruk gutxienez bost urtez egon behar izaten du bertan. Bizitza tamalgarria da, eta baliteke horregatik izatea siriarren %9k besterik ez hartzea bide hori.
Alternatively, Amira can head to an urban area in a neighboring country, like Amman or Beirut. That's an option that about 75 percent of Syrian refugees have taken. But there, there's great difficulty as well. Refugees in such urban areas don't usually have the right to work. They don't usually get significant access to assistance. And so when Amira and her family have used up their basic savings, they're left with very little and likely to face urban destitution.
Bestela, Amira hiri batera joan daiteke, hurbileko herrialde batean. Amman edo Beirut, esaterako. Hori da siriar iheslarien %75 inguruk aukeratutako bidea. Baina bertan ere zailtasun handiak daude. Hiri horietan, iheslariek ez dute lan egiteko eskubiderik izaten. Ez dute laguntza gehiegi jasotzen. Amirak eta familiak aurrezkiak gastatu ondoren ezer gutxirekin geratzen dira, pobrezia larria jasateko arriskuan.
So there's a third alternative, and it's one that increasing numbers of Syrians are taking. Amira can seek some hope for her family by risking their lives on a dangerous and perilous journey to another country, and it's that which we're seeing in Europe today.
Hirugarren aukera bat dago, geroz eta siriar gehiago aukeratzen ari direna. Amirak familiarentzat itxaropena bila dezake bidaia arriskutsu batean bizia arriskatuz beste herrialde batera joateko. Hori da gaur egun Europan ikusten ari garena.
Around the world, we present refugees with an almost impossible choice between three options: encampment, urban destitution and dangerous journeys. For refugees, that choice is the global refugee regime today. But I think it's a false choice. I think we can reconsider that choice. The reason why we limit those options is because we think that those are the only options that are available to refugees, and they're not. Politicians frame the issue as a zero-sum issue, that if we benefit refugees, we're imposing costs on citizens. We tend to have a collective assumption that refugees are an inevitable cost or burden to society. But they don't have to. They can contribute.
Mundu osoan, ia ezinezko aukerak ematen dizkiegu iheslariei. Hiru dituzte: kanpalekuak, txirotasuna hirietan eta bidaia arriskutsuak. Iheslarien babeserako sistema hori da gaur egun iheslarientzat. Baina aukera faltsua dela uste dut eta birplanteatu dezakegula. Aukerak mugatzearen arrazoia zera da: uste dugu horiek direla iheslariek dituzten aukera bakarrak eta ez da hala. Politikariek «gehiketa zero» emango lukeen gai moduan azaltzen dute; iheslariei laguntzen badiegu, herritarrei kostuak inposatuko dizkiegu. Guztiok pentsatu ohi dugu iheslariak kostu edo zama saihestezina direla gizartearentzat. Baina ez du zertan hala izan.
So what I want to argue is there are ways in which we can expand that choice set and still benefit everyone else: the host states and communities, our societies and refugees themselves. And I want to suggest four ways we can transform the paradigm of how we think about refugees. All four ways have one thing in common: they're all ways in which we take the opportunities of globalization, mobility and markets, and update the way we think about the refugee issue.
Aukera-sorta zabaltzeko moduak daudela eztabaidatu nahi dut, eta, era berean, guztiontzat onura lortu: iheslarien helmuga diren herrialdeak, gure gizartea eta baita iheslariak ere. Lau modu proposatu nahi ditut iheslariekiko dugun iritziaren paradigma alda dezaketenak. Antzekotasun bat daukate: globalizazioaren, mugikortasunaren eta merkatuen aukerak aprobetxatzeko bideak dira, baita iheslariekiko dugun iritzia eguneratzeko ere.
The first one I want to think about is the idea of enabling environments, and it starts from a very basic recognition that refugees are human beings like everyone else, but they're just in extraordinary circumstances. Together with my colleagues in Oxford, we've embarked on a research project in Uganda looking at the economic lives of refugees. We chose Uganda not because it's representative of all host countries. It's not. It's exceptional. Unlike most host countries around the world, what Uganda has done is give refugees economic opportunity. It gives them the right to work. It gives them freedom of movement. And the results of that are extraordinary both for refugees and the host community. In the capital city, Kampala, we found that 21 percent of refugees own a business that employs other people, and 40 percent of those employees are nationals of the host country. In other words, refugees are making jobs for citizens of the host country. Even in the camps, we found extraordinary examples of vibrant, flourishing and entrepreneurial businesses.
