Reports that the international protection system is gravely wounded may have been slightly premature, at least as regards one vulnerable population. 

In multiple places around the world, countries once reluctant to take on refugees have embraced new arrivals from Ukraine. The most visible is Ukraine's neighbor Poland, which previously rejected refugees particularly from the Middle East and North Africa, but now hosts the lion's share of the 6.7 million displaced Ukrainians. The change in tune from Warsaw and other European capitals has received extensive media coverage and analysis, and can be attributed in part to the new arrivals’ similar ethnic and cultural backgrounds as well as a post-Cold War geopolitical nose-thumbing towards Russia. 

But look elsewhere, and there are similar notes. Israel, for instance, has been the destination for about 28,000 Ukrainians, only about one-third of whom are Jewish, in what officials say could be the largest immigration inflow since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The situation has roiled Israeli politics, with prominent figures calling both to support persecuted people and maintain the integrity of the Jewish state. Still, the government has said it is preparing to receive up to 50,000 Ukrainians by the end of July.  

Or turn to Japan, which has long been one of the most reticent wealthy countries to accept refugees, often taking in only a few dozen each year. But as of late May, 1,000 Ukrainians had gone to Japan—at one point  accompanied by the Japanese foreign minister—where they have received a one-year legal residence permit. In relative terms this number is small and, as with Europe, the policy is tied up in broader diplomatic maneuvering. But the government recently said it was considering adopting a more inclusive humanitarian immigration system, which could have long-lasting implications.   

Meanwhile Brazil, home to a surprisingly large Ukrainian diaspora, has created a special humanitarian visa for people fleeing the war and welcomed about 900 in just the first few weeks of the conflict, despite a general reluctance to resettle refugees from outside the region (Brazil hosts a sizable number of asylum seekers and displaced Venezuelans).  

Notably, many of the protections provided to Ukrainians are temporary and less robust than those provided under the formal refugee system. And these cases are exceptions: Generally, refugees and other distressed migrants from other troubled countries face hurdles finding protection, and only a tiny fraction of the world's 26.6 million refugees can hope to be resettled. Even the current welcome for Ukrainians may well fade in coming months.  

But instances such as these show that the narrative is a complicated one; even as the global refugee and asylum regime writ large is facing headwinds, there are at least some reasons for optimism. 

Best regards,
Julian Hattem
Editor, Migration Information Source
[email protected]