What to do with Tsunami victims and environmental refugees?

For example, New Zealand calls the citizens it is accepting from sinking Tuvalu as members of a "migration program". The government is doing its best to keep the program as low-key as possible, concerned that conservative groups could exploit the Tuvaluan example for political advantage.

There has been ongoing debate within the United Nations. In 2003 it decided it should not change the law to include those fleeing natural disaster. Their key argument was that environmental refugees were of a cyclical kind. Natural disasters came and went. Those who flee tend to return, or should return, when the disaster subsides, according to the argument.

But this is very unlikely to occur for most of the tsunami survivors.

The UN argued that the term "refugee" should be protected for those people whose governments have failed them. By this argument you can run away from a cyclone but you won't get refugee status. While a cyclone can maim and destroy you, it can't persecute you.

The Australian government believes it is a non-issue. If the UN doesn't care, nor do we, is the essence of their case. But global realities have a way of forcing the hand of the law. Like the forces of technology, the vexed issue of climate change is likely to outpace the tortoise-like progress of any parallel law and regulation.

As the scale of the tsunami has illustrated, global problems require global responsibility.

Climate change is a reality. Increasing numbers of people fleeing natural disaster are a reality. However, this is not mirrored under international law and the impoverished nations which are most affected will continue to suffer.