After the incidents at Safi Barracks

The incidents that took place on January 13, when members of the Armed Forces used anti-riot equipment to end a non-violent demonstration by detainees at Safi Barracks, resulting in a number of persons, including two soldiers, requiring medical treatment, have rightly led to an expression of widespread concern.

The Prime Minister did the right thing when he immediately set up an inquiry led by a retired judge to establish the facts. One hopes that its conclusions will not take too long for the sake of truth and Malta's reputation. The world outside is already aware of the confrontation, and will not wait to reach its own conclusions, basing itself on the information available through the media.

Normally I keep silent on matters which are still under investigation, but having long experience in representing Malta at the United Nations and other international bodies in Geneva, including the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR), and reading some of the reactions in the media, I feel that I have to make a few comments.

I wonder whether the presence of UNHCR official Michele Manca di Nissa in Malta at the time the protest took place was accidental or not. This has no bearing on the justification or otherwise of what took place, but it does make me wonder whether an element of staging was involved, and if so who was behind it.

I was perturbed to read that the UNHCR representative was refused permission to see the detainees in hospital, since this could easily give the impression that we have something to hide, in direct contrast with the Prime Minister's spontaneous move to establish the truth. I am no less perturbed that Brigadier Carmel Vassallo, the AFM Commander, has given a completely different version of what took place, since I feel that someone, willingly or otherwise, is misleading the public.

I feel that I must fault Mr di Nissa for categorising all detainees as "people fleeing from danger" in his press conference. This loose talk, which is quickly picked up by well-meaning but ill-informed persons, who also tend to consider all detainees as "asylum seekers", genuine or not, does not contribute to educating the public on the true nature of the problem facing the Maltese government.

With all due respect, a UNHCR representative who accepts all boat people as refugees does a disservice to the genuine refugees his organisation is expected to protect.

I also resent Mr di Nissa's patronising advice that "it is high time for the Maltese authorities to explain why such individuals felt compelled to flee their country". To claim that all these people coming from so many different countries, for so many different reasons, as having a common valid reason for defying the normal rules of travelling from one country to another, is absurd. I am assuming that seeking a better life is not considered by the UNHCR as entitling a person to refugee status.

Having made my position clear on the above points, I condemn without any reservation the use of force against non-violent demonstrators that I have witnessed on TV and in the press. I am ready to accept that there may have been long-simmering acts of provocation from frustrated detainees against equally frustrated soldiers whose normal job is not to guard such people. But a disciplined force should not succumb to such provocation.

Commentators, and indeed Mr di Nissa himself, seem to put down the reaction of the soldiers to xenophobia. This is too facile an explanation. We have had hundreds of Iraqis stranded in Malta on their way to Canada and the US. We are told that we are having a stream of Chinese using Malta on their way to other countries. I myself played a role in reaching an agreement with the UNHCR for Malta to host hundreds of Indians expelled from Uganda. On that occasion we provided accommodation - which was available - as well as food, and Malta received financial compensation for this service. I do not see xenophobia in all this.

At the same time, I am not claiming that the Maltese are saints. There must be xenophobic elements among us as there are in all countries in the world. But branding all Maltese or AFM personnel as xenophobic is a wild statement.

What I have found really disturbing is the statement issued by Studenti Demokristjani Maltin who, as reported in the press, "would like to commend the AFM personnel for their work, and augurs that such incidents shall not occur frequently".

I am ready to give the students the benefit of the doubt as to what AFM work they are referring to, but I am aghast that they are ready to condone incidents such as those of January 13 as long as they are not frequent.

Coming from University students interested in politics, from among whom our future leaders might emerge, this is indeed disturbing. I find it hard to believe that such a statement comes from a political spectrum which was the victim of brute force only two decades ago!

A more common reaction that I have come across is one of resentment that after having saved these boat people from danger at sea, fed and housed them to the best of our ability, and setting up the machinery to identify those who qualify as refugees, we find that some of them react the way they do, fomenting trouble, refusing good food, causing damage, and even improvising weapons from material at their disposal. Irrespective of the frustration that the detainees may feel, I cannot fault such a reaction from the public.

Those who are ready to accept all expressions of frustration from detainees on the grounds that they never meant to come to Malta do not offer any solution to their problem which, after all, we have not created. Shall we allow them to procede to the destination of their choice, and if so what shall we do if the country of their choice does not accept them? Shall we send them back to the country they came from?

If this is not possible shall we let them stay in Malta with the probability that they will try again to enter another country illegally, at the risk of souring our relations with these countries? If we decide to give them all refugee status, how many persons can we reasonably take and, once this number is reached, what shall we do next? These are not rhetorical questions but the realities that the Maltese authorities, and the public, are facing.

I hope that the national conference that is in the offing will generate practical ideas, especially from those who oppose the present policies. Estimates of the cost of such measures would also be in place.

These are a few ideas that I would put forward:

¤ We must find ways to reduce the time for processing applications for refugee status. Since such status facilitates movement within the EU, a common policy as has just been proposed would be welcome. A periodical statistical report on the status of boat people would be of help both for the authorities and the public.

¤ The authorities must clamp down on people involved in human trafficking. Our security forces must have the right equipment to monitor better the movement of boats capable of being used for illegal traffic. Our security requires this, irrespective of cost. Thus equipped, we could afford to give more freedom of movement to detainees.

¤ Malta being a frontier state for the EU, we will be doing a service to all the EU member states by stopping illegal immigration. This calls for EU assistance in tackling this problem, and government should pursue more vigorously its policy towards this end.

¤ Detainees should be given the right to work after a limited stipulated time. This would eliminate the exploitation of these people, and give them a sense of dignity and purpose to face their problems better. Idleness is a source of great trouble.

¤ Seeing that this problem is likely to stay with us for quite some time, Government should set up suitable facilities and train personnel to meet this contingency. Such facilities and training could be used for other purposes should the problem of illegal migration into Europe, via the sea around us, become less acute.

I cannot help referring to those who speculate on how St Paul would have been received had he been shipwrecked on our shores today. Such speculation is banal since any person in similar circumstances today would not be detained. On the contrary, he would be helped to proceed to his original destination, even if his documents would have been lost. St Paul was not flouting international rules for travelling from one country to another.

In a lighter vein, had that chapter of the Acts of the Apostles been written today someone is sure to have accused St Luke of being xenophobic for calling us "barbarians". Some NGO would have demaded that St Paul should not have been kept in a small room cut in the rocks. They would have protested that we had allowed him to be taken to Rome where he was sure to suffer persecution and death.

It is true that our forefathers gave St Paul freedom of movement, but then he appreciated our hospitality by healing the sick.