When most people think of today’s global refugee crisis, they probably imagine masses of people trying to cross into a neighboring country or hundreds of tents lined up in refugee camps. But on this World Refugee Day, the reality is that most of the world’s refugees—and most internally displaced people—are not living in organized camps but rather are struggling to eke out a living on the margins of the world’s big cities. And most are living in protracted displacement. Estimates vary, but the average length of time a refugee has been displaced is between 10 years and 26 years. The real refugee crisis we face is that too many refugees have been refugees for far too long, and better solutions are needed.

The three traditional solutions for refugees—return, resettlement, and local integration—are all becoming more elusive. In 2016, less than 3 percent of the world’s refugees found one of those solutions. Only 2.5 percent of refugees (552,000 people) were able to return to their home countries that year and even fewer, 0.8 percent (or 189,300), were resettled through formal resettlement programs. An even smaller percentage (0.001 percent, or 23,000) were naturalized as citizens in 2016.

Prospects for solutions for those displaced in 2017 or 2018 are certainly no better; with the decision by the Trump administration to slash refugee resettlement numbers, we’ll be lucky if we see 100,000 refugees resettled globally.

The third traditional solution—local integration—is also becoming more difficult as host governments are reluctant to allow refugees to remain on a permanent basis. While many countries that neighbor refugee-producing states, in all regions, have accepted refugees as an expression of solidarity, it was usually with an expectation that their presence would be temporary. As the presence of refugees drags on (and international assistance is never enough to cover all of the costs), governments are justifiably worried about the economic, security, social, and political consequences of allowing the refugees to settle in and stay. As in the case of Turkey, the fiction is that refugees are a temporary phenomenon and will soon be returning home. Few governments allow refugees access to work permits, which means that most are unable to work legally in their host countries. 

But if the three durable solutions are not proving workable for the vast majority of the world’s refugees and the international community is unable to resolve the conflicts that caused the displacement in the first place, what is to happen? The answer seems to be emerging that they will remain where they are—in conditions short of full local integration—and that somehow they will get by. Increasingly, NGOs are turning to supporting refugees in becoming self-reliant so that they can “graduate” from humanitarian aid. Even when refugees are not legally able to work, many do so in the informal sector and NGOs are increasingly supporting programs of refugee livelihoods. Self-reliance—“the social and economic ability of an individual, household, or community to meet its essential needs in a sustainable manner”—is a worthy objective given the paucity of other solutions.

But how do you know if a refugee is really self-reliant? Refuge Point and the Women’s Refugee Commission (of which I am on the board and a commissioner, respectively) both began developing indicators to determine when refugees achieve self-reliance and are now working with 16 humanitarian actors in a community of practice to refine and pilot these indicators.

It’s tough to sustain yourself as a refugee, particularly when living in a country that really doesn’t want you to stay. And it’s tough when refugees aren’t able to secure work permits, but rather are working in what is euphemistically called the informal sector. A lot goes into supporting refugees to become self-reliant; as the recent meeting in Istanbul of the International Refugee Congress suggested, collaboration between refugees and the communities that host them can provide some suggestions. Today, the Self-Reliance Initiative is seeking to help five million refugees move towards self-reliance in the next five years. This is a worthy initiative. Most refugees want to be independent—after all, it’s never pleasant to depend on hand-outs, which are often erratic and insufficient. And it is clearly in donors’ interests to support self-reliance among refugees

I’m glad that organizations are working with refugees to support their self-reliance. Given the current state of affairs—where solutions are elusive, donor fatigue has set in, and nativist politicians decry the presence of refugees—self-reliance is better than depending on long-term care and maintenance programs. And perhaps they’re right that demonstrating refugees’ ability to contribute to their host countries will help to shift the political conversation in those countries and open up opportunities for formal economic inclusion.

But even refugees who are found to be self-reliant and thus no longer in need of humanitarian aid are living awfully close to the edge of poverty. One medical emergency or one abusive employer or one heavy rainstorm could push them out of self-reliance. And I also can’t help but reflect on how far this is from the three solutions originally envisioned by the founders of the international regime back in the early 1950s, where refugees were expected to return home, start a new life elsewhere through resettlement, or settle into a host country with all the benefits and rights of citizens. Self-reliance is only a partial solution, compared to those—nonetheless, given today’s realities, it is an important tool in helping refugees make the best of a bad situation.

       

On May 11, Women of Color Advancing Peace and Security and the Foreign Policy program at Brookings co-hosted a discussion of the conceptual and practical questions facing those who seek to better define American national security interests. Speakers included Heather Hurlburt, Gina Abercrombie-Winstanley, Sanam Naraghi-Anderlini, Grace Choi, Tausi Suedi, Mireya Solis, and Elizabeth Ferris. Following the discussions, panelists took questions from the audience.

       

On January 30, the Center on the United States and Europe (CUSE) hosted a panel discussion on Turkey’s experience with integrating roughly 3.5 million refugees and how that experience can inform the Compact. Izza Leghtas, senior advocate at Refugees International, discussed the findings of her recent report, “I am only looking for my rights,” on the difficulties refugees face in accessing legal employment and the need for livelihood programs in Turkey’s urban centers. On the basis of his recently completed Syrian Barometer 2017, Murat Erdoğan, director of the Migration and Integration Research Center at the Turkish-German University in Istanbul, reflected on the attitudes of the Turkish public toward refugee integration, as well as attitudes of the refugees themselves toward their host societies. Elizabeth Ferris, research professor at the Institute of Study of International Migration at Georgetown University, remarked on how Turkey’s experience could relate to the broader issues surrounding global refugee governance and inform the Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework (a component of the GCR). Kemal Kirişci, TÜSİAD senior fellow and director of the Turkey Project at Brookings,  moderated the discussion.

Following the discussion, panelists took questions from the audience.

       

It is unlikely that President Trump will reverse his policies toward refugees in his State of the Union address on 30 January. Despite his expected silence on the state of U.S. and global refugee policy, there is a lot to say about how refugee policy has changed and will change in the future.

