APRIL 22 — A lot of ink has and will continue to be spent decrying the EU's latest plan to “manage”* its present struggle with a mass-influx of migration.

Much is to be said of a plan that appears certain to derogate from the refugee regime’s sin-qua-non: Non-refoulement, a principle appearing not only in the 1951 Convention, but a number of other international, regional and even national instruments. Indeed, many argue the principle has achieved the status of customary international law; but, I digress: I do not wish to take away from these important discussions.

Even as we keep in mind the particulars of today’s situation, I do, however, wish to add a further wrinkle I feel also demands attention. This one goes beyond the shores of Lesvos and Edomeni to the future of "our" international refugee regime, and those who are caught up, hardly by choice, in it:

In riding roughshod over principles it was itself pivotal in enshrining just under 65 years ago, the choices made by Europe today stand to further legitimise supposedly taboo practices elsewhere.

Having watched the outrage deployed when, last May in the Andaman Sea countries in Southeast Asia played what one observer aptly termed “human ping pong,” one finds it hard to not see this characterisation fitting of Europe’s collective response today — notwithstanding the reasons its leaders (lack of political capital; political will; etc.) and its citizens cite.

Policymakers in countries such as our own, Malaysia (itself not even a signatory to the Convention!) would be quite justified to wonder why their actions, such as pushing back boats of refugees, as happened in May (to say nothing of the Indochinese crisis, but I digress.) should be the target of moral outrage, given rather similar calls for exceptions and rhetorical jiu-jitsu Europe’s policymakers are today deploying.

Is not the pot once again calling the kettle black?

Fumbling in the dark with ad-hoc solutions that have been presented thus far, is a sad testament to the fact that European statespersons have not taken up the mantle that is promoting renewed debate about an inadequate policy framework, not just of its own regional attempts to manage migration — and refugee flows in particular — but globally. For a region that spends a pretty penny attempting to export its model elsewhere, I daresay it is downright shameful.

Of course the global refugee regime remains woefully ill-equipped to handle mass influxes; this much has been clear for much longer than the past year, and extends far beyond Europe.

Of course the “Europe” I speak of here is hardly a monolith.

Of course hypocrisy is a time-honoured feature of politics, domestic and international — especially in the face of “crises.”

And yet.

I should hope we are not yet ready to consign the potential for progress to the bin, simply because it seems a foregone conclusion that policymakers in Brussels and elsewhere have not the political will to push the envelope of the institutions of global governance.

Lest we forget, countries that “get” to do the “burden-shifting” of refugees are often/not/the same as those doing the actual “burden-sharing”: 86 per cent of the world’s Convention refugees reside not in developed countries, but those that are developing.

In short, we know that what is done today inexorably shapes the realm of the possible in the future. Arm’s length burden-shifting, with only a nominal nod to the notion of burden-sharing, makes not a lasting solution for neither the States nor the citizens of this century.

What hangs in the balance are not, however, merely a “norm,” policy directives, or the political survival of some leaders. Rather, it is the fates of fellow human beings.

* “Manage” is such a disturbingly dehumanising term. It may well be the language of “policy,” but we should never forget who — fellow human beings — are implicated.

** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail Online.