 My name is Khaled Cosa. I am the Executive Director of the Global Community Engagement and Resilience Fund. I also chair the World Economic Forum's Global Agenda Council on Migration. It's an honour for me to be moderating this session on humanity on the move. We've been asked to adopt a particular focus for this session. We're going to focus on involuntary migration, not the 240 million people who move largely voluntarily, largely to work, but the 60 million people or so who are moving against their will, fleeing persecution, fleeing conflict, fleeing human rights abuse. IDPs, asylum seekers, refugees. We've also been asked to not just adopt a humanitarian lens, although clearly this is a humanitarian, very pressing humanitarian issue, but also to think more widely about some of the social and economic consequences. What are the opportunities? What are the challenges? How can we intervene to increase those opportunities? How can we help these people make better lives in the sorts of places that they're moving to at the moment? We will try to get a range of perspectives, a private set of perspective. Human Rights Watch, we have here too. The UN will be joining us shortly. I suspect we'll spend a lot of time discussing Syria, possibly Europe's so-called refugee crisis as well, but this is a global issue and I hope we can adopt a global perspective too. Let's start if we could with Ken Roth, known to many of you, of course, a Directive Human Rights Watch. Ken, what's your perspectives? I think it makes sense to focus on Syria. That's obviously the primary cause of at least the refugee flight to Europe. It's a good illustration of the sorts of problems that we encounter in generating refugees and receiving refugees from around the world. The reason that Syria represents roughly half of the refugees fleeing to Europe today is because the Assad government has chosen to fight this war in a particularly ugly way. Wars are supposed to be fought according to the Geneva Conventions with combatants shooting at combatants. Assad has chosen to fight this war by targeting civilians and civilian institutions where the civilians happen to live in opposition hell areas. The idea is to depopulate these areas, demonstrate this is what happens if the opposition takes over. When he dumps, say, barrel bombs on cities like Idlib or the opposition parts of Aleppo, the consequence is that there's no place safe in those areas for people to be. In an ordinary war, you move your family away from the front line, you get a modicum of safety. In this war, you move away from the front line, you're more likely to be barrel bombed because these are so indiscriminate that Assad doesn't dare drop them near the front line, he just dumps them onto cities behind the front line. So what are your choices? You could go to the government parts of Syria, but then you're stuck with Assad, or you flee abroad. That's why we've had four million Syrians flee. ISIS is part of it, people escaping the draft is part of it, but the vast majority are just escaping the barrel bombs, the sieges, the executions and torture. So that's one thing to remember. Second, if you look at why are people not staying in Turkey, Lebanon or Jordan, it's because it's very difficult to envision one's long-term life there. You know, as a short-term refuge, yes. But to get people to say, I'm going to rebuild my life here, they've got to be able to work, they've got to be able to send their children to school, they've got to be able to have housing and food. Now Turkey's moving in that direction, they've just announced that they will allow people to work. But in the other countries, it's very difficult for that to happen. And so people are facing the prospect of having to sell off their daughters to child marriage or they're vulnerable to traffickers and the like. So they instead say we're better off going to Europe, even though that means risking our lives on one of these rickety boats. And that's why a million have taken that step. Final point is that if you look from the European perspective, Europe has basically said you don't get here unless you risk your life on one of these boats across the Mediterranean. Now that's an inhumane approach to the asylum seekers. It's also a not very smart approach to security. Everybody's talking about the refugees as a security threat because ISIS might infiltrate among them. That may happen, although our experience has been actually that refugees are much more law-abiding than even long-term citizens. But I think we have to ask why is Europe not setting up safe and legal channels for people to apply for asylum from Lebanon, from Turkey? Why do they have to risk their lives? That would make it obviously safer for the refugees, but it would also make it safer for Europe because you could scream people in Lebanon or Turkey. They would apply, they'd be reviewed, and then if they are entitled to asylum, Europe has to agree to take them. But that would create an orderly process rather than the chaos in which the ISIS terrorists flourish. What's your answer to that question? We don't have any prospect of the war in Syria ending anytime soon. As you say, pressure on people to leave places like Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, Europe is not managing the process well. What should you do better? Why isn't it doing it better? You start by pressing Assad to stop targeting civilians. These Geneva peace talks are about to resume again, possibly on Monday. It's not enough to just say, oh, we're going to make peace. They're not going to make peace so long as the opposition sees their family members back in Syria being slaughtered. In order to create the conditions for peace, you've got to end Assad's atrocities. Frankly, ending those atrocities would also help to reduce the refugee flow even if the war hasn't ended. We need to distinguish between stopping the atrocities and stopping the war. Stopping the atrocities really has to come first. Second, you've got to invest in the neighboring countries. The West has cut back in its food aid, in its aid for housing, and that only accentuates the tendency of people to say, I've got no life here in the countries of first refuge. I've got to go on to Europe. Then what they should do is, if those people are going to Europe, create a safe and orderly process starting in Turkey or Lebanon, but even those who get to Greece, they're in the European Union. Why do they have to pay a smuggler to get across the Balkans? Why is Europe not organizing trains or buses and distributing them? According to the EU agreement, but so far, basically, the whole burden falls on Germany with a bit of Sweden, and the others are not picking up their share. Khaled Abdul-Jana, you're from the UAE, you're from the private sector. The UAE so far has not been heavily affected by the Syrian crisis, at least in terms of people. The private sector, I think, has risen to the task and has begun to offer some support. What's your perspective from where you stand on this issue? Let me correct one thing. I'm not from UAE. I'm from Bahrain, but I'm living in Geneva, but working through UAE. Just to correct that. I'm glad Stephen is not here yet. By the way, the reason he's not here is because he was moderating a session on breakfast that I was in this morning about the World Humanitarian Summit, which is going to happen in Turkey in May. Look, last night, actually, I hosted a dinner for looking into the Syrian refugee crisis and how we're going to tackle this. Kin was there and some of the other good attendees who attended this session, which, in Davos, when you have evenings, it's all discotheque and everything, it's fun. This was one of the dry sessions, and I was glad, actually, with