If individuals can prove that they are facing the appropriate type of danger and meet the requirements set by the host country for remaining there, then that country must accept them. This principle, which originated after World War II as a moral and practical necessity to rebuild societies for the greater good, has never been fully followed. In recent years, Western powers have been undermining this commitment, which they once considered vital for global stability. Last week, the UK government announced a new plan to send thousands of asylum seekers to Rwanda instead of considering their claims, further neglecting their responsibility towards these individuals. Britain did not invent the practice of detaining refugees and asylum-seekers in remote facilities. European governments have been paying foreign leaders in countries such as Sudan and Libya to hold migrants on their behalf for many years. Australia also delegates this responsibility to a series of island nations known as its gulag archipelago. The United States first implemented this approach in 1991 by redirecting Haitian boats to Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. The increase in right-wing populist movements, the European reaction to a surge in migration in 2015, and the impact of the coronavirus pandemic have all hastened the use of tactics like walls, armed patrols, and policies aimed at increasing the risks associated with migration journeys. The global refugee system is not completely dead, as European governments are accepting millions of displaced Ukrainians. However, Britain's recent policies suggest that the system, once seen as a universal obligation, is now viewed as voluntary. This shift in attitude towards refugees is likely to have consequences in the future, especially as refugee numbers are expected to rise in the coming months. The backlash against refugees, like the one seen in Britain, may also increase as a result. The global commitment to refugees and asylum-seekers has always been more conditional and self-interested than initially believed. After World War II, Western leaders promised to resettle Europe's refugees in safe locations, yet they forcibly returned 2.3 million Soviet citizens to the Soviet Union, resulting in many being executed or sent to the gulag. Despite this, during the Cold War, Western governments emphasized their respect for refugee rights to assert superiority over communist countries. However, their compliance with refugee rights was inconsistent, often favoring refugees from communist countries or those who provided political advantages. However, the significant change occurred when the Cold War ended in 1991, as Western countries no longer had a political incentive. The global refugee population increased dramatically in the early 1990s, reaching 18 million according to a United Nations measurement, almost nine times more than when refugee rules were established in a 1951 convention. The US policy of redirecting Haitian refugees started in 1991 as a way to avoid legal obligations by ensuring the refugees did not reach US shores. This loophole allowed the United States to technically comply with US law while matching international obligations, despite the lack of genuine compliance. Years later, another increase in the number of refugees occurred worldwide, reaching 20 million in 2017. This number has slightly increased since then, although it is still lower, relative to the global population, compared to the peak in 1992. The current refugee crisis is likely not as severe as the one after World War II, where tens of millions were displaced across Europe and Asia, leading to significant devastation and global intervention. However, in the 2010s, as refugee numbers grew mainly from poorer countries, the response was different. The United States and other countries implemented policies, such as negotiating with governments in Central America and Mexico, to prevent refugees and migrants from reaching their borders. Europe and Australia also adopted similar strategies. The outcome is the establishment of detention centers in concentric rings outside of the world's wealthiest countries, many known for their harsh treatment of detainees. These centers are strategically placed along refugee routes or near borders where refugees hoped to reach, allowing governments to appear compliant. Britain's latest proposal goes even further by transporting people to distant continents, revealing the true workings of the new system. Some suggest that creating new international agreements or abolishing old ones could more effectively share global responsibility, especially as climate refugees blur the lines between economic migrants and political refugees. However, world leaders have shown little enthusiasm for these ideas. If governments are unwilling to accept refugees, simply replacing one agreement with another will not solve the problem. Europe's apparent double standard in welcoming Ukrainians while keeping out migrants from the Middle East highlights the unwritten norms of the new refugee system. Governments are selectively applying refugee rights based on which demographic groups are more likely to gain political approval. Despite criticism of President Trump's statements about accepting certain populations over others, this practice is becoming more common. The Biden administration recently granted protected status to 40,000 Cameroonian citizens and extended the same status to 30,000 Ukrainians. There is a debate within the administration about whether to keep a Trump-era rule that allows the country to reject most refugees on public health grounds. Despite the rule being set to be lifted on May 23, there are some in the administration who are arguing to keep it. The pandemic has caused a shift in what was once considered extreme measures, such as near-total border closures. Due to this, restrictions that may have seemed extreme before now appear more acceptable, making it easier for governments to implement them. Governments have realized that without being held accountable for breaking international norms, only their own citizens can oppose them. These citizens often demand such policies. In the past decade, right-wing populist parties gained support by opposing immigration and claiming refugee policies threatened national identities. While some mainstream parties resisted this trend, others believed limiting nonwhite immigration was essential to preserve their parties and possibly their democracies. The global refugee compact was not intended for domestic politics to determine the fate of families fleeing disasters. Despite this, the British public's response to Prime Minister Boris Johnson's proposal, which defies the compact, may be revealing. David Normington, a former top civil servant, criticized the plan as inhumane, morally wrong, potentially illegal, and likely unfeasible. The success of the plan, however, may rely more on the tolerance of the British public than on laws or morality. Text = Copyright 2022 by The New York Times Company.