Managing coexistence

The news that Mrs Stephanie Abood's parental household had been ravaged by obscene racist remarks for her objection to the wearing of a 'Muslim' veil during a discussion on TVM (The Times, July 8) reached me at the same time as the news that on the previous day two banners, one a green flag and the other depicting the hand of Islam, had been raised and seen fluttering on the Qormi bridge.

Ironically, on the same day, The Times had dedicated a scathing editorial against the prejudice of the Maltese vis-à-vis Arabs. Well may that be so, but that, too, in a country where President, Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition have marched in Valletta's main street all wearing the Palestinian head scarf; and where, in the words of a former prime minister, the Maltese and Libyans were "blood brothers". That's for context.

With regard to the former incident, I happened to have watched part of the programme in question, in which a young Maltese woman married to a Muslim Arab, and converted from Catholicism to Islam, stated that she wore the veil because she knew that was how God wished her to dress.

Another Maltese woman married to a Muslim Arab, who had not converted to Islam, pitied her, and said she herself had never been under any constraint to change religion, much less to change her fashion wear.

In the course of this 'discussion', the veil-clad Muslim Maltese woman held that Islamic countries allowed other religions to be practised freely, whereupon an Egyptian Copt, speaking from experience, held that Copts in Egypt were "second-class citizens", and that if she had to revert to Christianity "they would cut her head off". I particularly admired this gentleman who was struggling to express himself in Maltese, in spite of being interrupted by the presenter, Peppi Azzopardi, no fewer than three times.

The question however is: what does all this mean, and what is it likely to mean if things carry on as they are now, especially in a place like din l-art helwa? I agree with Dr Anna Mallia who wrote in another section of the press that to "blame it all on Norman" is a cowardly, hypocritical, escapist and alienating route, not likely to solve anything, except possibly strengthen Imperium Europa's following.

With all due respect to political correctness, this question is a serious one, full of implications for the present and the future, and it has not so far been seriously addressed except by zealots harbouring different and indeed opposed motives, or else by propagandist journalists, who thrive on sensationalism.

The Dublin Convention

I recently had occasion to speak out publicly on various aspects related to this whole issue. In a keynote address on "Human Solidarity, Europe and Malta" to an international conference in St Julian's, reported in another section of the press, I concluded, inter alia, that we had to pass "from definitions to remedies". Not easy at all; but there must be a concerted effort, co-ordinated, networked and duly financed, feet on the ground.

In February, I chaired a workshop in Wilton Park on "migration management", with special reference to the Mediterranean situation, and had occasion to review, with several experts, trends and attitudes in other countries around the world. The same goes, on another occasion, for EU member states, none of whom have anything like the record high protection rates being offered - no doubt for good reason - by Malta (over 50 per cent).

Only a few weeks ago, during an evaluation of European asylum policy at the Assemblée Nationale in Paris, I raised a number of points which bear on solidarity and social cohesion, foremost among them being that the Dublin Convention needs to be revised as a matter of urgency.

Most people in Malta will not even have heard of this, since our 'discourse' here, if it may be called that, usually is on emotional grounds, immersed in pettiness, preferably of the ad hominem variety.

According to this Convention, however, no member state may return or permit to return to another member state any illegal immigrant who will have first landed in that member state. And that irrespective of geography, size, space, resources or any other conditions.

That is most unfair on small frontier states, such as Malta is, where Euronews does not report every arriving boatload, as it did, for example, on Wednesday, when Spain rescued 35 illegal immigrants! The chairperson, being herself Austrian, was so supportive that she proposed an entire conference be dedicated to this proposal, adding that Austria too had long been a frontier state and suffered accordingly. The simple truth is that if there is no burden-sharing in this domain we may not very well speak of a European Union. And by sharing I don't just mean assistance from the European Refugee Fund to erect a skyscraper hostel.