the attendants because it's getting very close to everybody's heart what's going on. Yesterday, I attended a session, and she's so good. The report is there, it's in the website, and I think it's out here somewhere, but Madame Lagarde, she was so good in presenting her report by using PowerPoint, which she says she doesn't use much, with regards to the effect of the refugees in the European Union perspective. I think I like to start from looking forward, then going back. One good thing from a European perspective, which was in the report, and this is Lagarde talking, is that for the future of European Union, per se, having these refugees in, it's much more positive than negative. So let's be very clear, it's positive rather than negative, and there is a lot of negativity today, and I think that is because lack of knowledge, lack of awareness is one thing, and people are not understanding the plus, which was going to come out of this in the, say, 10 to 15 years down the road by having these refugees here. That's the positive from a European perspective, but coming from the region, I think the issue is rather than just talking about the refugees talking about Daesh issues, talking about the Al Qaeda problems, talking about Mr Assad, we have Assad's all over the place in the Middle East, and elsewhere. Today, you fix this, something else is going to come up tomorrow, simply because the basic human rights issue is not respected by anybody there. We have rulers, we don't have leaders. As long as the United Nations and everybody else basically keeps lip service with this issue, that we carry on with these rulers rather than having proper leadership in that part of the world, you're going to carry on having this problem of refugees, and more refugees will be coming to Europe and elsewhere, because Europe is the closest place for North Africa and the Middle East than anywhere else. United States, they don't want us, so that's good news. So we don't want to travel because by the time we get there, everybody's drowned, if we're going to go the way with the same way that we are coming to Europe. So I think it's important to look into the causes. Rather than just talk about Mr Assad, there are much more, I mean the years to come, we're going to see a lot of this. If I was actually a historian 30 years down the road, I would say for 100 years, because it would be 70 years plus 30, what's the definition of a rogue state? For me now, 30 years down the road, as a historian I would say, a rogue state is a state which basically supplies weapons to dictators to kill their own people. And guess who's going to be there on top of the list? I'm not going to say it, but I'll leave that to you guys. So I think the big boys have created the problem by supporting the dictators, and now turning around and saying, hey, this is wrong. They don't say we supported the wrong person, but they did support the wrong person. And if most of you do watch CNN, and I'm sure you did see the CNN, Republican presidential debate, and when Wolf asked a question to the 10 candidates about if they are president, would they support dictators against their own people if it is to the interests of the United States? And the answer was yes. So we're going to carry on with that. I think these are the things that we should basically look at and talk about rather than just keep it there. And we are the big countries. We do the right things for the people, but we're not actually. We've created the problem. We've supported the problem. Yes, the people in the region, the rulers, are the problematic factor. But if they are not supported by the outside, if they're not getting weapons from the outside, if the what I call, the so-called, the interest of those countries supporting them is taken out of the window and we really look at the people. We lack in the Arab world. I cannot talk about the rest of the world, but in the Arab world today we have 350 million people and they're all subjects that are not citizens. And as long as we don't have citizenry in that part of the world, we're going to carry on having this problem of the refugees coming through because the advancement in technology and what's going on in the digital movement, the man in the street, the young boy, 10-year-old guy in the Gulf or in the North Africa, he sees what's going on in Japan, he sees what's going on in the United States, the same kids like me. The frustration starts there. If we don't recognize this and that's going to translate into future problematic factors and we don't do something about it today, we're going to have a much, much bigger problem than we're having the man million people coming and we're going to have tens of million people running around coming out. So this is what I would like to look into and really address rather than just addressing something at the moment and forgetting the future. Thanks. I'd like to come back to Europe in a moment. The Gulf States have come under some criticism for not accepting large numbers of refugees. It's really become a European crisis. What can we do to change that? Well, shame on us. It's really bad that we in the Gulf, we have not taken in people. I was listening to somebody very prominent saying, well, if you take Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the Emirates, the locals in those countries are 4 million people, the local people. And if we take a million, that's 25% of our population. That's the wrong way to look at it. Matter of fact, we do need a lot of people. We need people, we are surviving because the Gulf today is 55 million people if we take the full Gulf. The 55 million people that are around over 70% are foreign people. Why not having the Syrian refugees or other refugees from the same part of the world coming in and we absorb them? They speak our language, they have the same culture and we should absorb them and to be part of the society rather than the way we basically it out. And we are so proud of saying we are pumping money into the refugee camps. We are creating schools in the refugee camps. These are all good things because we do need education. Education is the number one factor that you need today. We talk about today, education is the most important thing for the young that you need to have that. But that's lip service to what we can do. We can do much more and I'm not going to talk about the rulership in the Gulf. I'm going to talk about the private sector. It's been very, very bad because most of the private sector in the Gulf and the Arab world, they basically sit on the lap of the regimes. And because you sit on the lap of the regime, you do what the regime wants rather than doing what you think is right. And that is wrong and that's one of the things that I wanted to push up last night with the private sector from my part of the world to actually take the anti-forward and do something better. If I could just add a quick comment on this because when you ask the Gulf States why don't you take in any refugees, they say, oh well we bring in all these Syrian workers. And so if you have a job, they will give you a temporary work visa where you have no rights and they can kick you out at any time. What they won't do is grant you asylum because that would make you a citizen and that would require carving up the pie. That would give you political rights, whatever limited political rights there are in the Gulf. And so they're not willing to share. They're willing to allow you to be one more foreign worker supplicant. But to add to that too, some countries actually do take people not because of an asylum or because of the work, because they want to change the sectarian numbers. So they take them in. So it's for the wrong reasons. So we're not doing it