Being tougher on the migrant crisis is kinder in the end — short-term compassion only makes matters worse
The most benevolent and sensible strategy is to improve life in the poorest countries and so weaken the desire to migrate
THE competition among United Nations officials to make the most irritating comment about the UK continues.
There was the UN human rights expert who said sexism was more pervasive here than in any other country she had visited.
Then the UN Special Representative for International Migration described British plans to build a wall around the port of Calais as “inhumane”.
Now we have Volker Türk, of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, vying hard for first prize.
Last week Mr Türk said the UK needs to “step up” and help to address the migrant crisis.
Never mind that we have committed hundreds of millions to help refugees in the camps around Syria, or that in 2016 we resettled more refugees than any other country in the European Union, the panjandrum decrees that we should double the number of refugees we take in.
He criticised UK politicians for “irresponsible” rhetoric, called for “more understanding” and asked for everyone who works in this area to listen to the “voice of reason within”.
It is Mr Türk and his ilk who are ignoring reason and who have been catastrophically irresponsible in stoking mass migration.
It is time their approach is roundly rejected.
We do not need more “understanding” or one more heave on refugee numbers.
The migrant crisis of the past few years has been a lesson in the dangers of allowing heart to overrule head.
From Angela Merkel’s “refugees welcome” policy to the NGO boats searching the Mediterranean for migrants to rescue, short-term compassion has escalated the crisis, strengthening the magnet that draws millions to Europe from developing countries.
We may see fewer pictures of packed boats on our screens these days but the numbers are growing.
More than 83,000 migrants arrived in southern Italy in the first half of this year, up 19 per cent on the first six months of last year.
More than 2,300 have died on the crossing in 2017.
As The Sun reported yesterday, in Calais a new Jungle camp is forming, with about 1,000 migrants sleeping rough.
The line between refugees and economic migrants is increasingly blurred.
The top three home nations of those arriving in Italy in the first quarter of this year were Nigeria, Bangladesh and Guinea.
UN figures suggest that seven in ten who have come to Libya are escaping poverty.
MOST READ IN OPINION
Last year, when the UK took in 750 children or young people from the Jungle, fewer than ten were from Syria.
From Senegal to Bangladesh, millions have their sights set on a life in Europe.
Antonio Tajani, President of the European Parliament, recently warned of an “exodus of biblical proportions if we don’t confront the problem”.
Which of our leaders will dare to say it — that this surge from poorer nations must be stopped more forcibly?
That for the sake of Europe and the developing world a much harder line must be drawn in the sand between them?
Most will sympathise with those who yearn to escape poverty, especially when the internet has pressed their noses to the window of the prosperous West.
But behind every one who makes it to Italy are many more who will be emboldened to set out on the same journey. The potential numbers are dizzying.
An acceleration of the current crisis would be a disaster not only for the West but for the developing nations who would lose a swathe of young, fit, enterprising citizens.
Long-term, the most benevolent and sensible strategy is to improve life in the poorest countries and so weaken the desire to migrate.
But tackling this “push factor” will be the work of decades.
There are two “pull factors” that must be addressed urgently.
The first is the knowledge that once rescued in the central Med, passage to mainland Europe is assured.
The people traffickers’ ploy is to deliver the migrants not to Italy, but just past Libya’s territorial waters so they can be rescued by the NGO ships beyond.
Though motivated by noble instincts, the charities patrolling these waters are effectively aiding the traffickers, and they must be stopped.
The Italians are beleaguered and need more international support to work with the Libyan coastguard to return the boats to Libyan ports.
As Bill Gates (not a noted hardliner) has said: “Europe must make it more difficult for Africans to reach the continent via the current transit routes.”
Turning back the boats might not be a palatable proposal short-term but until and unless the central Mediterranean is viewed as a route of no hope, the numbers will increase, along with the profits of the people traffickers.
The second great pull factor is the UN’s woefully out-of-date Refugee Convention.
Its definition of an asylum-seeker as anyone with a “well-founded fear of persecution in their own country” is elastic enough, with a little imagination, to cover many millions of people.
It was developed before smartphones let those in the developing world learn their rights under international law.
If simply stepping on to the hallowed ground of the West will earn you a hearing and a decent chance of staying, you will do anything to reach that land.
Only if western countries reform the convention, radically tightening the definition of persecution, do we have a hope of controlling the crisis.
No doubt various UN officials would say such actions lack compassion.
The alternative is dragging out this disaster, drawing more to endanger their lives, enriching the people smugglers, overwhelming European nations and hardening hearts against genuine asylum-seekers.
That does not sound much like compassion to me.
© The Times/News Syndication