Aztertu nahi dudan lehenengo ideia «inguruneak egokitzea» da, eta funtsezko onarpen batetik abiatzen da: iheslariak gizakiak dira, beste guztiok bezala, baina ezohiko egoeran daude. Oxfordeko lankideekin batera, ikerketa proiektu batean abiatu nintzen Ugandara iheslarien bizitza ekonomikoa aztertzeko. Ez genuen Uganda aukeratu helmuga-herrialdeen eredu delako. Ez da eredua, salbuespena baizik. Munduko helmuga herrialde gehienetan ez bezala, Ugandak aukera ekonomikoa eman die iheslariei. Lan egiteko eskubidea ematen die. Mugitzeko askatasuna ematen die. Eta emaitzak txundigarriak dira bai iheslarientzat bai herrialdearentzat. Hiriburuan, Kampala-n, iheslarien %21ak jendea enplegatzen duen negozio bat dauka eta enplegatutako jendearen %40 helmuga herrialdekoak dira. Hau da, iheslariak lana sortzen ari dira helmuga herrialdeko jendearentzat. Kanpalekuetan ere loratzen ari diren negozio bizi eta ekintzaileen aparteko adibideak aurki daitezke.
For example, in a settlement called Nakivale, we found examples of Congolese refugees running digital music exchange businesses. We found a Rwandan who runs a business that's available to allow the youth to play computer games on recycled games consoles and recycled televisions. Against the odds of extreme constraint, refugees are innovating, and the gentleman you see before you is a Congolese guy called Demou-Kay. Demou-Kay arrived in the settlement with very little, but he wanted to be a filmmaker. So with friends and colleagues, he started a community radio station, he rented a video camera, and he's now making films. He made two documentary films with and for our team, and he's making a successful business out of very little. It's those kinds of examples that should guide our response to refugees. Rather than seeing refugees as inevitably dependent upon humanitarian assistance, we need to provide them with opportunities for human flourishing.
Esaterako, Nakivale izeneko kokalekuan Kongoko iheslariak aurkitu genituen musika digitala trukatzeko negozioak kudeatzen. Ruandar bat topatu genuen, eta bere negozioari esker gazteek bideo-jokoak erabil ditzakete birziklatutako kontsola eta telebistetan. Muturreko bortxaketaren kontra, iheslariak berritzen ari dira, eta aurrean daukazuen gizona Demou-Kay izeneko kongoar bat da. Demou-Kay ezer gutxirekin iritsi zen kokalekura, baina zinemagile izan nahi zuen. Beraz, lagun eta lankideekin batera, eskualde irrati bat sortu zuen, bideokamera bat alokatu zuen, eta orain filmak egiten ari da. Bi dokumental egin ditu gure taldearekin eta taldearentzat, eta negozio arrakastatsua egiten ari da ezer gutxitik abiatuta. Horrelako adibideak dira iheslariekiko gure erantzuna gidatu beharko luketenak. Iheslariak giza-laguntzaren ezinbesteko zama bezala ikusi ordez, aurrera egiteko aukerak eman behar dizkiegu.
Yes, clothes, blankets, shelter, food are all important in the emergency phase, but we need to also look beyond that. We need to provide opportunities to connectivity, electricity, education, the right to work, access to capital and banking. All the ways in which we take for granted that we are plugged in to the global economy can and should apply to refugees.
Bai, arropa, mantak, aterpea, janaria garrantzitsuak dira larrialdiko fasean, baina harago ere begiratu behar dugu. Konexiorako, argindarrerako eta hezkuntzarako aukerak eman behar ditugu, lanerako eskubidea, kapitalerako eta bankurako sarrera. Ziurtzat jotzen ditugun gauza guztiak, munduko ekonomiara lotzen gaituztenak, iheslariei aplikatu ahal zaizkie.
The second idea I want to discuss is economic zones. Unfortunately, not every host country in the world takes the approach Uganda has taken. Most host countries don't open up their economies to refugees in the same way. But there are still pragmatic alternative options that we can use.