for the right reason, we're doing it for the wrong reasons. Is it the United Nations who should be pushing the anti with these countries? I don't know. I mean I feel bad with what's going on today with Syria because it looks like after going forward and getting Assad out, it looks like Assad is staying. And everybody is basically saying putting lip service to that and nothing is going on. So I think United Nations now, the five beautiful countries sitting there who basically do whatever they want to do and get away with it, I think that has to stop. And to stop now. Well let's welcome Stephen O'Brien under Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator. Welcome Stephen. I don't think we should over depend on the UN. I think the private sector has a role. Clearly governments are to blame for much of this as well. But as you know, the UN has come under some fire. The Syrian crisis is still ongoing and the UN perhaps hasn't done as much as it could do to try to resolve that. Real challenges in places like Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon for the refugees there who are often trying to move on into Europe. And the UN has also been criticised I think for not being vocal enough about what the opportunities are for refugees once they get to Europe. We need a stronger voice in that as well. What's your perspective? Has the UN performed? First of all, can I apologise for being slightly late? I was chairing another meeting in the traffic, isn't it? You didn't know it doesn't matter. Thank you. Let me start from the... Clearly I look at the humanitarian. Humanitarian needs are consequences of failures elsewhere. So the UN of course being a values based organisation under the charter which has served as well for 70 years in so far as there hasn't been a configuration. But we in very recent times are now surrounded by fighting. 80% of what I have to address in terms of the humanitarian needs of the world 125 million tonight who need some form of humanitarian assistance across about 37 countries. 80% of that is out of conflict. Man made humanitarian need. And 20% from natural disasters. So you can see how we cannot duck the issue that humanitarian need is now a function of the failed politics. Both at local level Syria, clearly a case in point and at the Security Council we can't get sufficient agreement across a number of the comprehensive issues that could then address. So in the upcoming World Humanitarian Summit one of the things which would be absolutely front and centre of the Secretary General's report which I'm very shortly to publish by the end of this month will be we have got to get a lot better at preventing conflict. That's the number one solution to humanitarian need. And in time of course the UN has the political side that is expected to try and deliver and we've got to be extraordinarily careful the people who are responsible for conflict are the parties. The UN is there to try and find a way of fixing it and we often get criticised and I fully accept that's likely to be the case because the frustrations of people when they see the total irresponsibility the lack of accountability of the parties who are just going with the fight and there's continual failure of politics where the only victims of the innocent civilians get caught up in this whether they are fearing bombs dropping on their heads or they can't keep their children in school or they can't have the prospect of their own self-worth and esteem to move from survival to some form of thriving i.e. a job and a chance of a future. And then of course then we get people moving. The other thing to be said as contextual is for the whole of human history that the mass movement of people has always happened and it's been hugely to the benefit of the world economically although too often it's been surrounded by the most abominable brutality and so we've had this terrible dichotomy through history but not all movement of people ends up being humanitarian it's just if you don't handle movement correctly responsibly, generously then there is a real danger that slips very quickly into humanitarian and then we have to deal with it as a symptom instead of tackling the root causes. So if I can be forgiven for not going too far down the political track and I note of course with seriousness what you say and that's a context we all have to live with but when I'm looking at humanity on the move which is the subject of this discussion the challenge for me is we have to reach people in need and vulnerability. The only issues for me as the emergency relief co-ordinate that across the system but not given by the member states and I am only a function of the powers given to me by the member states I don't invent powers I have no super powers above what the member states consent to me so we have to be very careful not to raise expectations of the UN beyond where they can be but once I have the chance to find people who are vulnerable in need and to make sure that of course at the Security Council on the Syria I report once a month there again next week it won't be for lack of the humanitarian putting their facts bluntly in the public section even more bluntly in the private session and speaking truth to power but it's what is then done with that which is what is problematic and of course then when it doesn't happen and the member states fail in their responsibilities and the Security Council doesn't get a sufficient agreement but let's not lose sight of the fact where it does get agreement like cross board or cross line that is real progress in reaching people in need that is when you get the frustrations in the UN now to some degree we have to absorb but adequately I think for the sake of the fantastically brave UN people and their delivering partners we need to say but don't say there's a siege there therefore frankly I don't give a damn whether your truck driver get kills just get to the siege you can't do that and of course those who are on one side or the other want us to be partial but my only surviving access to people in need is I hold religiously to international humanitarian law of impartiality neutrality independence and it does drive some people nuts that you are treating neutrally somebody whom you've just described as a ruler rather than a leader and you don't like that but if I was to let that breach in the dam happen think who will pray that example in aid in the future somebody even worse than you're fearing so this principle which has been so carefully garnered since 1860s in Geneva is absolutely ground I have to camp on and the name of the United Nations because that gives me my best access to need and let me take an example reaching the people in Yemen today another area which is terrible in terms of humanitarian need struggling to get the noise of it above the noise of Syria or the surrounding countries and I'm really pleased if I could just as it were put in parenthesis I'm really pleased that the London Syria conference is focusing of course on humanitarian needs for the people in Syria and around Syria who fled but it's also looking strategically at the medium to long term in terms of jobs, access to the economic activity and productivity and making sure that education is there and protection of civilians is core to a strategic approach basically to chime with what most people on the move want when they're forced, it's forced displacement we have to really address because most people, you and me everybody would prefer to stay in their own home or to go back home people with money and resilience qualifications, when bad things start by and large they can choose and they jump on planes and they go and become doctors in Germany it's three years later the home is still bombed