It’s been a rough year for refugees and those who work with them. Globally, refugee protection is under threat. European countries are implementing policies to prevent would-be refugees from even reaching their territories to ask for protection. Australia continues its draconian policy of turning back boats of asylum-seekers and paying other countries to detain them. Countries neighboring Syria have effectively closed their borders to desperate civilians fleeing bombs and attacks, leaving large numbers of internally displaced persons huddled near the borders. Israel is planning to deport 40,000 African asylum-seekers. Myanmar and Bangladesh seem to be negotiating an agreement for the return of Rohingya refugees with scant regard for their rights back in Rakhine state. The news reports can go on and on. And, of course, little progress has been made in bringing an end to the conflicts that have displaced over 40 million people within their countries and another 25 million as refugees who have crossed international borders.

And then there’s the United States, which has not only cut the number of refugee resettlement places by more than half—to an all-time low ceiling of 45,000—but has introduced additional administrative procedures that make it unlikely that even 50 percent of that already-low ceiling will be met. Throughout the country, affiliate agencies that have supported the resettlement and integration of refugees through strong community ties are laying off staff and, in some cases, closing up shop. Our country’s capacity to resettle refugees is being dismantled—and if and when resettlement starts up again, it will take time to rebuild that capacity.

Refugee resettlement has always met the needs of only a small number of refugees—less than 1 percent of the world’s refugee population. With the decline in U.S. resettlement numbers, that percentage will fall even lower. That’s a tragedy for the refugees who were expecting to be resettled, especially for those for whom resettlement was the only option for survival, like refugee children needing life-saving medical treatment not available to them where they are living. But it also has repercussions for the whole international refugee system which is built on the idea of international cooperation. When the U.S.—a country with an unsurpassed record of resettling refugees—turns its back on refugees, it sends a strong message to other countries that it’s OK to close borders.

Over the course of the next 6–9 months, a new Global Compact on Refugees will be developed and presumably adopted by the United Nations. While the Trump administration has pulled out of the Global Compact on Migration, the process for developing the Refugee Compact is different as it is the UN High Commissioner for Refugees which is charged with developing the draft compact. In spite of restrictionist policies and toxic xenophobic discourse evident just about everywhere, there is some hope that the new Global Compact on Refugees will move the international community toward more effective and coordinated response to large-scale movements of refugees. As an American, it’s been a sad to see the U.S. play a fairly passive role in the discussions so far as we have such a long tradition of playing a leadership role in humanitarian forums—no matter which party has occupied the White House.

I wish that President Trump would use his mantra of “Make America Great Again” to reaffirm what has indeed made us great: our policies of welcoming refugees and immigrants by offering to the world a model of the American dream—no matter where you come from or how poor your parents are, America offers an opportunity for a better life. A life where if you work hard, you can get ahead in a country where your talents can be recognized and rewarded no matter the color of your skin or your religion or what happened to you in the past. Many other countries have strong democratic traditions and robust economies but only a few countries have similar experiences of having been formed by immigrants and refugees. And no other country has welcomed refugees and immigrants on the scale of the United States. It is who we are. I hope in his address, President Trump will at least leave the door open so that we can reclaim that tradition and return to welcoming refugees in the way that will make America great again.

       

Yesterday, on the eve of today’s World Refugee Day, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) released its annual Global Trends report, finding that 65.6 million people are forcibly displaced—the highest number since World War II.

But while references to a global refugee “crisis” have become increasingly common, unpacking the numbers reveals a more nuanced story. For starters, two-thirds of the world’s 65.6 million displaced remain within the borders of their own countries. As internally displaced persons (IDPs), they are often more vulnerable and receive less assistance than those who cross international borders. As I have argued elsewhere, IDPs deserve much more attention, but they pose a different kind of challenge to the international community than refugees crossing borders in search of protection.

Importantly, most of the growth in global displacement figures comes from this internal displacement. And if we’re honest, at least some of that increase is due to greater awareness of the phenomenon of internal displacement and improvements in data collection. The number of IDPs displaced by conflict has almost doubled since 1992—from 25 million to 40.3 million—while the number of refugees under UNHCR’s mandate has actually slightly decreased in the same time period—from 17.8 million in 1992 to 17.2 million in 2016.

If there is a crisis, it is a crisis of internal displacement—not a global refugee crisis. On this World Refugee Day, let’s mobilize much more support to respond to IDPs and to find solutions to their displacement.

With respect to refugees, UNHCR reports that at the end of 2016, there were 17.2 million refugees under its mandate. In comparison, at the end of 2015, the number of refugees stood at 16.1 million. In addition, there are 5.3 million Palestinian refugees under the mandate of the U.N. Relief and Works Administration for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA)—a figure that has doubled since 1990. But that increase is almost entirely due to natural population growth.

While growing numbers of refugees are always a cause for concern, an increase of 1.1 million refugees in a world of 7 billion people should not be a crisis. The fact that increasing numbers of refugees are arriving in Europe—rather than remaining in their regions—seems to driving the impression that we are experiencing an unprecedented crisis.

The crisis is that our international refugee system was set up to respond to short-term emergencies, not to refugee situations that drag on for years and decades. The crisis is that refugees and IDPs spend too many years living in limbo. On this World Refugee Day, let’s think more creatively about how to find solutions for refugees living in protracted displacement. And let us devote more energy and political will to preventing the conflicts that displace people—an issue that the U.N. Secretary-General has highlighted as his priority for action.

World Refugee Day is a time to mobilize support for refugees. And refugees and IDPs worldwide deserve support. The scale of displacement in countries such as Syria, South Sudan, Iraq, and Yemen is massive. Some 65 percent of Syria’s pre-war population is now displaced, including over 6 million IDPs and more than 5 million refugees living in neighboring countries.

We do face a displacement crisis—but it is primarily a crisis of internal displacement, of protracted displacement, of failing to prevent conflicts and of fine-tuning our systems to better address the needs of those forced to flee their communities. It is not a crisis of refugee numbers. At a time of increasing humanitarian needs and pressures on aid budgets, the tendency is to use the language of “crises” to mobilize desperately-needed support. And yet, by doing so, we run the risk of making the problem seem intractable. I suggest we retire the phrase “refugee crisis” for a while—and focus on resolving problems which are—or should be—manageable.

       

The international refugee system, constructed in the aftermath of World War II, has enabled millions of refugees in every region to find safety in other countries. President Trump’s expected action to suspend all refugee resettlement to the United States and to impose additional restrictions on refugees from largely Muslim countries is a sad day for refugees and for cherished American values.

But these actions also threaten a carefully-constructed international system for responding to people fleeing persecution and conflict. This system was intended not only to protect the rights of those forced to flee violence but also to prevent refugees from threatening international peace and security. Today’s actions by President Trump, in the name of an “America First” foreign policy, threaten that system.

