Beyond educating the public about the horrific events of the Holocaust, what impresses me the most about the museum is how it connects those events to the contemporary considerations of international human rights, including genocide, crimes against humanity, and protection for refugees. In particular, I think it is important to explore the Holocaust in terms of the world's failure to provide asylum to the Jewish refugees attempting to escape from Germany. The United States' immigration policy, for example, was exceedingly slow to change to accommodate the significant number of refugees, leading to tragedy, as with the voyage of the St. Louis. As the USHMM Holocaust Encyclopedia explains:
In a highly publicized event in May-June 1939, the United States refused to admit over 900 Jewish refugees who had sailed from Hamburg, Germany, on the St. Louis. The St. Louis appeared off the coast of Florida shortly after Cuban authorities cancelled the refugees' transit visas and denied entry to most of the passengers, who were still waiting to receive visas to enter the United States. Denied permission to land in the United States, the ship was forced to return to Europe. The governments of Great Britain, France, the Netherlands, and Belgium each agreed to accept some of the passengers as refugees. Of the 908 St. Louis passengers who returned to Europe, 254 (nearly 28 percent) are known to have died in the Holocaust. 288 passengers found refuge in Britain. Of the 620 who returned to the continent, 366 (just over 59 percent) are known to have survived the war.I cannot imagine a world without the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, which prohibits the refoulement (return) of refugees to places where their life or freedom would be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Visiting the USHMM today was an affirmation for me of the importance of refugee law issues to which I hope to devote my legal career.
When I stepped out of the USHMM, I was momentarily stunned by the relative brightness of the sunny day. I went for a walk to mull over what I had seen, and took some photographs along the Mall. I'll conclude this post with a couple of classic shots.
2 comments:
Okay...let me start by saying, I do not disagree with your points. But, I was a history major, and as such explaining the context of why things come to be, even when they don't make perfect sense, comes naturally to me. As such, I feel the need to line out this argument.
While I find the idea of what you're saying about the refusal of admittance of refugees at difficult times to be idealistically heartwarming, I submit the following thoughts for your consideration.
The political climate at the time of the landing of the St. Louis was in such uproar that admitting German citizens (albeit Jewish) was going to be next to impossible. While many historians now fault the United States for its supposed knowledge and blind-eye toward the Holocaust and Final Solution, it is generally understood that we, as a nation, had no real idea what was happening in Germany, much less in Europe on the whole. A refusal of refugees seems much more understandable in those circumstances.
Also, given that it is a mere three months before the war started (September 1939) and a solid two years before the United States was officially involved, the political climates were highly strained. Aside from lending money and resources, the United States took a firm and ardent isolationist standing in this time. It was seen to public opinion that Europe should stay in Europe. No one wanted to get their hands dirty. This also, explains a lot of the attitudes of refugees that were coming in from all sides.
Idealistically, we can help all at all times. But this is never really going to be the case. The ideals of individuals rights and privileges are thrown out the window in times of "national security". We have seen this theme time and time again. The interest of home always has, and likely always will, win out over the idealistic stance of helping all.
Again, don't get me wrong here, I'm not disagreeing with you. But, I was a history major, I feel the strong and overwhelming urge to explain why it has come to pass.
Thank you for pointing out the context of the St. Louis, Siobhan. I do not bring up the St. Louis to condemn the United States in particular. You are absolutely right that no nation wanted to get involved--the Evian Conference made that clear (see http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005520). I was looking at the St. Louis as a comparative tool--i.e., would this have happened today, with the Refugee Convention in effect?
Sadly, as I have learned in my study of refugee law, the answer is yes. Asylum seekers at sea continue to face the same challenges today. We have seen as recently as 2001, when the MV Tampa was refused landing by the Australian government because it had picked up over 400 asylum seekers, mostly from Afghanistan, from a foundering vessel near Australian waters (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampa_affair).
My point is that we need to work harder to protect the international human rights of refugees today, given that we have the Refugee Convention, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and a myriad of other international instruments. I recognize that we also need to protect ourselves from threats to national security, but, as Benjamin Franklin once wrote, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Post a Comment