out in homes you're stuck in two bedrooms with declining food vouchers desperately trying to survive I spoke to a man who'd been a mechanic he couldn't do it for long because he hadn't got the right papers Jordan wouldn't allow him to continue working becoming 17, last term at school and I said to him, do you want to go home and he said, that's what I've always wanted and my house is still bombed in homes but three years down I've lost hope and moreover Mohammed's about to leave school he won't be able to work, no skills, no education he won't be able to do anything so therefore when he gets on his bicycle and goes around the corner, I still are waiting to recruit him I've got to go to Germany and now, I've got to remove him from the risk that's what's driving movement in these protracted conflicts it's not just a fear of a bomb or a wall to be turned off it is the fact that people lose hope and then you get this terrible added using siege as a weapon of war which is a war crime and it is called out and I've been saying it publicly till I'm blueing the face it's interesting how that is often not reported in the press and they want the political side of the UN to say it rather than the humanitarian side and that's where we get this tension and that's where from time to time they say well you've not said enough because you want to stay on side with the Syrian government of course I must meet the Syrian government and I must meet all the other sides I am obliged to hold to an impartial neutral approach but it does not mean I'm pulling my punches because I need to stay on side with anybody I'm not too close to anybody my job is only twofold after raising the money I've got to get access to that against the only standard which is available in need and too many people want to surround that with the politics of their own fight and that is where we get into the muddle Thanks, I want to come back to Europe in a moment and turning the refugee crisis into an opportunity but Kenroth has the UN performed what's your response to what you've heard Mr Ryan listening to you you did a beautiful job of articulating what OCHIS should be doing speak truth to power be completely impartial and objective don't pull your punches it's beautiful that's not what you're doing in Syria in Syria I'm speaking to OCHIS I'm interested because the evidence wouldn't support you let's look at the evidence in Syria OCHIS drafted a so-called humanitarian response plan which outlines how it's going to deliver aid to the most needy I have a copy of the draft it then handed it to the Syrian government and the Syrian government edited it they took out all reference to conflict Syria is just a it's an earthquake or it's a typhoon it's a humanitarian disaster with no reference to violence they took out any reference to the Syrian NGOs that are actually the only ones who really have access to the people most in need in the opposition areas it's only government-approved NGOs who are in there they took out any reference to demining which is urgently needed in opposition health idlib the government didn't want that to happen Sieges, truth to power did you know the sieges just rained down from the sky? nobody's responsible for the sieges it's not mentioned who did what there now why does OCHIS do this? it's not a matter of meeting with the son of course you gotta meet with the government you meet with whomever but OCHIS decided to prioritize being physically in Damascus rather than reaching the people most in need and if that's your priority sitting in the four seasons in Damascus you first of all even within government held areas OCHIS reaching not the people most in need but the people most politically connected but more to the point Douma down the road 10 miles down the road besieged for years OCHIS rarely gets in there Medaille you got in not because of negotiations but because MSF went public suddenly there were pictures of starving babies and then that public diplomacy got you in in terms of the cross-border aid from Turkey which is the key to getting to oppositional areas the security council has authorized this it's a matter of prioritizing good relations with the government rather than getting to the people who are most in need now you could say the UN is a club of governments what are you going to do but there are plenty of UN agencies whose first priority is good relations with the government OCHIS was set up to be something different OCHIS was supposed to prioritize getting to the people most in need and what you instead have done is to prioritize good relations with the government they are editing your humanitarian response plan and they are restricting what you are doing leaving the government of the economic pressure of sustaining its people the people in the government held areas prioritizing that rather than the ones in the besieged areas or even the one in opposition held areas by promoting the Syrian NGOs who have been excised from your plan who are the ones who are getting to those most in need in those other areas I have to dispute that totally and I can't let that go because part of the practice was somewhat surrounded by opinion rather than evidence and let me be absolutely clear in response plan specifically it is a tool which we have to use as the UN in order to make our needs overview for the year and that then gets aggregated so I had to announce very sadly that the world now needs 20 billion dollars to save a prioritized 87.6 million people this year and we ended last year only 53% funding to get that published I am required under all the resolutions like it or not and please if you really want to change the parameters that is where we have to have the agreement of the states in order to publish in order to do that first of all in Syria again like it or not they have a law and their law is anybody who is involved in removing unexploded ordinance is legitimately a target they are regarded as a combatant it is the law of Syria they are not like UNMAS people who are going for the benefit of the broader society to make places safer and so that had to be removed because it was contrary to the Syrian law you and I agree we wish that law didn't exist speak truth to power because then I go to the Security Council and in my speech which I'm sure you've read I made that very point publicly it can't be in the HRP you wouldn't be careful not to put too much on the HRP it's a specific tool to get the estimated needs for the humanitarian plan going forward it is not to do with the factual truth to power which is my reports to the Security Council moreover the idea that I should be more concerned whether it's Ocho and Damascus or anywhere else to have a relationship with the Syrian government and I am in meeting the people's needs is deeply to do a disservice to the very brave people like Yaku Belfilo who's been negotiating with everybody in sight for months on end of course it's helpful in some ways when the publicity suddenly takes off there was a long campaign in Medaille which generated from last autumn but that wasn't the click if I know you're wrong you don't know the inside story you think you do but what was wrong is it nearly put it off track we were in jolly near danger of losing the cross line that day it all came out because suddenly there was a reaction not just from the Syrian government and let me be clear I don't know who you talk to but also from the other parties saying actually we think we can get more now it's all gone public so suddenly the deal we had on the table was to get my trucks and to send them through the lines where a sniper may take out the truck driver I mustn't do that I have a duty to save lives but also to look after the people who want to get to save those