Aztertu nahi dudan bigarren ideia «zonalde ekonomikoak» dira. Zoritxarrez, munduko helmuga herrialdeek ez dute Ugandaren irtenbidea jarraitu. Gehienek ez dituzte beren ekonomiak modu horretan zabaltzen. Baina baditugu erabil ditzakegun beste aukera pragmatiko batzuk.
Last April, I traveled to Jordan with my colleague, the development economist Paul Collier, and we brainstormed an idea while we were there with the international community and the government, an idea to bring jobs to Syrians while supporting Jordan's national development strategy. The idea is for an economic zone, one in which we could potentially integrate the employment of refugees alongside the employment of Jordanian host nationals. And just 15 minutes away from the Zaatari refugee camp, home to 83,000 refugees, is an existing economic zone called the King Hussein Bin Talal Development Area. The government has spent over a hundred million dollars connecting it to the electricity grid, connecting it to the road network, but it lacked two things: access to labor and inward investment. So what if refugees were able to work there rather than being stuck in camps, able to support their families and develop skills through vocational training before they go back to Syria? We recognized that that could benefit Jordan, whose development strategy requires it to make the leap as a middle income country to manufacturing. It could benefit refugees, but it could also contribute to the postconflict reconstruction of Syria by recognizing that we need to incubate refugees as the best source of eventually rebuilding Syria.
Apirilean, Jordaniara joan nintzen garapenaren ekonomian aditua den Paul Collier-rekin, eta ideia bat izan genuen nazioarteko elkartearekin eta gobernuarekin geundela, siriarrentzat lana sortzen duen ideia eta Jordaniako garapen estrategia nazionala bermatzen duena. Gune ekonomiko bat sortzea da ideia, iheslarientzako enplegua integra genezakeen gunea jordaniarren enpleguarekin batera. Eta Zaatari kanpalekutik 15 minutura soilik, 83.000 iheslariren bizitokia, badago gune ekonomiko bat Hussein Bin Talal Errege Garapen Gunea izenekoa. Gobernuak milioi bat dolar baino gehiago gastatu ditu sare elektrikora eta errepide sarera konektatzeko baina bi gauza falta zaizkio: eskulana eta barne inbertsioa. Eta iheslariek bertan lan egin balezakete, kanpalekuetan trabatuta egon ordez, familiak mantentzeko eta lanbide teknikak hobetzeko gai balira Siriara bueltatu aurretik? Igarri genuen Jordaniari onura egingo ziola, garapen estrategiak aldaketa eskatzen baitu diru sarrera ertaineko herrialde izatetik ekoizle izatera. Iheslarientzat onuragarria izan liteke, eta Siria berreraikitzea lagundu lezake gatazkaren ondoren, iheslariei formatzen laguntzea noizbait Siria berreraikitzeko modu onena dela onartuz.
We published the idea in the journal Foreign Affairs. King Abdullah has picked up on the idea. It was announced at the London Syria Conference two weeks ago, and a pilot will begin in the summer.
Foreign Affairs aldizkarian argitaratu genuen ideia. Abdullah erregeak kontuan hartu du. Londreseko Siriari buruzko konferentzian iragarri zen duela bi aste, eta udan proba bat jarriko dute martxan.
(Applause)
(Txaloak)
The third idea that I want to put to you is preference matching between states and refugees to lead to the kinds of happy outcomes you see here in the selfie featuring Angela Merkel and a Syrian refugee. What we rarely do is ask refugees what they want, where they want to go, but I'd argue we can do that and still make everyone better off. The economist Alvin Roth has developed the idea of matching markets, ways in which the preference ranking of the parties shapes an eventual match. My colleagues Will Jones and Alex Teytelboym have explored ways in which that idea could be applied to refugees, to ask refugees to rank their preferred destinations, but also allow states to rank the types of refugees they want on skills criteria or language criteria and allow those to match. Now, of course you'd need to build in quotas on things like diversity and vulnerability, but it's a way of increasing the possibilities of matching. The matching idea has been successfully used to match, for instance, students with university places, to match kidney donors with patients, and it underlies the kind of algorithms that exist on dating websites. So why not apply that to give refugees greater choice?