Beautiful despite blemishes

The system, grounded in the 1951 Refugee Convention and guided by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, has proven remarkably adaptable over the past six decades. Originally intended to assist those displaced by World War II, it has saved the lives of millions of women, children, and men fleeing communist countries, persecution by repressive governments, civil wars, ethnic cleansing, genocide, and criminal gangs.

It has never functioned perfectly. Some countries never signed the Refugee Convention; some governments refused to allow refugees to enter their countries or forcibly returned refugees to countries where their lives were in danger; some have adopted increasingly restrictive definitions of refugees. Financial support to countries hosting refugees was never sufficient to cover their costs.

But somehow, frayed at the edges as it is, the system has continued to meet the needs of both refugees and the international community. The system was based on the concept of responsibility-sharing, reaffirmed in the New York Declaration less than six months ago. Responsibility-sharing means that the international community—and not just the countries where refugees happen to go—will step up.  Countries experiencing a sudden influx of refugees have been reassured by this international commitment that they will not have to bear the burdens alone. It is in our national and our collective interest to make sure that refugees are cared for and that massive arrivals of refugees do not threaten peace and security.

Dominoes falling?

America has always played a king-sized role in the international refugee system. It has resettled millions of refugees from regions in turmoil, not only providing a benefit to individual refugees but also expressing a concrete commitment to responsibility-sharing. American leadership has led other governments to make commitments to refugees, most recently in the September 2016 Leaders’ Summit.  In recent years, the United States has been in the forefront of efforts to address issues such as sexual and gender-based violence and the rights of LGBTI refugees. And over the years, the United States has expressed its commitment to humanitarian principles by assisting refugees on the basis of need and not because of their religious affiliation.  Lives have been saved and the international system has been supported because of U.S. leadership.

The actions by the Trump administration will close doors to refugees—whom federal law already requires undergo thorough vetting. This is a major problem, both for its direct effects and for possible ripples internationally. The move denies refugees the chance to start new lives in the United States and to enrich our communities. More broadly, it is another blow to an already fragile international system. If U.S. refugee policy excludes those fleeing violence in Muslim majority countries, why shouldn’t other countries impose similar exclusions? If future U.S. refugee policy is based on a narrow implementation of “America First,” why should Lebanon or Tanzania or a hundred other countries continue to receive refugees? After all, over 85 percent of the world’s refugees are hosted by developing countries with far fewer resources than the United States.  If the United States slams the door, why should other countries keep theirs open, and what would that mean around the world? If countries neighboring Syria, for instance, were to close their borders or to return Syrian refugees to a bloodbath, the results would be unconscionable from a humanitarian perspective, disastrous from a regional stability one, and deeply detrimental to U.S. and international interests.

       

The U.S. election season was watched with great interest around the world, and with good reason—with the office of the presidency comes great power in the domain of international affairs. We asked Brookings foreign policy experts what this election means for U.S. foreign policy (both in general and for a particular region or issue they work on), as well as what key recommendation they’d make to the incoming president. Here is what they said:

on U.S. Leadership, politics, and the international order

Daniel Byman, Senior Fellow, Center for Middle East Policy: For those looking for some consolation after Donald Trump’s triumph, it is tempting to hope that his actual power will be limited. On the domestic side, of course, there is the constraining power of Congress, America’s federal structure, and the courts. And on the foreign policy side, scholars often point to the international system, arguing that power balances, the demands of allies, and other factors beyond the control of any one country will limit foreign policy options. For those who want the president to shake things up, this is bad news. But for those who worry about a new president’s agenda, this view of things is reassuring.

I question the validity of this small comfort. On trade the president can levy penalties on other countries for supposedly manipulating their currency, raise tariffs, and otherwise destroy existing arrangements like NAFTA. As commander-in-chief, the president has tremendous power. Technically he cannot bring our nation to war without congressional authorization, but he can threaten force and, as President Obama has shown, bomb other countries with at best a weak legal rationale. These are pretty big powers.

The international system is less likely to constrain the United States because of the preponderance of U.S. power. Many of the other powerful countries are U.S. allies and, even if they move away from a Trump administration, they are not likely to oppose the United States directly. The world will matter, but the United States remains the only superpower and thus many of the limits on the president’s power are more theoretical than real.

Ted Piccone, Senior Fellow, International Order and Strategy and Latin America Initiative: Donald Trump’s election to the White House and continued Republican control of Congress is a body blow to the traditional post-Cold War order of pro-Western alliances, globalized trade, and commerce, as well as important negotiated deals on climate change, Iran’s nuclear aspirations, and even sustainable development. The American people have now joined what looks like a global wave of nationalism and blared the trumpets of retreat from globalization. The results portend a dark era of regional hegemonies over collective problem-solving as impulses for national solutions to global threats take precedence. How ironic that, as the world gets smaller and the demand for cross-border solutions grows, the most powerful country in the world has decided to build walls and run for the hills.

There is a major crisis in confidence toward democracy and its institutions, and I wonder if we can recover from the stain of illiberalism that has emerged so powerfully.

Regarding the longstanding U.S. bipartisan support for promoting democracy and human rights as the north star for international peace, it seems obvious that that button is, at a minimum, on pause. Donald Trump has made clear that he’ll focus on “America first.”  But it’s worse than that. The demonstration effect of these elections—the conduct of the campaigns itself, the political interference by  the FBI, the vilification of independent journalists, the threats against minorities, the brandishing of violence as a tool of coercion, the mob rule furor stoked by Trump and his allies—had already cast a dark shadow over America’s ability to lead any international effort to foster civil society, promote the rights of women and minorities, or prevent torture, even if Hillary Clinton had won.

Now, all of the world’s worst prejudices and fears about the United States, its democratic system, and its leadership of the international liberal order have been confirmed.  Say goodbye to Pax Americana, which has saved more lives and advanced more human progress for millions of people around the world than any other period of modern history.  Say hello to Chinese and Russian imperialism, spheres of influence, renewal of radical fundamentalism, higher risks of climate catastrophe, and a return to the worst instincts of human and state behavior.