lives so that is why people like Yaku Belfilo and the others incredibly brave this is nothing to do with being more on side with the other this is finding a negotiation through a terribly difficult complex risky business instead of us all hoping that things can happen from where we sit and I have a responsibility to the people who deliver as much as the people we're trying to save so please don't don't undermine the bravery and the sacrifice of incredibly courageous people because you're concerned about the optics of something which is happening in Syria I'm not concerned about the optics I want the reality of getting to people in need I mean Yaku Belfilo he's the one who delivered the humanitarian response plan he went from his office in the four seasons to the government he delivered food in the siege area he didn't even come and die in the siege until three months into when people were already starving so again and of course nobody was ever responsible for the siege there it's just besieged by unknown parties you know it's an act of God well the siege is the responsibility of the parties which party this conversation will continue certainly offline the other way around let's just I don't know what you're reading because I've said it people have come here many sparrants shaking their head we had this conversation yesterday we say it but who reads what because how much more can I say what I say you've said it clearly let's spend a few more minutes on humanity on the move which is what we're here to discuss how much more? we need a chance to get there 30 million people absolutely under siege by the government 600,000 civilians under siege by the government government of Syria and government of Russia over their populations besieged by Isis you're not even admitting who's besieging the populations let alone delivering aid there and I've just said you've articulated a 3.2 billion dollar plan in the humanitarian response plan more than half of which is going directly to Damascus and with all due respect you can't authorise the convoy anywhere only the government can do that and only SAC can deliver it and we all know that the last convoy delivered to Madaire was full of contaminated biscuits and hundreds of children got sick and many many children have died already and as a pediatrician public health expert who works across Syria I do know for those biscuits in the last convoy we're not contaminated we've got to be very careful with the facts they weren't I'm going to make a valiant effort we've been desperate to get to the children I know it's tough for Yakub when he lives at the four seasons and he has travelled to Madaire he's brave but he's not as brave as the thousands and thousands of Syrians working across northern Syria delivering aid to the 13 million people outside government control those are the brave Syrians and we are they are delivery partners I mean the UN is not these are not two worlds apart these are where the whole partnership is coming together but it takes a lot of negotiation for safe access we can't simply say a resolution is passed therefore you need to be in Syria today we have to negotiate safe access otherwise we put people at risk you are not encouraging me to send people into harm's way are you as it stands has the authority in government areas and you do not have the ability to cross lines the aid comes across borders from Turkey 20 million people living in Syria the government areas 6.5 million 13 million people receive aid delivered by the Syrians the tens of thousands delivering aid across northern Syria well out of Otis Reach well out of the people that are most in need so when you speak about impartiality they are the most in need raising the money is equally part of our responsibility Otis as you know are coordinating mechanism it's not let's try not to be so pejorative I think that you've got to be careful there has to be security for the people there has to be security for people who are going to put themselves in these churches and those who choose to be in NGO work that is entirely their choice and it's hugely admirable but the UN has a responsibility over many many decades to make sure its people are not put deliberately at risk that is not something surely you would want it's certainly not something I'm allowed even to contemplate I have to make sure that those who selflessly seek to help others are not deliberately put in harm's way and if you would wish to change that as a matter of fact then that is at a much higher level as to what the true mandate and remit of the United Nations is Let me temporarily end this excitement we will come to the audience in a moment for questions on anything you've heard but I just want to do one final round with a panellist on something that we've discussed briefly not Syria specific and Carla let's start with you you mentioned lots of refugees coming to Europe often seen as a security threat as a crisis, as a problem there is clearly the opportunity to turn this into something positive what can we do to do that? why aren't we doing it? You do get the cologne issue you're going to get a bit of that coming into the picture which we make it a much bigger picture then you get the Hungarian Prime Minister saying Europe is not for Muslims all that nonsense is there but if we see the numbers I'm talking numbers and I'm talking Christine Lagarde she didn't say it because her team did it because she made sure that it is the right thing to say she came up with the numbers and when you look at the numbers in the first years and I think it's important in the first years especially these 15, 17, 18, 20 year old kids who come in from the refugee perspective that we do look after those guys because there is a threat that they can't move on the other side and that's a big big problem and that is a different issue which I like to tackle after this and that element is important that we mat and we get them jobs we get them basically work permits to to start working and what's happening in Turkey and what the European Union is doing with Turkey this 3 billion dollar per year or whatever this lip service it's good but again it's a worrying thing that you are keeping the thing away saying oh you deal with it and we give you the money and then you're going to come the entry to the EU issue all that talk which is happening is there but how long that can carry on and the Europeans need to be more I was hoping that these people actually can be more positive economically to the countries that they come to rather than being negative initially you will be negative initially although there is the fiscal involvement yes there is going to be movement in the country but in 10 to 15 years that you will see forward there is going to be much more positive for the countries the hosting countries than people do see the European people themselves they see it and I live here in this part of the world 28 years 18 plus 10 in the UK 28 years and you do see since 9 11 this wariness about having people coming from that part of the world and you don't blame the people you do blame the politicians you do blame those guys who are at the top who use this for their own purposes for whatever reason to come through but I think it's positive rather than negative and we should basically from an European perspective get these people in but I'd like to say come back to the main point Steven is right he has 80% of the 125 million which is man-made problem I would like to see that the man-made problem stopped and here we cannot say that the united nation has no responsibility has a bigger responsibility towards this because actually the five countries who sit there who basically serve by the way all those five countries all together without