This in no way affects the adjudication of asylum claims made by illegal immigrants because there are clear Convention criteria on which such claims would need to be based, and solidly so. The record high percentage rate of protection being awarded by Malta surely is enough proof of that; it ought to satisfy whoever feels inclined to castigate our country for its efforts in this domain, warts and all. Whoever has alleged (to Amnesty, or anyone else), that the number of arrivals determines the granting of status or otherwise, is lying - as the Refugee Commissioner has said publicly and forcefully.

Fast demographic shift

The point is that if "migration management" is necessary, no less so is what I may call 'coexistence management'. This is not simply multiculturalism policy in situations where immigrants are legally accepted according to set quotas by the host states, as in Australia or Canada.

Migration and coexistence can be intertwined because of the sheer rapidity and the rate at which the demographic shift is taking place, with all its attendant implications - ethnic, religious, linguistic and above all cultural.

Cohesion depends on absorption, just as digestion depends on consumption. In other words, if the pace and force with which change is imposed on an otherwise traditionally homogenous society is disproportionate to its general context and potential, rejection and antagonism can arise, possibly leading to strife. Worse still, provocation could come from the recent arrivals, demanding their new-found 'European' rights. To that extent, integration will become more difficult or even impossible.

Without some measure of integration, one can hardly plan for any coexistence, which requires mental, social and possibly economic adjustments. Socially and culturally, not necessarily legally, cohesion and integration are closely interrelated. Nor is this simply a scholastic matter.

Polarisation of extremes

Those who shoot off the hip, one way or the other, as often happens in daily life, may be reacting in their own way, for their own purposes, and actually can be misreading the signs or further stirring the pot, even if that is done "in the name of God" (so many things are these days). Malta needs neither those who, on a fast track to heaven, say we should admit and keep everyone, nor those who callously say we should admit and keep nobody.

This brewing polarisation is not helped by the media's utter confusion as to those who are genuine refugees entitled to Convention status, and those who are not (but who may end up as possibly permanent uninvited guests). Bona fide refugees, who are a small minority, certainly deserve full status and all the help they can get. They should not suffer because of third parties. Other forms of protection, currently being granted by Malta, are meant to be temporary.

Nothing changes, or may be expected to change, overnight.

In terms coined by a Mediterranean historiographical guru, one Braudel, when it comes to "mentalities", "c'est la longue durée". Before the continental European expansion driven by invasions in the name of empire-building, it was easier to find historical interpretation that was mutually respectful on both sides of the supposedly unifying divide that is the Mediterranean. There have been cycles of tolerance and intolerance over time; but now?

The future of meaning

Today, with the globalised media-propelled scare-mongering and what appears to be a growing fanatical and collectivised militancy on one side, coupled with a seasoned libertarian self-orientation or gut reaction on the other, such stances may be rendered more and more difficult. That would be a real tragedy because our region is far older, and far greater, than a Sharon or an Arafat, an Osama or a Saddam, or a Bush for that matter; or indeed a Rommel or a Montgomery.

In this post-war, post-colonial, post-Cold War era of satellites and the Internet, have the crusade and the sword of old given way to the missile and a reinvented kamikaze? Are our so-called 'civilisations' inhabiting different time zones? Absolutes cannot deny tolerance, not in what we would regard as a civilised society; but that is a little bit like stoning the whore, who would throw the first stone.

What is the world coming to however, if life becomes value-less, assuming that value still retains meaning? Where is the synthesis between mineral wealth, widespread misery and potential prosperity; and how does one restrain political abuse where redress may be institutionally absent altogether? What with September 11, televised invasions, abductions and beheadings?

How do lifestyles or world-views, which seem to be predicated on such contrasting moral orders, or an absence of them, co-exist in a dialogue, which presumes rationality and reason in the first place? How far should territorial imperatives continue to afflict the peoples concerned? Do we have a cognitive problem, or a pathological one; is everything political inspired by greed or fear? What are our bridges made of, if they exist?

Without carefully thought out and planned efforts to manage both migration and coexistence, in our country as well as in our region, we are going to drift further, until one morning we wake up to an environment that is no longer recognisable or manageable. Or we do not wake up at all.