Dhruva Jaishankar, Fellow, Foreign Policy; Fellow, Brookings India: It’s done. A bruising election that defied almost every expectation is now over. The United States will now have to lick many self-inflicted wounds and confront a world that it no longer has the ability to unilaterally shape and mold. The challenges at home—to American democracy and the economy—will naturally be paramount. But it will not be long before the next president will have to make important decisions regarding the United States’ three big strategic challenges: China’s rise in the Indo-Pacific; turmoil in the Middle East and Afghanistan-Pakistan; and Russia and the future of Europe. In each of these arenas, regional actors will be looking for cues from Washington. For the first two challenges, and possibly even the third, a deep and multi-faceted partnership with India is necessary. This is a reality that both the Bush and Obama administrations realized many years ago. A strong, prosperous, and democratic India not only ensures a multi-polar Asia, but could also symbolize a model for democratic growth just as questions are beginning to creep in the world over about the future of democracy, growth, and globalization. India, not being a U.S. ally nor yet a major trade partner, has remained relatively untouched by the sometimes heated rhetoric that we have witnessed during this election cycle. The next president should therefore move early—and firmly—in setting the India-U.S. bilateral relationship on the right track.

Ranj Alaaldin, Visiting Fellow, Brookings Doha Center: Donald Trump will be confronted with an international community that is undergoing major ferment. International organizations face constrained resources and a loss in credibility as a result of multiple global crises, ranging from the ongoing war in Syria and the resulting refugee crisis, to the belligerency of Russia and China, to the fragmentation of Europe. A wide divide between the winners and losers of globalization has further undermined the rules-based international order.

Trump must revitalize and restore the international system to ensure that global institutions can handle the severe threats to international security and catastrophic humanitarian crises they face. Part of the challenge will also be countering the popular perception that what happens globally doesn’t have consequences at home—in fact, the opposite is true.

Although global institutions are weaker, the next U.S. president should not take a step back. Where multilateralism fails, a proactive foreign policy must take its place. A proactive foreign policy does not necessarily mean interventionist policies. Keeping the peace is more difficult, and more important, than winning the war. Making stabilization and good governance initiatives a central component of U.S. foreign policy will help hold back the void that enables extremists like ISIS to thrive. When our governments fail to articulate and project fundamental values and international norms, groups like ISIS step in. It is both a moral and strategic imperative for the next U.S. president to dominate the war of narratives and to define the values that determines and guides America’s global role.

Making stabilization and good governance initiatives a central component of U.S. foreign policy will help hold back the void that enables extremists like ISIS to thrive.

on Asia

Richard Bush, Director, Center for East Asia Policy Studies; Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, John L. Thornton China Center: Following the victory of Donald Trump in the wild U.S. presidential race, now the work begins. Regarding Asia, the first step is for its leaders to establish personal relationships with Mr. Trump and his team of advisers. Leaders who know each other are better able to reach understandings about the direction of their governments’ policies for good or ill. If Asia’s leaders will engage the new American administration early on to better define where cooperation is possible and where restraint is needed, it will avoid a lot of trouble going forward and lay a foundation for good relations.

This will be most important concerning policy toward North Korea. The governments of the United States, South Korea, China, and Japan—and the Trump transition team—should assume as a matter of prudence that North Korea will test the incoming administration early on. Having that assumption in place should induce joint preparations for a prompt and proportionate collective response (including coordination before the inauguration between the Obama administration and the Trump team). Failure to prepare will make it harder to address Pyongyang’s provocative behavior going forward and complicate relations among Washington, Beijing, Seoul, and Tokyo more generally.

David Dollar, Senior Fellow, John L. Thornton China Center; Senior Fellow, Global Economy and Development: The new president has work to do to repair U.S. relations in the Asia-Pacific. The rise of China is the most important development at this moment in history. It could be a relatively benign phenomenon that is win-win-win for the United States, China, and the rest of the world. Or, it could go a different way. The United States can influence the outcome through its alliance system and through the economic institutions and norms that have evolved in the decades since the end of World War II. This election has seen an explicit debate about whether the alliances benefit the United States or whether we should be charging protection to our allies. It has also seen extreme protectionist rhetoric that calls into question the U.S. commitment to open trade. There is a widespread view in the Asia-Pacific that the United States is withdrawing from the global economy and global responsibilities.

A new U.S. president will have to work to repair this damage. The new president’s first trip to Asia should aim to bolster traditional alliances with Japan, South Korea, and Singapore. After some loose talk during the campaign, it will be important to reassure allies that the United States is not withdrawing from Asia in either the security realm or the economic one. We should be pursuing deeper economic integration with like-minded countries in Asia-Pacific and Europe. It is a shame that the Trans-Pacific Partnership was mischaracterized during the campaign, and it may be hard to resurrect it under the same name. But we should be pursuing this kind of agreement that addresses investment, state enterprises, labor, and environment. A rules-based order in these dimensions will be a positive incentive for China to reform and meet these standards. A trade war with China via high tariffs or labeling the country as a currency manipulator will not induce China to change and will have negative repercussions on the U.S. economy.

There is no simple “deal” to make with China. Firm security alliances, on the one hand, and deepening economic integration among like-minded countries, on the other—this is the best carrot-and-stick approach to influencing China’s rise in a positive direction.

on Trade

Dany Bahar, Fellow, Global Economy and Development: One of the biggest losers of this election might be U.S. trade with the rest of the world. Both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have expressed animosity towards free trade agreements that the United States is or could be part of.

To what extent can ongoing and future trade agreements be modified to fit new political demands? And will the next administration enact policies to protect jobs at home that would, de facto, harm free trade? It is natural that the new president wants to protect the local workforce, but it is also important to remember that the local workforce are also consumers—and trade with other countries benefits U.S. consumers enormously by allowing them to buy goods that America is (comparatively) less competitive at producing. It is true that trade can have harmful consequences in the short run, but the right policy choice is not to stop trade, but rather to provide temporary safety nets to those who are most affected. To maintain America’s position as the leading global economic power, the policies of the next administration must prioritize and address long-term productivity growth. To do so, incentivizing international trade is fundamental.

on Refugees

Elizabeth Ferris, Nonresident Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Program: This U.S. election season has been brutal for refugees and migrants. Vicious rants against refugees and migrants, particularly Syrian refugees and Mexican migrants, have been an affront to our ideals and our very identity as Americans. For decades, refugee resettlement has enjoyed strong bipartisan support in the United States—and for good reasons. But that bipartisan support seems to have vanished in the ugliness of this campaign. And the ugly anti-immigrant rhetoric in the United States has fed into a toxic global narrative that refugees and migrants are to be kept out. Fences and walls have gone up in Europe, forcing desperate people to take to leaky boats in their search for safety—and far too many to die en route. And other governments have taken note. Why should Pakistan and Kenya (to cite but two examples) continue to host millions of refugees if much wealthier countries are closing their doors to refugees and political candidates blame foreigners for all manner of problems?