them any arms into the hands of the rogue states or the rulers in that part of the world we would not have the problems that we have today we would not have the Daish that we have today for 70 years we've been having the Daish problem the sectarian problem we've been having the Al Qaeda problem and we're going to carry on something else is going to be Fahesh, Mahesh whatever and 10 years down the road this thing is just going to escalate the 125 million suddenly can turn out to be very careful that they need to make a move the European Union they need to have much more of a voice than they've had in the past they have to be as much as it's good to be cross-Atlantic partnership but they need to be a partner rather than just basically a listener and being basically a poodle they need to basically be part of this and because it affects them more than anywhere else in the west so they need to push this I need to see that we need to deal with what you said the problem in hand today I as a business community person I would say one of the best thing we can do from our part of the world is education we need to invest in education we need to make sure the 6 year old, 7 year old, 8 year old refugee has a proper education because he could end up being in a negative area if we don't really look after them and we need to do something about that and do it positively rather than just basically I blame somebody else which we are very good at and we help our part of the world so that's something dealing with the issue today but my worry is the issue of tomorrow is that we're going to create much much more of this problem in the future if we don't really face up and say you say that I call them the leaders that I call them rulers I'm sorry they are not leaders if there was leadership in that part of the world we would not be in the mess that we are in today so I think we got to basically stand up and say no arms nothing to these rulers because the more you give them arms the more you're going to have a problem of refugees the more of the diocese of this world will come through and that is going to be a cycle which carries on having a problem for us so we need to stop that deal with the problem of today, the humanitarian issue but let's stop having another humanitarian problem in the future except of course natural disasters that is out of our hand Ken do you think we have the political leadership in this part of the world I mean the research is clear that if properly managed refugee flows can be an opportunity they can contribute towards multiculturalism and so on and so forth but I think most Europeans don't believe that they think these refugees are a risk they think they're potential terrorists they look to cologne, they look to Paris they look to their jobs, they look to unemployment how can we communicate better the positives well first of all I think we have to recognize that the numbers here are manageable I mean even though a million is a big number it's Europe's population the European Union as a whole is 500 million so we're talking about 0.2% of the EU's population now that's bigger if they all go to Germany if you've got a million in Germany you're dealing with 1.25% but compare that to Turkey where the refugees are 3% of the population or look at Lebanon where the refugees are 22, 23% of the population so rich Europe could handle this as an economic matter and what they're worried about is really part security and part culture on the security side we know from experience that first generation refugees are enormously grateful to be there and so they actually have a much lower crime rate than ordinary citizens and you see this around the world it's the second generation which could be a problem if they're not adequately integrated but this is where Europe is sort of deceiving itself by focusing on this current flow rather than looking at the banlieu of Paris or Molenbeck in Brussels there are long-term citizens people who are born in the country who see themselves as French or Belgian or German but who feel socially excluded they don't have the educational or job opportunities they're harassed by the police they never are perceived as full citizens most of them just you know, barren but some small minority will be taken in by the jihadist ideology but that's really the focus is Europe doing what it should be doing to integrate people the other element of this is is really cultural and the fact that these people are in one Arab into Muslim is what's bothering people and this I think goes to the sense of many European nations as nation states defined by ethnicity and religion rather than defined by citizenship and those who are from inherently multicultural societies like Australia like the United States it's harder to conceive that but if you're from Germany or France you think that ethnicity matters more than citizenship and indeed many of these countries don't even grant citizenship on the basis of where you're born your blood matters more and there's a real need for Europe to change that in this mobile world with populations moving we've got to accept that multiculturalism is reality and Europe's just got to do a much better job of genuinely integrating people and providing the education and the job opportunities and really the cultural acceptance that's so far is often lacking Stephen put aside your UN hat for a moment you're a European, you've enjoyed the benefits of multiculturalism you clearly would agree with what Ken has said but Europeans don't listen to him how can we communicate this better how can we try to convey the idea that these refugees are not a threat that there's an opportunity there well I would certainly not ever claim to put myself in the position of a refugee in Africa, clearly with a name like O'Brien I've been part of the movement around Europe as I said earlier there's always been mass movement of people and if you actually analyse it it's been to the massive net benefit both of the people and of the place where they've come to and I think that the sad thing has become very complicated by conflict and the flight through displacement but I think also it's interesting when I think about the private sector and education being such a focus I think you're absolutely right that that's an enormous contribution partnership that the private sector can make to this way forward I would add that I think it is helpful to give people access to the newest technologies so that they can find themselves also becoming multilingual because language and communication becomes so important education and skills I would argue and access to the self-esteem that you get from having a job and particularly for the first generation as Ken says is absolutely vital the difficulty is by not addressing the sense of engagement and belonging legitimacy that it's the second generation that tends to feel alienated disengaged and we've seen that in other context not just Europe to some degree that's been part of why in the last three years before I was doing this job to have been engaged in the Sahel moving from an endemic and challenged part of the world to something which became a deep security part of the world to the northern Mali feeling totally disengaged for decades for itself it's a similar phenomenon so in Europe where you have access to a much greater economic opportunity it becomes confused where people are worried about it being a zero sum game of carving up the cake well the whole point about these economies is they're built upon the ability and the aspiration of growth by definition if you have more people who can be productive active you enhance the growth opportunity and therefore if the cake's getting bigger it's a win-win so I think that is an equal