Europe is facing its most serious migration crisis since the end of the second world war. It is more serious even than the Bosnian crisis of the 1990s, when close to 2m refugees fled west, for although the numbers now are smaller the nature of the outflow is different. Those refugees were granted temporary asylum and required to return to their place of origin when the conflict subsided. No such outcome is in prospect today.
歐洲正面對二戰停止以來最緊張的移民危急。此次的危急比上世紀90年月的波斯尼亞危急(其時有近200萬災黎逃往西方)還要緊張。之以是這麽說，是由於只管此次危急觸及的移民數目少於那次，但此次生齒外流的性子卻與那次判然不同。那一次，災黎們獲得了暫時的卵翼，待到辯論停息後被請求返回本籍國。這一次卻無望獲得如許的成果。
Legally speaking, a refugee is a person outside his or her country of origin who had to flee to seek refuge from persecution or open warfare. It is understood that asylum will be sought in the first safe country reached; someone who leaves a country where there is no threat of persecution is no longer motivated by a quest for safety.
從司法上講，災黎是指一個為回避危害或公然征戰而被迫逃離了本籍國的人。這些人在其抵達的首個安天下家追求逃亡是可以懂得的;假如某小我分開的是個不存在危害威逼的國度，其念頭就再也不是追求平安。
If you adopt this perspective, it is odd to say that Europe is on the receiving end of a massive refugee flow. Europe, as such, does not exist. On the one hand there are the countries of entry, namely Spain, Italy and Greece, which are quite content to let the arrivals land and discreetly move on to central and northern Europe. There are the likes of Bulgaria, Romania, Poland and the Baltic states, to which few people wish to emigrate, which are neither part of the problem nor of the solution. Finally there are the countries of destination such as Germany, the Netherlands, Scandinavia, Switzerland and Austria, to which many of the arrivals find their way.
假如你承認這個概念、卻還說歐洲應該忍耐大量災黎流入，那就太奇異了。如許的歐洲其實不存在。起首，歐洲國度中存在一些移民的入境國，即西班牙、意大利和希臘，這些國度很願意讓移民上岸、然後神不知鬼不覺地持續向中歐和北歐進步。別的還存在像保加利亞、羅馬尼亞、波蘭和波羅的海諸國如許的國度，沒甚麽人樂意移民到這些國度，以是這些國度既不屬於貧苦的制作者，也不是屬於辦理計劃的供給者。末了是像德國、荷蘭、斯堪的納維亞國度、瑞士和奧地利如許的移民目標國，很多移民會費盡心機來到這些國度。
Clearly these latter countries do not have unlimited capacity to absorb new arrivals and cannot realistically be required to integrate, over the next decades, an unending flow of migrants from Africa and the Middle East. And, while these countries need migrants, it is up to them to choose whom to accept.
明顯，末了一類國度沒有無窮回收新移民的才能，從實際角度講也不克不及請求它們在將來幾十年裏納入賡續湧來的非洲和中東移民。別的，即使這些國度須要移民，選取接收甚麽樣的移民也取決於它們本身。
What to do? Perhaps inspiration can be found in the case of the Vietnamese boat people, about 70,000 of whom arrived on the shores of various southeast Asian countries in 1989 alone. The situation seemed hopeless, and yet that year an honourable solution was found through dialogue and negotiation. Ultimately it worked. But it required imagination, creativity and political will.
那怎樣辦?也允許以從越南船民的例子中找到靈感。僅1989年一年，就有約7萬越南船民抵達東南亞列國的海岸。其時的情勢仿佛是毫無願望的，但就在那一年，各方經由過程對話和會談找到了一個別面的辦理計劃。終極，題目辦理了。然則，這須要想象力、發明力和政治意願。
In Europe, the key is to distinguish between two separate crises. The first is rooted in Syria’s civil war. It requires primarily an Arab solution, yet none is in the making. Tens of thousands of Syrian refugees have been resettled, but not one of the countries that have offered permanent asylum is from the Arab world. It is clear that many of the Syrians who have been given temporary asylum in camps in Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey and Iraq will never be able to return. It would be reasonable for the wealthy countries of the Gulf to receive a quota of at least 1m refugees.
在歐洲，癥結是要區別兩個分歧的危急。第一個危急本源於敘利亞內戰。它重要須要一個阿拉伯辦理計劃，但如許的計劃還沒有制訂。恒河沙數的敘利亞災黎已獲得從新安頓，但供給永遠性卵翼的國度沒有一個來自阿拉伯天下。明顯，許多在黎巴嫩、約旦、土耳其和伊拉克收容所中獲得暫時卵翼的敘利亞災黎，將不再能回到敘利亞。讓海灣富國吸收必定數目(最少100萬)的災黎是合乎情理的。
The second crisis is the influx of migrants from Africa arriving on Mediterranean shores. While the obligation to save lives is not negotiable, the question of what to do with the people whose lives are saved is not a point of detail. This obviously escaped the Italian authorities when they launched Mare Nostrum, a well-meaning effort to save drowning migrants, which played into the hands of smugglers and encouraged further departures.
第二個危急是從非洲湧向地中海海岸的移民潮。只管救濟性命是沒得磋商的義務，但該如那邊置這些被救濟的性命可不是甚麽細枝小節的題目。意大利政府在啟動“咱們的海”(Mare Nostrum)行為時，明顯疏忽了這一點。該行為本是一項救濟落水移民的善意之舉，成果卻幫了生齒商人的忙，勉勵了更多人分開非洲。
Arrivals will continue until an adequate deterrent is put in place: the landing of every single migrant not on European soil but in a transit centre in Tunisia or Egypt, from where opportunistic migrants can be separated from genuine refugees and repatriated.
移民潮還將持續下去，直到出台有力的抑止辦法：即讓每一個移民不在歐洲的地盤、而是在突尼斯或埃及的中轉中間上岸，在那邊甄別出投契性子的移民並把他們遣返。
Both of these crises require international action of the kind best brokered by the European Commission or the UN. Neither of these bodies has shown the vision, intelligence and leadership needed. If a solution is to be found, it seems, it will have to be at the initiative of the handful of European countries directly concerned.
這兩個危急均須要以國際行為加以應答，最佳是那種由歐盟委員會(European Commission)或結合國(UN)調停而成的行為。但這兩家機構均未表示出辦理危急所需的視線、聰明和引導力。假如想找到一個辦理計劃，仿佛只能靠少數幾個直接相幹的歐洲國度來提議盡力了。
市場價：HK$ 110