The damage done—at home and abroad—cannot be undone overnight. But the U.S. presidential election offers the chance to return to a more rational and more humane policy toward refugees and migrants. The incoming administration will face tremendous challenges in addressing the causes which lead refugees to flee their countries. But if we cannot find immediate solutions for the carnage in Syria, Yemen, and South Sudan, at least we can do more to help those fleeing those conflicts. While continuing to uphold high security standards, we can allow more refugees to find safety in the United States. We can support immigration reform and a path to citizenship for many migrants currently living in limbo. We can make support for host communities a centerpiece of our refugee policy. Most of all, we need to put an end to the divisive rhetoric and rebuild the bipartisan efforts which have supported refugee policy in this country for decades.

Robert L. McKenzie, Visiting Fellow, Center for Middle East Policy, U.S. Relations with the Islamic World: Trump should ensure that his administration stays focused on policy solutions for the 65 million displaced persons worldwide. To strengthen a whole-of-government approach, he should: 1) empower the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, which tends to play second fiddle to the regional bureaus (even though that’s where the rubber meets the road on refugee issues); 2) create an ambassador-at-large and coordinator for refugee policy at the State Department, modeled after the response to the Ebola crisis; and 3) create a new position in the National Security Council at the level of senior adviser or special assistant to the president or national security adviser on the global refugee crisis.

On Syrian refugees, specifically, Trump should engage Syrian American leaders, many of whom are the best sources for new and creative ideas to help mitigate the baneful effects of the Syrian refugee crisis. The humanitarian organizations they’ve formed have specialized understandings of Syrian refugees and are uniquely positioned to offer insights not typically found in the halls of government or international institutions.

On a related issue, American Muslims were the focus of intense and often disturbing rhetoric during this election cycle, and President Trump needs to reaffirm America’s principles and values vis-à-vis them and other minority groups at the outset. His administration should reach out to and listen to Muslims across the country, including through local-level focus groups. These focus groups should be seen as an opportunity to rebuild trust and dialogue with Muslim communities.

On countering violent extremism, the Trump administration should jettison a community-oriented approach that targets Muslims writ large. A better agenda would focus on interventions for individuals who have demonstrated a clear and sustained interest in jihadi propaganda, or who have demonstrated sympathy for designated foreign terrorist organizations. That’s an evidence-based, data-driven approach to truly mitigating the threat of violent extremism in America.

Jessica Brandt, Associate Fellow, Foreign Policy: Donald Trump’s victory does not bode well for the plight of the millions of refugees fleeing the violence in Syria. That’s because of his repeated calls for the restriction of Muslim immigration to the United States, which he reiterated again this week.

Such a policy would gut the nation’s resettlement program, which lies at the heart of its efforts to offer rights and refuge to those in need. That would make the the United States a bystander in a global crisis that calls out for leadership, strain the transatlantic alliance, strengthen the forces breeding disunity within Europe, and deny a needed form of support to fragile frontline states struggling to cope with the devastating humanitarian consequences of the violence.

on Russia and Europe

Pavel Baev, Nonresident Senior Fellow, Center on the United States and Europe: The resonance of this U.S. election campaign is truly enormous, in every corner of the world. But despite much disgust about the mudslinging, it is not necessarily all that negative. Observers everywhere may be astounded that a candidate so arrogantly ignorant in international affairs could gather so much support, but that has also given them a greater understanding of the global stakes in this moment of choice. Paradoxical as it may seem, many people now have greater appreciation of the value of U.S. leadership and of their interest in preserving it. This leadership is indeed indispensable in various troubled areas, from the South China Sea to the Barents Sea, and hot spots, from Mosul to Donetsk, and cannot be taken for granted.

One external actor that claimed a far more prominent role in the U.S. elections than it has any right to is Russia. President Vladimir Putin has loomed like an uninvited shadow in every presidential debate, and while he may take pride in this achievement, it comes at a yet-unknown price. The unprecedented cyberattack on the Democratic National Committee cannot be left unanswered, and President Barack Obama must deliver a measured response in the remaining months of his term. It will be up to the president-elect to incorporate this response into a course that effectively curtails the ambitions of a declining but dangerously defiant Russia. This, perhaps, will be one of the first and demanding challenges of a new presidency. (On a personal note: Being a white male myself, I have to express profound chagrin about the preferences of this U.S. minority group.)

Sanctions against Russia—which have become a sort of first response on transgressions as diverse as barbaric air strikes on Aleppo or blatant hacking of e-mail accounts—are useful only to a degree. The sanctions policy needs regular fine-tuning, so that the most biting measures are duly amplified, but some more specific pressure could be applied against Russian export of corruption. Putin’s courtiers are material men deeply attached to their material assets safely evacuated to the West, so every squeeze on these sensitivities registers very prominently on the balance sheet of Russian policymaking.

Matteo Garavoglia, Nonresident Fellow, Center on the United States and Europe: With a Trump White House, U.S. foreign policy is likely to radically depart from anything we have seen since the end of World War II. Or, to become increasingly chaotic and incoherent. Both options are frightening.

President Trump will be a particularly difficult leader for Italy to deal with. First, Italy is one of those countries that, according to Trump, does not contribute enough to the trans-Atlantic alliance. The fact that Italy spends only approximately 1 percent of its GDP on defense will make the country vulnerable to Trump’s accusations of “free riding” under America’s military umbrella. Additionally, President Trump will be able to exercise enormous leverage over Rome, thanks to the numerous military installations that the United States has set up in Italy. The town of Vicenza is host to the 173rd Airborne Brigade. Camp Darby, near Pisa plays a key logistical role for operations in Europe, Africa, and the Middle East. Naples and Gaeta are home to the U.S. Sixth Fleet. Air Force facilities are present in Sigonella and nuclear weapons are “shared” by the two countries at the Aviano and Ghedi air force bases.

Last but certainly not least; ideological considerations will make it more difficult for the two countries’ leaders to come to an understanding. While another Berlusconi government would have been in tune with most of the rhetoric and the policies promoted by Trump, the current Italian government—much like the rest of Europe—abhors everything Trump stands for. As he moves into the White House, the new president should surround himself with experienced Republican foreign policy wonks. They will work tirelessly to try limiting the number of enemies he’ll make.

