Within the past years, 12 previous months most of all, millions of people have fled their countries - a big part of them from Syria, but also Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran. Probably around 2 million refugees have come to Europe, more to Turkey and other countries, and EU has so far been unable to deal with it. Its open door policy, starred by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, could be called a complete bust. But there could be a way out, at least as far as Syria is concerned.
The best way to solve the refugee problem would have been to avoid the situation in Syria (and other places) in the first place. But as we know, it's a bit late for that. It's interesting to see that the ones having talks about Syria and agreeing on temporary truce (or not) is not so much Assad, but US and Russia. It's even weirder to see that Assad, whose country has been leaking a lot by now, and has lost half of its people already, is still sticking to power. I'm not the one to say whether he should remove himself or not, at least not as far as US or Russia is concerned. But if half of the people have fled your country, for whatever reason, it would make sense to step down of the pedestal and make room for someone more capable.
Why are they not fighting?
Syrian people - many in EU and US have been complaining, accusing, the refugees for fleeing the country. Most of the refugees are young men who should be fighting to restore "normality". And that's definitely a good point. However, considering who are fighting there - Assad, US, ISIS (Daesh), hundreds of small vigilante groups - if you were to stay, and fight, who would you be fighting for? And who would you be fighting against? Okay, let's say you understand that you definitely need to fight against Daesh and other smaller terror groups. But now, one could assume that Russia, Assad, and the US, would be helping to do that. Well, yes, theoretically they are helping to do that, but in reality, while fighting Daesh, you also fight two or three of the aforementioned parties.
So what should be done?
In a mess like that - you're fighting, but if you're fighting, you need to have a goal (well, besides staying alive and protecting your family), but in Syria, the fighting doesn't seem to have an end in sight. Because there's no visible goal that could be set. The only way for that to happen, Assad, US, Russia, and all the small rebel groups would have to unite against Daesh and it's allies. That would have two benefits - firstly to fight united in one front against a clear enemy is obviously a lot easier. Secondly, if the young men currently fleeing the country can actually make some sense of what's happening, many of them wouldn't leave. Simply because they would see there's hope, they would see an end goal, they wouldn't have to choose one leg of the octopus and fight all the others.
How the united front can be achieved, is of course a good question - with Assad or with no Assad. Which version of them would be better at all? A known dictator might be better than the next self-proclaimed one. Then again, considering half the people have fled from the war-torn country, it would also make sense for Assad to step down for greater good. No easy answer here as to what might be a better version, but I would assume the big powers would be able to come to some kind of agreement if they really wanted to.
But what about the current refugees?
Now, even if the united front could be created, there's still the refugee problem in Europe which needs solving. This would require compromises from EU, all individual countries in it, and of course, the refugees themselves. Especially considering the atrocities some of them have been accused of in Germany, Sweden, even Finland.
The refugees should start by stop breaking the local laws. Stop crossing the borders (even if they are open) illegally. Get registered, fingerprinted, wait until they will be given (temporary) asylum. Yes, it can take time. Yes, the living conditions while waiting might not be the best. But not acting according to the local laws, breaking down fences, running amok towards the richest countries in Europe, will only cause mayhem, turn the local people against them, and by the end of the day, is bad for everyone.
And then there are the locals
People in individual countries should stop with anti-refugee rallies - it doesn't help. The fact is that the refugees are here, for now at least. Whether you like it or not. It shouldn't even matter if you're part of the EU or not - Greece and Italy (and Turkey, and Lebanon, and..) have a chaos in their hands as far as refugees go, and it would only make sense to help lessen their load. Imagine if your country was the first stop for refugees. You'd want help.
So instead of fighting and scaremongering, take in some refugees, make sure they have a place to stay, preferably not a shelter, but somewhere they could actually live like a normal human being. Independent of what you might think, most of them are normal human beings. Independent of the race, religion, or the education level. True, the number of bad apples might be worse than expected, and that needs to be dealt with as well, but it shouldn't be the reason of resistance in general.
EU should quickly help set up new common laws inside the union to address the current extraordinary situation. The refugees/asylum seekers should be given a *temporary* asylum for a fixed number of years, be it 1, 2, 3, or five. There should be social worker/parole officer (whatever you want to call it) per every 20 people max, who would help the refugees, and who would also keep and eye on them. The person should be meeting each of the refugees at least couple of times a week. Basically the person would act as caretaker as well as a parole officer, responsible for keeping people in place, helping with finding them work, and the person would also be someone who would have the responsibility of recognizing the bad apples in the crowd. This kind of system could theoretically help everyone involved - the refugees and the countries themselves.
Assuming the United front of Russia, US, (Assad), and all the rebel groups could be created against the terrorism organization(s), in a year or two (or sooner, if it seems to make sense), the young healthy men should be sent back home to fight together with the other forces fighting the war there. And as the situation would be a lot clearer - who or what they are fighting for, many of those men might be happy to go back and help to take back their country, and later help rebuild it. Obviously not everyone would be so happy to do that, but as I said - it would all require a compromise from ALL affected sides of the situation.
That's one version, one possible (very) raw draft of the potential solution to the current refugee crisis. One could call it an utopia, but then again, it might not be.
,