argument for Europe as it is for discussing with the Jordanians about how those who are refugees in Jordan should have the chance to work because it will be of benefit to that economy as well and when people can go home it will leave a job vacancy for somebody who is residing in Jordan and for those who then choose through asylum to stay that would be part of the future economy so I think that this is there is a confusion between economic opportunity which of course tends to drive a lot of it but so is security but that's becoming questionable with the globalization of insecurity but I think this question of it was a phrase used yesterday that there is a sort of instinct both in the receiving countries and to some degree in some of the people who were moving or have moved and it was suggested, I don't know the answer to this but it was suggested it's quite an important point to think about is perhaps there's a real resistance to being integrated people want to do want naturally we all do preserve a certain distinct sense of identity belonging and I think that's where we need to be careful not to get terribly bound up with integration versus multicultural argument if we give people opportunity and we respect their chance for engagement and I'm a huge supporter that we need to be generous and actually move beyond that word generous to something which is just a natural part of the flow of the way human beings operate is that we can see the win-win for everybody and the societies get stronger and it is particularly the second generation it is particularly making sure that people feel that they have earned and have a stake in the future of where they are rather than who they are we have ten minutes to go I think this is an action if I may I think it's a two way issue it's not just a one way thing we talk about receiving countries we need to integrate the people in but I think that people coming in they have to go through this process too it brings me to the main point again that coming from being a subject to becoming a citizen that's a very difficult thing to do it's not going to happen overnight it takes time so the receiving end you need to appreciate it's going to take time from the coming end you need to understand that you have to give up a lot of things in order that you do become a citizen and really be evolved through the citizenry so I think citizenry is the most important factor for people coming in it brings me to the transition period now specifically now but we like it or not being a Muslim is a bad thing to be I mean you're a good old Trump Trumpy I call him these days he doesn't want us there because he doesn't want us to go to that part because we're bad guys with Muslims or what's his name Carson whatever his name is Ben Carson says that all these refugees are basically dogs with black rabies those are things that actually if you say it to so for me that's anti-Semitic I'm a Muslim-Semitic so I take that to be anti-Semitic and anti-Semitic I'm bringing it to perspective no I'm bringing it to perspective that we have to accept that from a transition period that people coming in there is going to be a lot of negativity on this issue from the receiving end it's not easy because you do expect because there is politics when you have citizenry you have democracy democracy means you have multi party system then everybody wants to be getting to power getting the votes in and they use everything to do that and we see that around in Europe so that we as people coming in we need to understand that there is a price that we would pay initially and we have to absorb that and accept it it's not a question of just the receiving end but we coming in but then brings me back the quicker we accept at the world line and the Europeans precisely that the people these people are citizens of their own countries will never have the problems that we are having today we might have a bit of that problem but not as big as that we have today let's turn it over to the audience we've only got about 7 minutes left a couple of quick questions introduce yourself and we'll have one more round of the panel please Jane Jane McCannam professor of international refugee law at the University of New South Wales in Australia thank you all for your comments I wanted to pick up on a point that Ken made in his introductory remarks and it relates to the obstacles that the EU itself has set up to safe and more secure movement for refugees to that part of the world as Ken noted the fact that the EU requires people from outside to have visas when a visa necessarily requires that you're able to return to your country at the end and of course by definition refugees can't that's one obstacle that necessarily forces people through unsafe channels of movement the Mediterranean for instance is not by definition an unsafe water to cross but if you're forced through carrier sanctions and so on into engaging people smugglers to get there it is inherently dangerous so the question I have then is how do we get political leaders in Europe to accept that if they were to change the legal regime that they're currently operating they could make that movement more secure from everybody's perspective. Thanks, let's take one or two more any other questions please. Yeah just one aspect of the migration Europe that hasn't been mentioned yet is the question of the positive benefit that a large a large immigrant community can leave in terms of the aging population in Europe and I think we all recognise that Mrs Merkel saw both an opportunity in terms of the demographic change and the rapidly aging population in Germany as well as a humanitarian impulse. One thing that prevents that I think from happening more broadly across Europe is because there hasn't been proper mature transparent political discussions about the implications of population aging so I think there's a positive connection there. Thanks, any final points please. If I may counter that and some of things that were said on stage strongly I know someone in England who's very poor actually looks after old people. She hates immigrants because her wage has not go up, there's no win-win for her her salary will keep going down as she sees people come into the country. So this idea of win-win I think is not shared by a large part of the population who the benefits are not going to and they're the people taking to the streets against the immigrants at this point. Thank you, I welcome that comment because I think it really behoves us to have an objective debate and look at both sides of these issues. A final round amongst the panellists a specific question from Jane I think for you Ken what can we do to encourage European political leaders to fix the system to make this work rather than people drowning in the Mediterranean to get to Europe? Unfortunately pure benevolence isn't going to do the trick and that's why I try to emphasize that if they really are worried about this refugee flow being a conduit for would-be terrorists it's in Europe's interest to make that flow orderly and obviously if you set up processing centres in Lebanon or Turkey some people will evade them and come by boat anyhow but a very significant number won't because if you had a reasonable chance of getting to Europe because you had a decent asylum claim and you knew you wouldn't have to wait forever you could apply and within a reasonable number of months get to Europe you choose that option and that would radically reduce the flow. That makes the remnants less chaotic more manageable and less of a security threat. So I think that even though frankly the security threat is overblown and I think the real security threat is homegrown it's not coming from the refugees nonetheless given this fixation