Philippe Le Corre, Visiting Fellow, Center on the United States and Europe: France’s reaction to Donald Trump’s election has been lukewarm, to say the least. President François Hollande said, plainly: “I offer my congratulations, as it is natural to do between two heads of democratic states.” He added that Trump’s victory opened a period of uncertainty, and that “some things Trump said during the campaign ought to be confronted to the values and shared interests France holds with the U.S.”

The U.S. result comes at a time when France itself is starting to get in election mood—in May 2017, the French people will elect a president. Right-wing potential successors to Hollande were quick to try to capitalize on the Trump win. Nicolas Sarkozy said that Americans are reacting to unfair global trade. For her part, far-right leader Marine Le Pen was thrilled, saying: “the Americans have elected the president they wanted, rather than the one a system wanted to impose on them.” But Alain Juppé—who served as prime minister under Jacques Chirac, and now the leading contender for the French presidency—emphasized the risks posed by populism.

A critical area of U.S.-French cooperation will be on counterterrorism. France feels this threat acutely, after experiencing several terrorist attacks on its soil. Trump did not address the issue during his campaign, and the French leadership is no doubt eager to have that conversation. France is also one of the most active Western and NATO countries militarily, on various fronts. As such, it is a critical U.S. security partner. For all the Republican candidate’s complaining on alliances, a Trump administration must sustain ties with its long-term coalition partners, who are indispensable for global counterterrorism.

On the Middle East

Dan Arbell, Nonresident Senior Fellow, Center for Middle East Policy: The United States will no doubt have a wide array of immediate foreign policy challenges to deal with in the aftermath of the election—among others, addressing U.S.-Russia relations, the North Korean nuclear issue, and problems all across the volatile Middle East, mainly the Syrian crisis and the U.S.-led coalition’s war against ISIS. As many countries around the world are expecting a more assertive, hands-on U.S. leadership approach in the international arena, there is an opportunity for the Donald Trump administration to recalibrate U.S. foreign policy in a different direction from the Obama administration.

The Middle East region is in flux. The challenges for regional actors—as well as for U.S. policy—are enormous. Many U.S. partners in the region feel neglected or marginalized by the Obama administration’s policies and are awaiting a new U.S. policy under the new president, aimed at solving the tough and complex issues at hand, while also strengthening U.S. partnerships with its regional allies.

My main recommendation for Trump is to reach out to traditional U.S. allies in the region, to consult with them, and to update them on U.S. plans and considerations (rather than surprise them).

Kemal Kirişci, TÜSİAD Senior Fellow, Center on the United States and Europe; Director, The Turkey Project: This electoral upset comes on the heels of a series of major setbacks for U.S. foreign policy in Europe, in the Middle East, and in East Asia. The new president-elect has offered very little detail about the foreign policy he will put into place beyond expressions of sympathy for the Russian president Vladimir Putin, that he intends to crush ISIS, and that he wants to make “American great again.” How will these ideas manifest themselves in the field is unclear. The uncertainty this is causing is reflected in the nervousness of world markets and the erosion of the U.S. dollar’s value.

U.S. policy in the Middle East has long been criticized for lacking vision and leadership. The outgoing administration—after long years of indecisiveness—seemed to be moving, painfully, towards reconstituting a viable Iraq and defeating ISIS in Syria while pursuing a difficult diplomatic process to bring the violence in Syria to an end. The administration had also taken some global initiatives to better address the humanitarian crisis in the region. Time will tell if the new administration will continue with this policy. Defeating ISIS in Syria is a goal that many in the Middle East would share, but the key is how it will be done. This is also inevitably linked to what the future of Syria will look like. A policy that rides roughshod over regional and local actors is likely to provoke considerable backlash at a time when local actors in the region will face the challenge of cooperating with a president who was characterized by his Islamophobia.

Fielding decisive U.S. leadership will be critical. In doing so, it will be important to recognize that the challenge is much more than just “crushing” ISIS and clarifying how this will be done. It will be important that the new administration is able to share the burden of managing the consequences of the humanitarian crisis while focusing on reconstituting order in Syria. The latter is going to be a mammoth task that is going to call for reconciling conflicting interests. All this will depend on whether the new president will be able to convince that he has a plan that goes beyond slogans and that it is a plan that enjoys reasonable support from the diverse players in the region and is and will be backed with hard power if and when necessary.

Beverley Milton-Edwards, Visiting Fellow, Brookings Doha Center: Among the losers of the U.S. presidential campaign is America’s foreign policy. The world has watched—at first with some amusement, and then in growing alarm—as the campaign reduced America’s relations abroad to some kind of cruel joke. Serious policy issues were often relegated to the margins of the campaign, and discussions about international relations imbued with hostility rather than messages of global leadership and power. This has hurt America.

In the Middle East—where America must vie with Russia, China, and Islamist movements for influence—there is a sense that the pax Americana moment has passed. Regional actors have reoriented away from Washington and formed new alliances. The 2016 campaign has only worsened this damage. The question is whether its outcome can undo the harm to restore the preponderance of power America once enjoyed in the region.

In this respect, Donald Trump faces a momentous challenge. To begin to recover power in the region, he must go back to Iraq and play a sustained part in assisting not only the military victory against ISIS but also in stabilization and reconstruction. This means extending the current mandate of U.S.-led forces in Operation Inherent Resolve beyond the Mosul liberation challenge.

Bruce Riedel, Senior Fellow, Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence and the Center for Middle East Policy; Director, The Intelligence Project: Donald Trump has one immediate challenge before inauguration, which is to salvage the U.S. relationship with Saudi Arabia. The congressional override of President Obama’s veto of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism (JASTA) bill means our oldest and strongest ally in the Arab world is going to be the target of unnecessary and dangerous lawsuits. This is likely to damage counterterrorism cooperation with the Kingdom and its Gulf allies, making us less safe. The bill also sets a dangerous precedent which could be used in the future against American soldiers and diplomats.

In the interim between the election and the inauguration, he should quietly encourage the lame duck Congress to amend JASTA to give the new president a waiver to exclude from such lawsuits countries deemed by the president to be major partners in fighting terrorism. Obama could take the political heat and sign an amendment with waiver authority. This will not be an easy sell, but it is far better to change JASTA now than to live with it after January 2017. Failure to act responsibly on JASTA, and acknowledging that this issue has been thoroughly investigated by two congressionally mandated commissions, will set back Trump’s efforts to stabilize a very dangerous region before he even gets started.

