Finding a Safe Haven
Sources: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34132308
Ever since the start of the Arab Spring, major political unrest has caused thousands of families to be displaced and split apart. While some families have connections to start life anew in a new country or location, most people don’t have such resources and are left at the mercy of international politics and foreign relations. Although these foreign affairs appear to have little regard for the welfare of war refugees, a closer look can be taken to understand why it may be particularly difficult for a war refugee from a specific country to enter into another neighboring country, and how networks can help visualize this.
The golden ticket for these Syrian war refugees is to find a new home where: A. They can enter the country with a visa in legal status. B. The job market is lucrative, so they have financial support. C. They face little to no discrimination, whether it be in the workplace or elsewhere. This is a tall order, and even if migrating to the cash-filled Gulf states seems like the most likely option, it really isn’t. Many of these states, namely the Gulf Cooperation Council (which consists of Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, Saudi Arabia, etc.) put “unwritten restrictions” into place in order to make obtaining a required visa extremely difficult for the Syrians. Gaining nationality is almost completely out of the question. In addition, states such as Kuwait are pushing for the “nationalization” of the workforce (namely white collar jobs), and are seeking to reduce the number of foreign workers in their ranks by employing more locals. Most unskilled labor is already sourced out to South Asian and Indian migrants.
Crossing into non-Gulf states such as Lebanon, Jordan, and Turkey has been a popular choice so far, as well as countries that don’t require visas from Syria. These include Algeria, Yemen, Mauritania, and Sudan.
Illustrating a network of these international relations helps to simplify the complexity of the political situation and visualize its “volatility.” Strong, positive links are drawn from Syria to Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, etc. to visualize the fact that they are more open to the Syrians seeking refuge. The strong, negative links are drawn from Syria to the Gulf Cooperation Council states (which can be represented by a single node due to the fact that they are in an alliance and share the same behavior towards Syrians). Additionally, it is possible to draw a weaker, positive link between the Gulf states and South Asia to illustrate the sourcing of the workforce. A positive link is drawn from Syria to the EU since they are generally lenient to migration.
Although Strong Triadic Closure may not be readily applicable in this situation, pre-existing links to certain nations can potentially set a “blueprint” for future relations. For example, the acceptance of Lebanon, Turkey, and Jordan has a positive link to Syria, while the EU also has a positive link. This pre-existing link might foster better relations between the two regions. On the other hand, the positive link from the EU might clash with the negative link to the Gulf, possibly decaying international relations between the two in the future. Analyzing such a network as this could be a good predictive tool.