Aurkeztu nahi dizuedan hirugarren ideia estatu-iheslari arteko «lehentasunezko lotura // batasuna» da emaitza pozgarriak lortzeko, Angela Merkel eta siriar iheslari honen argazkian bezala. Nekez galdetzen diegu iheslariei zer nahi duten, nora joan nahi duten, baina egin dezakegula uste dut eta guztion egoera ekonomikoa hobetu. Alvin Roth ekonomialariak «bat datozen merkatuen» ideia garatu du, non alderdien lehentasunek azken lotura irudikatzen duten. Nire lankide Will Jones eta Alex Teytelboym-ek ideia hori iheslariengan nola ezar litekeen aztertu dute, iheslariei eskatzeko nahiago dituzten helmugak sailka ditzaten, eta baita estatuek nahi dituzten iheslari motak sailka ditzaten trebetasunei edo hizkuntzari dagokionez eta elkar daitezen ahalbidetzea. Aurrekontuak finkatu behar dira, jakina, aniztasuna eta sentikortasuna bezalako arloetan, baina bat etortzeko aukerak handitzeko modu bat da. Bat etortzearen ideia arrakastaz erabili da ikasleak unibertsitateekin lotzeko, adibidez, edo giltzurrun emaileak pazienteekin, eta zita webguneetako algoritmoen oinarria da. Zergatik ez dugu erabiltzen iheslariei aukera gehiago emateko?
It could also be used at the national level, where one of the great challenges we face is to persuade local communities to accept refugees. And at the moment, in my country, for instance, we often send engineers to rural areas and farmers to the cities, which makes no sense at all. So matching markets offer a potential way to bring those preferences together and listen to the needs and demands of the populations that host and the refugees themselves.
Nazio-mailan ere erabil liteke, izan ere, gainditu beharreko auzietako bat tokian tokiko herritarrek iheslariak onartzea da. Eta momentuz, nire herrialdean esaterako, ingeniariak landara bidali ohi ditugu eta nekazariak hirietara, eta horrek ez du inolako zentzurik. Bat datozen merkatuei esker lehentasun horiek batu ahalko lirateke eta helmuga-herrialdeko beharrak eta eskaerak entzun iheslarienekin batera.
The fourth idea I want to put to you is of humanitarian visas. Much of the tragedy and chaos we've seen in Europe was entirely avoidable. It stems from a fundamental contradiction in Europe's asylum policy, which is the following: that in order to seek asylum in Europe, you have to arrive spontaneously by embarking on those dangerous journeys that I described. But why should those journeys be necessary in an era of the budget airline and modern consular capabilities? They're completely unnecessary journeys, and last year, they led to the deaths of over 3,000 people on Europe's borders and within European territory.
Aurkeztu nahi dizuedan laugarren ideia «bisa humanitarioak» dira. Europan ikusi dugun hondamendiaren zati handi bat guztiz ekidin zitekeen. Europako asilo-politikaren oinarrizko kontraesan batek eragiten du. Europan asiloa eskatzeko berez iritsi behar duzu, bidaia arriskutsu batean abiatuta (lehen deskribatu ditudanak). Baina zergatik egin horrelako bidaiak hegaldi merkeen eta ahalmen kontsular modernoen aroan? Ez dira inolaz ere beharrezkoak eta, aurreko urtean, 3.000 pertsonatik gora hil ziren horien erruz Europako mugetan eta Europan bertan.
If refugees were simply allowed to travel directly and seek asylum in Europe, we would avoid that, and there's a way of doing that through something called a humanitarian visa, that allows people to collect a visa at an embassy or a consulate in a neighboring country and then simply pay their own way through a ferry or a flight to Europe. It costs around a thousand euros to take a smuggler from Turkey to the Greek islands. It costs 200 euros to take a budget airline from Bodrum to Frankfurt. If we allowed refugees to do that, it would have major advantages. It would save lives, it would undercut the entire market for smugglers, and it would remove the chaos we see from Europe's front line in areas like the Greek islands. It's politics that prevents us doing that rather than a rational solution.
