WITH just over a week to go until UK’s general elections, and the two major parties still deadlocked in the opinion polls, it is no surprise that tempers are wearing thin. Thus, when Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, accused David Cameron of not having given thought to post-conflict planning in Libya when Britain decided to topple Qadhafi four years ago, there was a furious response from the Conservative Party as well as its coalition partner, the Liberal Democrats.

Accusing Miliband of cheap point-scoring in the aftermath of the death of hundreds of asylum seekers who drowned in the Mediterranean recently, his opponents sought to distance themselves from the tragedy. In point of fact, all three parties voted for military action in Libya, and during the debate leading up to the vote, few mentioned the need for discussing the post-Qadhafi scenario. Mostly, this was because the UN Security Council resolution authorising Nato to create a no-fly zone to protect civilians from government forces made no mention of regime change. This was part of an unwritten agenda.

At the time, both Russia and China were infuriated as the UN resolution was stretched to breaking point by the US, Britain and France. Both Security Council members felt they had been misled by the western powers into going along in what they thought was a humanitarian mission, but was actually a campaign to get rid of the Libyan dictator.

At the time, many — including this columnist — considered the intervention a good thing, given Qadhafi’s long and bloody track record. Remember, this was during the Arab Spring when many of us thought that the time of reckoning had finally arrived for Arab tyrants. But as the saying goes, the path to hell is paved with good intentions.

Now, with up to a million asylum seekers from across Africa poised to sail to Europe from Libya, European Union leaders are scrambling to come up with solutions. There is vague and unconvincing talk about tackling the people-smugglers in Libya. And while several European governments, including Britain’s, have decided to send ships to the Italian coast to rescue endangered migrants, the question of what happens next is largely unanswered.

There was some discussion about possible quotas of migrants EU member countries would accept, but the numbers do not even begin to reflect the wave of incoming refugees. Currently, Italy is bearing the brunt of this flood, and has been loud in its criticism of fellow EU members who, so far, have done virtually nothing to share the burden. Now, given the spate of deaths on the dangerous crossings, others have begun to at least help in saving lives.

But this crisis is not about to go away any time soon. As more poor countries become dysfunctional and dangerous, their citizens become desperate to escape. Among those who have been arriving on Italian shores recently are Nigerians, Eritreans, Ethiopians, Somalis, Palestinians, Syrians, Afghans, Pakistanis and Iraqis. No doubt Yemenis will soon begin seeking refuge as well.

Apart from the poor governance, poverty, unemployment and insecurity that drive people from their homes, there are ‘pull’ factors that make them spend thousands of dollars and risk their lives in their quest for a better life. The majority of asylum-seekers give the UK as their first choice because of the country’s free education and health care, as well as its assisted housing and unemployment benefits. But access to the UK is now increasingly difficult, so migrants go to other EU countries, all of which have social security systems in place.

The reality is that most of us will do anything to ensure a better life for our children. With conflict spreading across the Middle East as well as much of Africa, citizens of war-torn countries are voting with their feet in a bid to escape.

But it is the power vacuum in Libya that has made it much easier to find passage on one of the rickety boats operated by people-smugglers who are making millions from this flood of human misery. With a civil war raging in Libya, there is no central authority to control either the country’s porous land border or its long coastline. The legal, recognised government is stuck in Benghazi, while insurgents are in control of the capital, Tripoli. In between, different tribes and groups battle each other for power.

Arms from Libya’s arsenals are found from Somalia to the Sinai, and are destabilising regimes across the region. This is yet another unintended consequence of Nato’s intervention in Libya, even though few European or American politicians are willing to accept their role in creating the current mess.

Then, of course, this power vacuum has allowed the self-styled Islamic State (IS) and other extremist groups to establish themselves on Libyan soil. The horrific images of the beheading of Egyptian, Eritrean and Ethiopians Christians by IS murderers served to remind the world of the dangers of allowing ungoverned spaces to emerge. Many of those fleeing Libya today once worked in the country as guest workers; now with the economy in free fall, and virtually no government worth the name, they have few options but to leave.

While there is a broad consensus on the need to save the lives of asylum seekers, nobody is clear about what happens once they have been plucked from the sea. Britain has said its ships will deposit them in the nearest European port, meaning Italy. But Italy says — with considerable justification — that it has already taken far more than its share of these refugees, and others should do more.

Mass migration is going to be a recurring crisis for most of this century as water shortages, unemployment, rampant population increase, inflation and armed conflict wrack much of the developing world. And the majority of displaced people will be heading for Europe.

Published in Dawn, April 27th, 2015

On a mobile phone? Get the Dawn Mobile App: Apple Store | Google Play