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.
Ponekad me je zaista prilično sramota što sam Evropljanin. Prošle godine je preko milion ljudi stiglo u Evropu tražeći našu pomoć, a naš je odgovor, iskreno, bio bedan.
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.
Prosto je tu previše protivrečnosti. Oplakujemo tragičnu smrt dvogodišnjeg Alana Kurdija, pa ipak, od tad, više od 200 dece se naknadno udavilo u Sredozemnom moru. Imamo međunarodne sporazume koji prepoznaju izbeglice kao zajedničku odgovornost, pa ipak dozvoljavamo da sićušni Leban ugosti više Sirijaca od sveukupno čitave Evrope. Jadikujemo zbog postojanja krijumčara ljudima, pa ipak se staramo da to bude jedina održiva trasa za traženje azila u Evropi. Nedostaju nam radnici, ali odbijamo ljude koji se uklapaju u naše ekonomske i demografske potrebe od dolaska u Evropu. Deklamujemo o našim liberalnim vrednostima koje su suprotne islamskom fundametalizmu, pa ipak - imamo represivne zakone koji pritvaraju decu koja traže azil, koji odvajaju decu od njihovih porodica i koji oduzimaju imovinu izbeglicama.
What are we doing? How has the situation come to this, that we've adopted such an inhumane response to a humanitarian crisis?
Šta mi to radimo? Kako je došlo do ovoga, kako smo usvojili tako nehuman odgovor na humanitarnu krizu?
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?
Ne verujem da se to desilo jer ljude nije briga, ili bar ne želim da verujem da je tako jer ljude nije briga. Verujem da je tako jer naši političari nemaju viziju, viziju kako da prilagode međunarodni program za izbeglice, koji je stvoren pre 50 godina, promenljivom i globalizovanom svetu. Pa želim da se vratim malo unazad i da postavim dva temeljna pitanja, dva pitanja koja svi moramo da postavimo. Prvo: zašto trenutni sistem ne funkcioniše? I drugo: kako možemo da ga popravimo?
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.
Dakle, savremeni režim za izbeglice su ovi ljudi stvorili na zgarištu Drugog svetskog rata. Njegov osnovni cilj je da se postara da kada država zataji, ili još gore, okrene se protiv sopstvenog naroda da ljudi imaju gde da odu, da žive bezbedno i dostojanstveno sve dok mognu da se vrate kući. Stvoren je baš zbog situacija, nalik situaciji koju trenutno vidimo u Siriji. Putem međunarodne konvencije koju je potpisalo 147 vlada, Konvencije o statusu izbeglica iz 1951. i međunarodne organizacije, UNHCR, države su se obavezale da će recipročno primati na svoju teritoriju ljude koji beže od ratova i proganjanja.
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.
Međutim, trenutno je taj sistem zatajio. U teoriji, izbeglice imaju pravo da traže azil. U praksi, naši zakoni o imigraciji blokiraju puteve do sigurnosti. U teoriji, izbeglice imaju pravo na otvorenu stazu integracije ili da se vrate u zemlju iz koje potiču. Međutim u praksi, zaglavljene su u skoro beskonačnom limbu. U teoriji, izbeglice su zajednička globalna odgovornost. U praksi, geografija određuje da zemlje koje su najbliže ratu preuzimaju ogromnu većinu svetskih izbeglica. Sistem nije nefunkcionalan jer su pravila pogrešna. Već se radi o tome da ih ne primenjujemo kako treba u promenljivom svetu, a o tome moramo da razmislimo.
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.
Želim da vam ukratko objasnim kako trenutni sistem funkcioniše. Kako zapravo funkcioniše režim za izbeglice? Ali ne iz ugla hijerarhijski ustrojenih institucija, već iz ugla izbeglice. Pa, zamislite Sirijku. Nazovimo je Amira. A Amira za mene predstavlja mnoge ljude koje sam upoznao iz tog regiona. Amira, kao i otprilike 25 procenata izbeglica u svetu, je žena koja ima decu i ne može da se vrati kući jer potiče iz ovog grada koji je pred vama, iz Homsa, nekad prelepog grada sa istorijom, koji je sad u ruševinama. Pa, Amira ne može da se vrati tamo. Ali Amira se takođe ne nada da će se naseliti u treću državu jer je to kao tiket za loto, jedino je dostupan manjem broju od jednog procenta izbeglica u svetu.
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.