on the refugees on one way to fix it and to make it safer along the terms of chain outline is to set up these safe and legal processes so that you apply for asylum say in Lebanon it's recognizing you've got a legitimate claim they give you a plane ticket or a boat ticket, a real boat and you get to Europe some place where you can be resettled that's the optimal way to do that it requires generosity on Europe's part but in an orderly way that is safer for all involved. Carl, you spoke earlier about the perception I think was the word you used that migrants can be a threat but on the whole they're positive we've heard an example there where people think migrants are keeping down wages competing for jobs In short time that's going to be the case but again numbers talk bringing Christian legards numbers which has been done I'm sure it's been done in a proper way it shows very clearly that in the 10 years the first 10 years you're going to have that problem but following that the benefits start coming in to the countries and to the economy as a whole so that's there as numbers but I think that point and the point raised here together I think Merkel, as soon as at the beginning of the problem when she was so positive everybody was calling her mama Merkel and now because of the political pressure on her and that's the good thing about we need to understand that there is politics and there is multi-party way of doing things because of the pressure on her politically and because of the colonial issue and some other things which are happening she started to push back on what she was doing initially so we need to understand that there is going to be that issue so it brings me back to the main factor the quicker, I mean here the Europeans if they stop the hypocrisy I'm not talking to the European people I'm talking to the European governments and the European parties ruling these countries is that the quicker that they stop the hypocrisy of dealing with rogue states with rulers in that part of the world and they push down the citizenry aspect and let's not forget, Cyprus Bico is going to be 100 years soon the Cyprus Bico issue and the problem started, I'm not going to blame the Europeans the French and the British for that but it's a reality, it's there we need to face up to this and we need to start putting pressure on that part of the world to start creating citizenry when the Arab Spring, so-called Arab Spring came up everybody was sort of how are we going to deal with this or are we not going to go for it look at the people the way they've been treated when they used to come to Europe before the Arab Spring and just look at them at the border level specifically Germany and how they used to treat people and how they treat people now at the border things have changed, so there is respect coming to the people in that part of the world so respect is starting with respect but let's push down the citizenry and the only way we can do it remember all these rogue rulers in that part of the world sorry, if there is no support to them from the United States if there is no support to them and that's why I call Mr Kerry I used to call him Senator Kerry but now everybody calls him Secretary Kerry in my part of the world they call him Shahin Shaq because he runs the show he can basically have another day of the Americans don't want a ruler the ruler is out they will decide who's going to be there which is a stupid thing, a silly thing the people of that part of the world they should decide who's going to be there and the quicker we accept that and everybody else the quicker we're going to see less migrants coming to this part of the world only because you need them because as the gentleman said at the back because there is an economic need because it's an aging society and we need people to come in which is a legitimate way to come in rather than having it because of a man-made problematic issue, conflict or whatever you want to call I'm going to conclude then off of Steve in the last word I think the solution is before and I think we've discussed it is what's driving people from places like Syria we need more support in the region Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, let people stay there if they can because often they want to stay there and then go back once it's safe to go back we clearly need to address smuggling and trafficking that's come up a little bit integration once people arrive in Europe is clearly a challenge we need to get on top of that more and better managed migration systems in Europe I think the solutions are before us but we just don't seem to be dealing with them what's the prospect, Stephen? I think in the end this boils down to leadership and I think what Toby said about the evidence of an ageing Europe if you were to just look at the objective facts it has to be welcome that people want to come and support the continuing growth of the economies and also the necessary social context because with ageing those of us who have ageing parents we understand the amount of care that you have to surround as people get to the senior end of life so I understand the point that was made earlier very much and I think when you take it on a long time frame overall taking even a historical perspective I think the evidence would suggest that migration leading to economic activity in a sense of belonging if you get that right has a benefit a win-win but the powerful point that you make is that the perception of somebody in a host country or receiving country has to become the politicians' reality they have to deal with those perceptions and the fact that they are unaddressed means we've seen the rise of some pretty extremists both right and left wing counter reactions to what is going on and that's a pretty interesting nexus in itself and so I think it does boil down to leaders looking at the evidence and explaining where if people have a perception that their standard of living is being as it were eroded by others coming in taking their market then if that's true then it needs to be addressed it's a political issue of course if it's not true then the leadership has to say these are the facts we understand and take seriously what you're saying because you have to address the perceptions otherwise you're fueling in these welcome democratic societies where you can hold people to account try and visibly change things for the better if you want to then you're not tackling it on the basis of the reality and you're then dealing with the politics of perception and that is always the tough bit and democracy it does have this very temporal risk that you actually react to a perception rather than dealing on the evidence and that's where leadership is really required to make sure people are taking decisions and just in the general terms I think we should be really very positive in our thinking that when nobody wants to see forced displacement that in its very nature is not humanitarian that is not the internal choice of a dignified individual person or a family responsible person but movement is not the worry it's the causes of movement where they are forced and it's the root causes we must address and in the meantime as I think you rightly said we've no choice to sort of take a breath and think how do we do this better and the world humanitarian summit is a real opportunity to try and uprate everything we do and I think the investment approach to the London Syria conference is a good approach but deep down there's always a cohort going through and we must absolutely do everything we can to help those in need today thank you people are slipping out it's the end of the session we've had a very passionate session I hope it's woken you up on this cold morning thank you