Editorial

New "rules of engagement" for the European Union's border patrol agency, Frontex, will come into effect after a resolution to block them narrowly failed to muster the necessary votes in the European Parliament. The guidelines had been devised by the European Commission and endorsed by the Council of Ministers, with Malta abstaining.

The new rules lay down that if it is not possible to return migrants picked up by Frontex vessels to the country from which they departed, they must be accepted by the country hosting the Frontex mission. Until now, international maritime law, which stipulates that anybody rescued in distress on the high seas should be taken to the nearest available safe port, had prevailed. What the EU has laid down, therefore, countermands well-established international law.

It is thought that the Commission's purpose in drawing up the new guidelines was to avoid the unseemly squabbling which arose in one or two high-profile incidents in previous years where a tug-of-war took place between Libya, Italy, Malta and, sometimes, other countries over who should receive the immigrants in distress - to the detriment and suffering of those migrants caught up in the wrangling and to the perceived embarrassment of the EU as a whole. Presumably, too, this was the reason why the Socialist bloc in the European Parliament (with the exception of Malta's Labour MEPs) supported the passage of these rules.

To the extent, therefore, of laying it down clearly that the EU country hosting Frontex would be responsible for receiving the immigrants rescued, there is, in the Commission's eyes, no room for future argument. Malta, however, quite understandably, having hosted previous missions, rejects this proposal. It also argues that it would only increase migrants' suffering to have to make a trip to the host country if a safe port happened to be nearer the point of rescue.

Bureaucratically neat the Commission's formula may appear. But practical it is not. The upshot of the new rules is that Malta, and possibly other countries well-placed geographically to host Frontex operationally, will refuse to do so. This said, in a typical EU fudge - which causes one to doubt the conviction of purpose and logicality which led to the new rules being drawn up in the first place - participating countries in Frontex will be allowed to come up with their own procedures, different from the guidelines, if they agree among themselves to do so. The Prime Minister has therefore said that if member states agreed to operate under different rules, Malta would re-consider its current position not to participate.

Given the "flexibility" of these arrangements, one has to question whether the Commission (and the European Parliament by its endorsement) has achieved anything by seeking to over-rule the long-standing international maritime law, except to muddy the waters. In seeking to avoid the embarrassment caused by not reacting better to the humanitarian plight of illegal immigrants in distress not being accepted at the nearest safe port by those responsible for doing so, as laid down, the Commissioner for Justice is instead in danger of stymieing Frontex operations throughout the central Mediterranean.

These are the kind of verbal contortions that undermine the Commission's authority, not enhance it. Far better to return to the well-tried solidity provided by established international maritime law, as Malta has demanded all along, and ensure that it is complied with by all countries, than introduce a pointless compromise to save bureaucratic face.