Pa su Amira i njena porodica suočeni sa gotovo nemogućim izborom. Imaju tri osnovne opcije. Prva je da Amira povede svoju porodicu u kamp. U kampu bi mogla da dobije pomoć, ali mali su izgledi za Amiru i njenu porodicu. Kampovi su na pustim, bezvodnim mestima, često u pustinjama. U izbegličkom kampu Zatari u Jordanu, noću možete čuti otvorenu vatru preko granice u Siriji. Ograničena je ekonomska aktivnost. Obrazovanje je često lošeg kvaliteta. A širom sveta, nekih 80 procenata izbeglica koje su u kampovima, moraju u njima da ostanu bar pet godina. To je bedan život i verovatno zato u stvarnosti svega devet procenata Sirijaca bira tu opciju.
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.
Alternativno, Amira može da krene u urbanu sredinu u susednoj državi, poput Amana ili Bejruta. To je opcija koju je izabralo oko 75 procenata sirijskih izbeglica. Međutim tu takođe imate velike poteškoće. Izbeglice na sličnim urbanim mestima obično nemaju pravo na rad. Obično ne dobijaju značajan pristup pomoći. Pa kad Amira i njena porodica potroše svoju osnovnu ušteđevinu, ostaje im vemo malo i suočavaju se s urbanom bedom.
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.
Dakle, imaju treću alternativu, a nju bira sve veći broj Sirijaca. Amira može da potraži nadu za svoju porodicu rizikujući njihove živote na opasnom i rizičnom putovanju u drugu državu, a to je ono što trenutno gledamo u Evropi.
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.
Širom sveta nudimo izbeglicama skoro nemoguć izbor između tri opcije: kampa, urbane bede i opasnih putovanja. Za izbeglice je taj izbor trenutni globalni režim za izbeglice. No, smatram da je to pogrešan izbor. Mislim da možemo da ga preispitamo. Razlog zašto ograničavamo te opcije je jer mislimo da su to jedine opcije koje su dostupne izbeglicama, a nisu. Političari formulišu taj problem kao gubitničku strategiju, da ako pomognemo izbeglicama, građane izlažemo trošku. Nekako kolektivno pretpostavljamo da su izbeglice neizbežan trošak iliti teret za društvo. Ali ne moraju to da budu. Mogu da nam doprinesu.
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.
Pa želim da iznesem tvrdnju da postoje načini na koje možemo da proširimo ponuđeni izbor i da i svi ostali imaju koristi: države domaćini i zajednice, naša društva, kao i same izbeglice. I želim da predložim četiri načina na koje možemo da transformišemo paradigmu razmišljanja o izbeglicama. Sva četiri načina imaju nešto zajedničko: sve su to načini putem kojih koristimo mogućnosti globalizacije, mobilnosti i tržišta, i njima dopunjujemo naše viđenje problema izbeglica.
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.
Prvi o kom želim da razmislim je zamisao o okruženjima s mogućnostima, a počinje od osnovnog prepoznavanja da su izbeglice ljudska bića kao svi drugi, ali da su prosto u izvanrednim okolnostima. Zajedno sa kolegom iz Oksforda, započeli smo istraživački projekat u Ugandi posmatrajući ekonomski život izbeglica. Izabrali smo Ugandu ne zbog toga što ona predstavlja sve zemlje domaćine. Nije to. Ona je izuzetna. Za razliku od većine zemalja domaćina širom sveta, Uganda pruža izbeglicama ekonomske mogućnosti. Pruža im pravo na rad. Pruža im slobodu kretanja. A rezulatati toga su izvanredni, kako za izbeglice tako i za zajednicu domaćina. U glavnom gradu, Kampali, otkrili smo da 21 procenat izbeglica poseduje firme koje zapošljavaju druge, a 40 procenata tih zaposlenih su pripadnici zemlje domaćina. Drugim rečima, izbeglice stvaraju poslove za građane zemlje domaćina. Čak i u kampovima smo otkrili izvanredne primere preduzetničkih poslova koji su živahni i cvetaju.
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.
