The recent diplomatic standoff between Malta and Italy has exposed the European Union’s inability to involve itself in a serious issue affecting its own borders.
Ostensibly, the immediate concern lies with Italy’s refusal to accept migrants in distress, when these are rescued closer to its own territory than to any other. International maritime law is extremely clear on this point. Rescued persons must be delivered to the “nearest place of safety”: and as the 1979 SAR Convention’s annex defines it, a “place of safety” is a location where survivors’ safety of life is no longer threatened, and where their basic human needs can be met.
From this perspective, Italian home affairs minister Roberto Maroni’s recent remonstration that Lampedusa does not qualify as a “place of safety” is scarcely even credible. For if Maroni were correct, then surely Lampedusa would not qualify as “place of safety” also for the several thousand tourists who visit the island each summer: or for that matter, the 5,000 Italian citizens who call it home.
Now, in response to Italy’s subsequent blockade of Lampedusa against entry by Maltese naval vessels, the government has issued a communication to the effect that, while it will continue offering assistance to persons in distress on the sea in its SAR zone, it will also offer assistance to those migrants who wish to proceed with their voyage towards Italy.
Spurred on by the Machiavellian instinct shown by Opposition leader Joseph Muscat – who lost no time in capitalising on pre-electoral immigration concerns by accusing the government of being ‘spineless’ – the government seems to have finally taken a stand. But what remains to be seen is whether Malta’s position, though technically correct, will turn out to be sustainable.
Already we have seen how prolonged standoffs can have fatal consequences. The Pinar case – when Malta steadfastly held on to its claim that the 144 migrants in distress should be taken to the nearest safe port of call – was an example of national resilience in the face of a clear attempt by Italy to circumvent its international obligations. It will be remembered, however, that while Italy and Malta passed the buck to each other, one of the migrants – a pregnant woman – was left to die at sea.
The longer the current debacle takes to be resolved, the more potentially dangerous situations will arise where migrant boats are left to proceed to what could be an unsure fate in treacherous waters. Meanwhile, the political brinkmanship between Italy and Malta may well serve its purpose ahead of the June 6 European elections, but what will happen afterwards? How many more people will find themselves cast away at sea, simply because of a dispute/electoral gimmick involving the precise definitions of phrases in maritime law?
International opinion will eventually be brought to bear on the case: for it is inconceivable that an issue as vital as safety at sea can be left unresolved forever.
But this only forces us to acknowledge the underlying issue at hand. We must now come to terms with the fact that Brussels has washed its hands of the entire affair from the very start: this in spite of repeated assurances by Justice Commissioner Jacques Barrot, as well as vice-president Gunther Verheugen’s claim to be “ashamed” that European countries have refused to “really help Malta”.
The European Commission, it must be said, has not “really helped Malta” at all, by sitting on the fence in such a clear-cut case of one of its members not adhering to international law: both in the Pinar incident, and also in Italy’s more recent show of force when it blockaded entry into Lampedusa to a Maltese patrol boat.
More than any other factor, it was the EU’s dereliction of its own duties which precipitated this latest impasse, leaving Malta with no option but to take (or pretend to take) a firm stand.
On another level, it remains to be seen how effective Malta’s stand will prove on a political level. Strategically, the government may have opened itself to Italian accusations of aiding and abetting human trafficking, by granting migrants’ boats a carte blanche to proceed to Europe. Not only would this send the wrong message to human traffickers in Libya: but it could also provide Maroni with further ammunition for his constant tirades against Malta.
Having said this, Malta never had much choice to begin with. Now that the fat is in the fire, it is imperative that we do not lose sight of the number one objective: Malta is legally right in its interpretation of the SAR conventions, but this view has not been properly transmitted to the European Commission. The next logical step is a diplomatic blitz to ensure that Malta’s position is clearly understood, and that Europe finally involves itself in what is after all its own problem.
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.
