News that Italy has capitulated over the Pinar E case has been welcomed in almost triumphal terms by sections of the local media.
Certainly the stand-off can be interpreted as a victory for Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi, whose government persevered in the face of stern criticism to make the important point that Malta is correct (and Italy wrong) in its interpretation of international law.
But at the same time the celebratory mood that seems to have engulfed the entire country also sounds a little discordant, considering the gravity of the consequences. We seem to have forgotten that while Malta and Italy squabbled over their respective interpretations of the relevant treaties and conventions a young pregnant woman lost her life.
This tragedy would most likely have been avoided, had Italy immediately accepted its responsibilities and admitted the castaways to the nearest safe port of call – i.e., Lampedusa. But it is worth remembering the victim (or victims, if you also count the unborn child) of this unwholesome tragedy, before spinning the event into any kind of “moral victory” for the ruling Christian Democratic party.
On another level, there is also curious irony which the PN media in particular appears to have overlooked. In its haste to remind us that a breakthrough came only after a phone call between Gonzi and Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi, the journalists of Net TV seem to have forgotten that both Berlusconi and his foreign minister Roberto Maroni belong to the same political grouping as the PN.
In other words, any electoral advantage gained through Gonzi’s handling the crisis will have to counterbalanced by the perception that the Nationalist Party’s colleagues in the European People’s Party - certainly those of Forza Italia and the Lega Nord - will be using their influence in the European parliament to try and force Malta to take in more migrants than we are obliged to admit.
Leaving aside these and other considerations, it has to be said that Italy’s position in this affair is not only objectionable in the extreme: it is also incomprehensible.
According to the SOLAS convention, Malta is responsible for the co-ordination of search and rescue operations within its Search and Rescue zone, which stretches from Crete all the way to Tunisia. But this does not mean that the rescue must be effected using Malta-based assets. In fact in most cases this would be impractical, given the enormous distances involved. Instead, Malta’s responsibility (as explained fairly clearly in the convention itself) is to co-ordinate rescue operations: often as not involving the utilisation of assets other than our own.
Malta therefore clearly abided by its obligations in the Pinar E incident; it is Italy whose behaviour has left much to be desired.
Of course, it would be extremely convenient for Italy and the rest of Europe if Malta were to serve as an immigration filter for all migrants heading towards the EU. But this is not the purpose of the SOLAS convention, and Maroni cannot expect to be taken seriously for suggesting otherwise.
On the contrary, that convention exists to optimise international efforts to save lives at sea. And from this perspective, too, Italy’s position is entirely unsound.
If the rescue of the 140 migrants involved in the Pinar E incident had to be carried out exclusively by Maltese forces, several vital hours would have been wasted getting to the rescue zone site 140 nautical miles away, and then again to make the return voyage. It is for the same reason that the SOLAS convention specifies an obligation to transport rescued castaways to the “nearest safe port of call”: to ensure that persons requiring urgent medical treatment are transported to hospital in the shortest possible time.
Besides, if Maroni’s viewpoint were to be taken literally, it would mean that any person rescued anywhere at all in Malta’s SAR zone would have to be brought back to Malta. One need hardly add that this is hugely impractical: a vessel assisted in Greek waters would have to travel hundreds of miles to get to Malta, when the nearest safe port of call might be only a few hours away.
And that’s not to mention the sheer numbers involved, which would certainly translate into a “national crisis” of the kind many people seem to think we are already experiencing.
All things told, Malta has been right to stand its ground in this instance. One can only wonder why the European press – and also the European Commission, as evidenced by Jacques Barrot’s recent statements – is taking so long to acknowledge that Italy’s position is at best an embarrassing misunderstanding (at worst, a deliberate misrepresentation) of international law.
Any comments?
If you wish your comments to be published in our Letters pages please click button below. Please write a contact number and a postal address where you may be contacted.
Download front page in pdf file format
All the interviews from Reporter on MaltaToday's YouTube channel.