Na primer, u smeštaju po imenu Nakivale, otkrili smo primere izbeglica iz Konga kako vode posao razmene digitalne muzike. Otkrili smo Ruanđanina koji vodi pristupačan posao koji omogućuje omladini da igra kompjuterske igrice na recikliranim konzolama i recikliranim televizorima. Uprkos uslovima ekstremnog ograničenja, izbeglice prave izume, a gospodin koga vidite je momak iz Konga po imenu Demu-Kej. Demu-Kej je stigao u smeštaj gotovo praznih ruku, ali želeo je da pravi filmove. Pa je sa prijateljima i kolegama osnovao radio stanicu za zajednicu, iznajmio je video kameru i trenutno snima filmove. Snimio je dva dokumentarca s našim timom i za naš tim i stvara uspešan posao iz skoro ničega. Ovakvi primeri bi trebalo da budu vodilje našem odgovoru na izbeglice. Umesto što vidimo izbeglice kao neizbežne zavisnike o humanitarnoj pomoći, moramo da im obezbedimo mogućnosti za ljudski procvat.
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.
Da, odeća, ćebad, sklonište, hrana sve to jeste važno u fazi hitne pomoći, ali takođe moramo da gledamo dalje od toga. Moramo da im obezbedimo mogućnosti za povezivanje, struju, obrazovanje, pravo na rad, pristup kapitalu i bankarstvu. Sve ono što uzimamo zdravo za gotovo dok smo priključeni na globalnu ekonomiju bi trebalo i moralo da se odnosi na izbeglice.
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.
Druga zamisao o kojoj želim da raspravljam su ekonomske zone. Nažalost, svaka zemlja domaćin u svetu nema pristup kakav ima Uganda. Većina zemalja domaćina ne otvara svoje ekonomije za izbeglice na isti način. Ali i dalje imamo pragmatične alternativne opcije koje možemo da koristimo.
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.
Prošlog aprila sam putovao u Jordan sa mojim kolegom, ekonomistom razvoja Polom Kolijerom, i dok smo bili tamo zajedno smo došli na ideju, sa međunarodnom zajednicom i vladom, ideju da pružimo poslove Sirijcima, istovremeno podržavajući nacionalnu razvojnu strategiju Jordana. Ideja je o ekonomskoj zoni, u kojoj bismo potencijalno mogli da integrišemo zapošljavanje izbeglica uz zapošljavanje domaćina, Jordanaca. A samo 15 minuta dalje od izbegličkog kampa Zatari, doma za 83,000 izbeglica, nalazi se postojeća ekonomska zona po imenu Razvojno područje kralja Huseina Bin Talala. Vlada je potrošila preko sto miliona dolara da bi ga priključila na struju, da bi ga priključila na putnu mrežu, ali su mu nedostajale dve stvari: pristup radu i unutrašnje investicije. Dakle, šta ako su izbeglice u stanju da tu rade, a ne samo da budu zaglavljene u kampu, da izdržavaju svoje porodice i da razvijaju veštine putem stručne obuke dok se vrate u Siriju? Shvatili smo da bi Jordan imao koristi od toga jer strategija razvoja zahteva od njega da pređe na proizvodnju, pošto je zemlja sa osrednjim dohodkom. To bi koristilo izbeglicama, ali bi takođe doprinelo posleratnom obnavljanju Sirije; razumevanje da moramo da obučimo izbeglice kao najbolje izvore eventualnog obnavljanja Sirije.
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.
Objavili smo ovu ideju u časopisu "Forin Afers". Kralj Abdul je prihvatio ideju. Najavljena je pre dve nedelje na konferenciji Sirija u Londonu, a njeno sprovođenje počinje na leto.
(Applause)
(Aplauz)
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?
Treća ideja koju želim da vam izložim je uparivanje prioriteta između država i izbeglica koje vodi do srećnih ishoda, koje vidite ovde na selfiju Angele Merkel i sirijske izbeglice. Mi retko pitamo izbeglice šta žele, gde žele da idu, ali smatram da možemo to da uradimo i da i dalje svi budu zadovoljni. Ekonomista Alvin Rot je razvio ideju podudarnih tržišta, to kako rangiranje prioriteta dve strane oblikuje eventualne podudarnosti. Moje kolege, Vil Džons i Aleks Tejtlbojm su istraživali na koji način bi ova ideja mogla da se primeni na izbeglice; pitajući izbeglice da rangiraju željena odredišta, ali takođe da se omogući državama da rangiraju tipove izbeglica koje žele po kriterijumu veština i jezika i da im omoguće da se upare. Sad, naravno, morali biste da napravite kvote zbog stvari poput raznovrsnosti i ranjivosti, ali to je način za povećanja mogućnosti uparivanja. Ideja o uparivanju se uspešno koristi da bi se uparili, na primer, studenti sa univerzitetskim jedinicama, da bi se uparili donatori bubrega sa pacijentima i u njenoj srži je tip algoritma koji postoji na sajtovima za upoznavanje. Pa, zašto da to ne primenimo i pružimo izbeglicama širi izbor?