Natan Sachs, Fellow, Center for Middle East Policy: One Israeli journalist joked on election night that work had already begun on moving the U.S. embassy to Amona, a small Israeli settlement in the West Bank, due for evacuation by the end of the year by Israeli court order. Not only would Trump fulfill the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, which mandates the move of the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem (until now deferred by every president using the national security waiver), but all U.S. objections to settlements or Israeli policy in the West Bank would be reversed, he joked.

Amona won’t be receiving diplomatic dignitaries any time soon, but how much of a joke it was—how much U.S. policy on settlements and other Israel- and Palestinians-related issues will change—remains unclear, like so much else at this point. The identity of the next secretary of state may be crucial in this regard, but Trump advisers stated during the campaign that he would in fact move the embassy to Jerusalem. U.S. criticism of the growing Israeli presence in the West Bank will likely be tempered, perhaps dramatically.

The Israeli leadership will welcome the change, of course, but they may find that it is a two-edged sword. Much as Israeli leaders repeatedly tell their U.S. counterparts that their hands are tied with Israeli domestic politics, such that they cannot be too forthcoming toward the Palestinians, so do they tell their domestic audience—like settlers—that their hands are tied by the fear of American ire. If that excuse is truly removed, Israel’s leaders may find that they must now answer for themselves what strategic goal they actually want. If Washington stops trying to save Israel from itself, as many in the Obama administration see it, it will not relieve the Israelis from the same vexing questions about the wisdom of continued and growing Israeli presence amidst the Palestinian population. They’ve long wished for a more understanding voice in the White House, but they may now find that one should always be careful of what one wishes for.

Federica Saini Fasanotti, Nonresident Fellow, Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence: U.S. elections have an enormous impact on the world—that’s one reason among many that growing U.S. isolationism is a mistake. In an increasingly connected world, it is absurd to think that the United States can disengage, and any void it leaves would certainly be filled by another (perhaps less savory) party. While the cost of that retrenchment might not be felt immediately, it would severely limit the range of U.S. policy options over time.

In my view, the next administration in Washington needs to double-down on Libya—a far-away country that matters more for U.S. security (not to mention the security of its partners in Europe and the Middle East) than initially meets the eye. In the vacuum that is Libya today, radical jihadism has found ideal soil to grow. The cross-border threat emanating from the country—including specifically from ISIS affiliates—is becoming ever-more urgent, and urgent U.S. and international action may be required. But beyond that, sustained support for Libya is the real key. While military force may be one important piece of the counterterrorism fight, economic and political assistance are also essential for the country’s long-term stability. It still suffers from deep divisions and lack of good leadership, and rebuilding the country won’t be easy. But it’s essential for the next president to recognize that delivering American support to Libya is in America’s own security interests.

Sarah Yerkes, Visiting Fellow, Center for Middle East Policy: As the ugly 2016 U.S. presidential campaign finally comes to an end, there was one positive story—the staggeringly high level of youth participation during the primaries. American youth, who tend to vote at the lowest rates of any age group during national elections, came out in droves during the 2016 primaries, surpassing 2008 levels (the “year of the youth”) in many states. Yesterday’s election saw a youth turnout of 19 percent—on par with 2008 but significantly lower than other age groups, and well below the estimated national turnout of 56 percent. But unlike 2008, where young people contributed significantly to electing Barack Obama, on Tuesday, youth, who strongly favored Hillary Clinton (55 percent of whom voted for her, compared to only 37 percent for Trump) were unable to prevail.

Unlike in years past, young people this year, not surprisingly, rejected the major party candidates. According to early reporting, close to 10 percent of young people (18-29) voted for a third party candidate, up from 3 percent in 2012. This reflects a high level of frustration and disillusionment with the political establishment.

The divide between young and old—both at the ballot box and beyond—is not unique to America. In one of the globe’s newest democracies, Tunisia, we see similarly low levels of youth participation. Tunisian youth, who were responsible for bringing about a revolution in 2011, have increasingly abstained from voting and other formal politics. In 2014—only the country’s second free and fair election in its history—some estimated that 80 percent of eligible Tunisian voters age 18 to 25 boycotted the vote.

It matters whether young people vote. When a significant percentage of the population sits out an election, it challenges the basic premise of our democracy—a government by, for, and of all of the people. 2016 is the first year in which nearly all millennial youth were eligible to vote—and the size of their voting bloc is now about equal to that of the baby boomer generation. But sadly, that influence will not likely be reflected in the next administration’s policies, after so many young Americans stayed home.

       

Between the horrifying news coming out of Aleppo and the daily litany of absurd reports from the Donald Trump campaign, it was a jolt of good news to learn this morning that the U.N. Security Council has unanimously agreed to nominate António Guterres as the next secretary-general of the United Nations. While the formal decision will be made by the General Assembly, Guterres’ election to the position seems all but certain.

This is very good news for the United Nations, which is in desperate need of fresh ideas and new leadership. It is also very good news for our troubled and divided world: Guterres has the experience and political skills needed at this particular historical moment. The mass movement of people—refugees, migrants, and internally displaced persons —has led to divisions between and within countries, and has led to a toxic and xenophobic narrative in some communities that can only be described as shameful. The New York Declaration adopted by the United Nations last month and President Obama’s U.S. Leaders’ Summit made important commitments, but strong U.N. and U.S. leadership will be needed to hold governments accountable for the commitments they made. With a decade of experience as the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, Guterres has seen, too many times, the human consequences of war and violence. He cares passionately about those affected by conflict and does not mince words in holding leaders to account. He will now be in a position not just to address the challenges of large-scale movements, but to take concrete actions to address the causes that have forced so many from their homes. It is a mighty task and expectations are high.

Empowered to shift the balance

As a committed feminist, I would have welcomed a strong woman candidate for the secretary-general—but, the fact is that Guterres was far and away the best candidate. He has the experience and the qualities needed to lead the United Nations at this particular moment.

But I hope that in the earliest days of his tenure, he will do the right thing and change the gender balance of the U.N.’s leadership. There are simply too many male faces at U.N. podiums of power. While he won’t be able to directly influence the skewed gender balance of representatives on the Security Council, he will have the opportunity to change things at the Secretariat.