Iheslariei utziko bagenie zuzenean bidaiatzea eta Europan asiloa eskatzea, hori guztia ekidingo genuke eta badago hori lortzeko modua «bisa humanitario» izenekoei esker, enbaxadetan bildu daitezkeenak edo ondoko herrialdeko kontsuletxe batean eta gero, beren bidaia ordaindu ferryz edo hegazkinez Europara iristeko. Mila euro inguru balio du trafikatzaile bat hartzea Turkiatik Greziar irletaraino. 200 euro balio du hegazkin merke bat hartzea Bodrum-etik Frankfurtera. Iheslariei baimena emango bagenie, abantaila handiak ekarriko lituzke. Biziak salbatuko lituzke, trafikatzaileen merkatua ahulduko luke eta deuseztatuko litzateke Europatik antzematen den anabasa Greziar irlak bezalako tokietan. Politikak ez digu hori egiten uzten konponbide arrazional baten beharrean.
And this is an idea that has been applied. Brazil has adopted a pioneering approach where over 2,000 Syrians have been able to get humanitarian visas, enter Brazil, and claim refugee status on arrival in Brazil. And in that scheme, every Syrian who has gone through it has received refugee status and been recognized as a genuine refugee.
Eta aplikatu den ideia da. Brasilek ikuspuntu aitzindari bat izan du non 2.000 siriar baino gehiagok bisa humanitario bana eskuratu, Brasilen sartu eta iheslari estatusa aldarrikatu duten Brasilera iristean. Egitasmo horren baitan, siriar bakoitzak iheslari estatusa jaso du eta iheslari zintzotzat hartu dute.
There is a historical precedent for it as well. Between 1922 and 1942, these Nansen passports were used as travel documents to allow 450,000 Assyrians, Turks and Chechens to travel across Europe and claim refugee status elsewhere in Europe. And the Nansen International Refugee Office received the Nobel Peace Prize in recognition of this being a viable strategy.
Aurrekari historiko bat ere badauka. 1922 eta 1942 artean, Nansen pasaporte hauek bidaiatzeko agiri moduan erabili ziren 450.000 asiriar, turkiar eta txetxeniarrek Europan zehar bidaia zezaten eta Europan iheslari estatusa aldarrika zezaten. Eta Iheslarientzako Nazioarteko Nansen Bulegoak Bakearen Nobel Saria jaso zuen estrategia bideragarria izateagatik.
So all four of these ideas that I've presented you are ways in which we can expand Amira's choice set. They're ways in which we can have greater choice for refugees beyond those basic, impossible three options I explained to you and still leave others better off.
Aurkeztu dizkizuedan lau ideiak Amiraren aukera-sorta zabaltzeko moduak dira. Horiei esker iheslarientzako aukera hobeak lor ditzakegu azaldu dizkizuedan oinarrizko hiru aukeretatik harago eta beste batzuk egoera ekonomiko hobean utzi.
In conclusion, we really need a new vision, a vision that enlarges the choices of refugees but recognizes that they don't have to be a burden. There's nothing inevitable about refugees being a cost. Yes, they are a humanitarian responsibility, but they're human beings with skills, talents, aspirations, with the ability to make contributions -- if we let them.
Hitz batean, ikuspegi berria behar dugu, iheslarien aukerak zabalduko dituena, baina zama ez direla aitortzen duena. Iheslariak kostua izatea saihestu daiteke. Bai, giza-erantzukizuna dira, baina trebetasunak, talentua eta nahiak dituzten gizakiak dira, ekarpenak egin ditzaketenak -- aukera ematen badiegu.
In the new world, migration is not going to go away. What we've seen in Europe will be with us for many years. People will continue to travel, they'll continue to be displaced, and we need to find rational, realistic ways of managing this -- not based on the old logics of humanitarian assistance, not based on logics of charity, but building on the opportunities offered by globalization, markets and mobility. I'd urge you all to wake up and urge our politicians to wake up to this challenge.
Mundu berrian migrazioa ez da desagertuko. Europan ikusi duguna urte askotarako egongo da gurekin. Jendeak bidaiatzen jarraituko du, lekualdatuko dituzte eta hori moldatzeko bide arrazional eta errealistak aurkitu behar ditugu -- laguntza humanitarioaren logika zaharretan oinarritzen ez direnak, karitatearen logikan oinarritzen ez direnak, baizik eta globalizazioak, merkatuek eta mugikortasunak eskaintzen dituzten aukeretan eraikitakoak. Altxatzea eskatuko nizueke, eta gure politikariak bultzatzea erronka honen aurrean esna daitezen.
Thank you very much.
Eskerrik asko.
(Applause)
(Txaloak)