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.
Moglo bi se koristiti i na nacionalnom nivou, gde se suočavamo sa najvećim izazovom ubeđivanja lokalnih zajednica da prihvate izbeglice. A trenutno u mojoj državi, na primer, često šaljemo inženjere u ruralne oblasti, a poljoprivrednike u gradove, a to nema nikakvog smisla. Pa bi uparivanje tržišta pružilo mogući put za spajanje ovih prioriteta i poštovanje potreba i zahteva domaće populacije i samih izbeglica.
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.
Četvrta ideja koju ću da vam izložim je o humanitarnim vizama. Veći deo tragedije i haosa koje smo videli u Evropi mogao se potpuno izbeći. On je iznikao iz temeljne protivrečnosti evropske politike o azilu, koja glasi: da biste tražili azil u Evropi, morate spontano da stignete, krećući na ta opasna putovanja koja sam opisao. Ali zašto bi ova putovanja bila nužna u eri jeftinih letova i savremenih konzularnih mogućnosti. To su potpuno nepotrebna putovanja, a prošle godine su uzrokovala smrt preko 3000 ljudi na evropskim granicama i unutar evropske teritorije.
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.
Da je izbeglicama prosto dozvoljeno da putuju direktno i traže azil u Evropi, izbegli bismo to, a postoji način da to uradimo putem nečeg što se naziva humanitarnom vizom, koja omogućuje ljudima da u ambasadi preuzmu vizu ili u konzulatu u susednoj državi, a da onda jednostavno plate sopstveni put trajektom ili letom do Evrope. Plaćaju oko 1000 evra krijumčarima da ih prevedu od Turske do grčkih ostrva. Budžetski let od Bodruma do Frankfurta košta 200 evra. Kad bismo to omogućili izbeglicama, imali bismo velike prednosti. To bi spasilo živote, podrilo bi čitavo tržište krijumčara i odstranjen bi bio haos koji vidimo na ulaznim granicama u Evropu, na mestima poput grčkih ostrva. Politika nas sprečava u tome, pre nego racionalna rešenja.
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.
A to je ideja koja je već primenjivana. Brazil je usvojio pionirski pristup kada je preko 2,000 Sirijaca dobilo mogućnost dobijanja humanitarnih viza, ulaska u Brazil i traženja statusa izbeglica po dolasku. A u toj shemi, svaki Sirijac koji je prošao kroz to je dobio status izbeglice i prepoznat je kao prava izbeglica.
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.
To se već desilo ranije. Između 1922. i 1942, ovi nansenski pasoši su korišćeni kao putna dokumenta da bi omogućili 450,000 Asiraca, Turaka i Čečena da putuju Evropom i da zahtevaju status izbeglice bilo gde u Evropi. A Nansenska međunarodna kancelarija za izbeglice je dobila Nobelovu nagradu za mir jer je ovo prepoznato kao održiva strategija.
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.
Dakle, sve ove četiri ideje koje sam vam predstavio su načini na koje možemo proširiti skup Amirinih izbora. Oni su načini na koje možemo da pružimo izbeglicama više izbora mimo tri osnovne, nemoguće opcije koje sam vam objasnio, i da i dalje svi budu zadovoljni.
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.
Da zaključim, zaista nam je potrebna nova vizija, vizija koja proširuje izbor za izbeglice, ali i prepoznaje da oni ne moraju da budu teret. Izbeglice ne moraju nužno da budu trošak. Da, one su odgovornost humanitaraca, ali one su ljudska bića sa veštinama, talentima, težnjama, sposobne da pruže doprinos - ako im to dozvolimo.
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.
U novom svetu, migracija neće nestati. Ono što smo videli u Evropi, pratiće nas mnogo godina. Ljudi će i dalje da putuju, i dalje će da budu raseljeni, a mi moramo da pronađemo racionalne, realistične načine da se bavimo ovim - koji nisu zasnovani na staroj logici humanitarne pomoći, nisu zasnovani na logici milosrđa, već na iskorištavanju mogućnosti koju nude globalizacija, tržište i mobilnost. Pozivam se na vašu trezvenost i pozivam naše političare da budu trezveni za ovaj izazov.
Thank you very much.
Mnogo vam hvala.
(Applause)
(Aplauz)