Guterres will have the chance to appoint many top U.N. leaders, and he should do the right thing to correct the sad gender imbalance in the top ranks of the organization.

And there is definitely a need for change, as evidenced by a chance encounter I had while working at the United Nations Secretariat (I served as a senior advisor for the organization’s Global Summit on Refugees and Migrants from this January through September). One morning, my colleague Karen AbuZayd and I walked past a crowded meeting room with 30 or so people, without a single woman among them. The meeting broke up as we waited for the elevator, and Karen asked one of the men what meeting he had been attending. “Senior leadership training,” he replied. “All men?” I couldn’t help but blurt out. “I know it looks bad,” he said, “but don’t blame us. We were all appointed by someone.” Guterres will have the chance to appoint many top U.N. leaders, and he should do the right thing to correct the sad gender imbalance in the top ranks of the organization.

To an outsider, the process of electing the secretary-general seems a bit bizarre. Even though this year’s process was more open than in the past, with informal dialogues and questions by civil society, the actual decisionmaking process within the Security Council is more reminiscent of papal conclaves than of transparent democratic processes. But just as the last papal conclave elected Pope Francis, who has provided global moral leadership, so too the Security Council—through its straw polls and multi-colored ballots–seems likely to produce the leader with the skills and experience needed to push for real change. It is a hopeful sign that the Security Council, so badly divided over Syria and other issues, was able to unite behind a single choice, and a bold choice, for the world’s most important leader.

       

Half of Syria’s population is now either an internally displaced person (IDP) or a refugee. The international community is still struggling to respond to this humanitarian catastrophe, now in its sixth year, with the resources of host governments, aid agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and a multitude of other actors stretched to the limit. In the absence of viable political solutions to the Syrian conflict, no end to the war is in sight—and funds to support an ever-increasing population of displaced persons are neither sufficient now nor likely to be sustainable in the future. Displaced Syrians—whom we should see not just as victims but as survivors—are taking matters into their own hands, leaving Syria in massive numbers and making treacherous journeys to seek safety elsewhere.

The Syrian tragedy is occurring against the backdrop of a global displacement crisis. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, almost 60 million people have been forced from their homes by conflict, violence, and persecution. And a large proportion doesn’t go home quickly. Finding solutions for long-term displacement has been on the global humanitarian agenda for years, but the international community is failing in this task, especially in terms of providing adequate support for refugees and IDPs to become self-reliant, resettling refugees, and planning for sustainable solutions.

All trends point to Syria becoming yet another protracted displacement crisis with profound implications for Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey, the major host countries for Syrian refugees—as well as the EU and the broader international community. Can something be done about it?

Failed by our international structures?

We need to first recognize the implications of Syrian displacement for the international order. The ongoing conflict and the displacement it has caused demonstrate that international structures designed to prevent and resolve conflicts—including the United Nations and regional bodies—are not working, at least not in the Middle East. 

Ultimately, the solution to the Syrian IDP and refugee crisis is a political one, since it requires an end to the violence and destruction in Syria. It was only in late-2015, when the Syria conflict began to affect the security and stability of Europe, that high-level efforts were intensified to address the root cause of displacement. So far, a highly fragile and partial truce on the ground, paired with efforts by U.N. Envoy Staffan de Mistura to keep the warring parties at the negotiation table in Geneva, have not in any way lessened the challenges of extending humanitarian assistance to displaced Syrians. The dire humanitarian situation continues to call for burden sharing and international solidarity.

The dire humanitarian situation continues to call for burden sharing and international solidarity.

To date, the burden of protecting and assisting refugees has largely fallen on the shoulders of major host countries—primarily Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey. The governments of these countries are providing a public good for the international community, and it is indeed disappointing that appeals by host governments and the U.N. system for more assistance received such scant attention—until large numbers of Syrians began to arrive in Europe. Even now, the resources that have been marshaled aren’t sufficient for the gargantuan task at hand, though Europe and the international community are realizing that they need a new formula for better burden sharing with host countries in Syria’s neighborhood. 

A how-to

It is against this background that we propose a New Global Approach for Syria in our new book (part of the forthcoming Brookings Marshall Paper series), “Consequences of Chaos.” This approach would bring together the governments of refugee-hosting countries, the U.N. and other intergovernmental agencies, regional bodies, international nongovernmental organizations, local civil society actors, and donor governments to consider and adopt a new system of burden sharing. The focus would be: 

• Reaffirming the principle that protecting refugees is an international responsibility; 
• Supporting common legal and policy approaches to Syrian refugees in the region that includes access to livelihood opportunities; 
• Reaffirming resettlement as a core component of refugee protection and assistance and re-tooling elements of resettlement policy to meet the needs of the most vulnerable refugees, in particular; 
• Providing a forum for creative thinking on solutions for internally displaced people; 
• Establishing a new relationship between humanitarian and development actors; 
• Engaging development actors such as the World Bank more effectively; and 
• Laying the groundwork for longer-term reconstruction and recovery efforts in Syria. 

We propose that developing this New Global Approach for Syria could be worked out through a consultative process with stakeholders over a six-to-twelve-month period. It would be jointly led by the U.N. secretary general and the president of the World Bank, and could culminate in a global meeting in early 2017. There is no shortage of creative ideas for strengthening all of these elements—from enhancing resettlement to strengthening coordination between humanitarian and development agencies. The main challenge, as always, comes in implementation, to be carried out by a range of actors, including by national governments and international organizations. If successfully implemented, the New Global Approach for Syria would offer a win-win outcome: foremost for Syrian refugees and IDPs, but also for major host countries as well as the EU, not to mention the broader international community. This new system of combining relief and humanitarian assistance with a developmental approach may form the skeleton of a template for managing the broader global refugee crisis, as well as help reform international humanitarian governance.

Some tentative steps have already been taken towards implementing such an approach. In early February, the “Supporting Syria and the Region” conference in London raised over $11 billion in pledges. In March, the UNHCR held a high-level meeting calling on governments around the world to substantially increase their own resettlement programs for Syrian refugees. A deal struck in March between the European Union and Turkey has received considerable criticism but might mark a turning point in terms of regional engagement with the issue. However, what is still lacking is a comprehensive and well-coordinated approach to addressing the Syrian displacement crisis that is in some sync with efforts to consolidate the truce in Syria, ensure humanitarian access to affected populations, and push for a political solution to the conflict.