Four ways the Irish Government can lead European response to refugee crisis

Once in a while, Seamus Heaney tells us, something can "catch the heart off guard and blow it open". This time it was a picture of Aylan Kurdi, a well-dressed little boy lying face down on a pebbled beach.

He was one of nearly 3,000 who drowned this year. Tens of thousands trudge the roads and railways of Europe. Hundreds of thousands are still desperate to cross. There are millions more in camps elsewhere. What is to be done?

There are times in our lives, as President Higgins said, "when we have to decide to do what is right".

For the moment our hearts are open. We want to do what is right.

But Patsy McGarry reminded us in Friday's Irish Times that we made mistakes in the past even though we meant well. This time we must do it right.

We need Government decisions to channel our generous impulses into effective action.

Could we begin, perhaps, by allowing the 4,000 or so who are already five years or more in “direct provision” to stay?

And if funding for more refugees were to become a problem since we have needs at home too, could the Government at budget time consider some kind of imaginative arrangement to encourage voluntary contributions?

We can do much nationally. Germany is particularly generous. But the EU must now also decide to do what is right – first, for humanitarian reasons but also because its cohesion and its basic principles are at stake.

Fintan O'Toole puts it well: the Europe we have built together is not merely a place – it is primarily an idea held together by humane values. Now, after seven years of economic and financial crisis, we have deep and growing rifts within the union between east and west and north and south; conflict in Ukraine; serious tension with Russia; an important state contemplating withdrawal; faltering leadership; and a confused response to despairing thousands within and beyond our borders.

Test of our values

How can governments possibly make the case for “Europe” in any future referendums if our union fails now to meet this near-existential test of our values?

It is easy from outside to call for policy initiatives but as a former official I know how difficult it is to carry a proposal in a union of 28 states.

That said, I venture four ideas our Government might consider.

1 Support what the European Commission proposes. If we cannot agree quotas then at least have indicative targets for member states.

2 Justice and home affairs ministers on September 14th should restart negotiations to complete a common asylum policy for refugees and develop a common migration policy with some scope for lawful migration. If this can be done only in the more tight-knit Schengen area then we who are outside it should consider opting in.

3 A special summit meeting is needed before the end of this month to re-establish greater cohesion in the union and give direction on the immediate crisis.

4 That special summit should consider a new Europe-led initiative on the conflict in Syria, the source of a large part of the immediate problem. The prospects, I agree, are not good. The country is devastated by a confused and barbarous conflict between parties, none deserving support; Shia and Sunni are in conflict across the region. Rival outside powers, in the region and beyond, supply arms which fuel conflict. The UN Security Council is deeply divided and three successive UN mediators have failed. UN aid and food for the hardest hit are cut severely for lack of funding support. Still there is a case for Europe at least to try. I leave aside Europe's deplorable past history in the region and consider only the present.

The conflict now touches Europe directly, although still only in a limited way. But as it continues the “blow-back” in terrorism and in refugees will grow.

No initiative is likely to come from elsewhere. But, acting together, we carry some influence. Our 28 EU member states are one-seventh of total UN membership. Two, France and UK, are permanent members of the Security Council.

These two, Germany and the chief EU Foreign Policy Representative – along with the US, Russia and China – recently successfully ended a long and difficult negotiation with Iran, a power in the region and an influential player in the Syrian conflict. This offers a small glimmer of hope.

Sharply at odds

This month, when many heads of state and government flock to the opening weeks of the UN

General Assembly

in New York, may be the time to explore whether anything can be done on Syria.

It will be very difficult. Russia backs Assad and may increase its support. The US and the UK emphatically want him gone. Russia and western states are sharply at odds over Ukraine. Can they negotiate on Syria?

Assad’s barrel bombs and other atrocities are appalling. But the fanatic barbarism of the “Islamic State” and its would-be affiliates elsewhere may now be much the greater threat – not only to states in the region and to the West but also to Putin, who must fear for Russia’s Caucusus region, and to China. It may be a time for difficult choices by all involved.

In the end Europe may well decide there is nothing it can do. But since no one else will act, it ought at least to consider now whether it should try.

Noel Dorr is a former Irish diplomat. He served as Irish ambassador to the United Nations and secretary general of the Department of Foreign Affairs among other roles