The seas around Malta and in particular its Search and Rescue Area are one important arena in which the country’s policies and core values are tested and challenged. It remains difficult to understand, beyond cynicism, what exactly the policy of the government is in the immediate and longer term.
In such a context, many desperate and vulnerable people continue to lose their lives in the most horrible of circumstances. While proclaiming adherence to international agreements and laws, the government has adopted a ‘hands off’ policy in daily practice. Claiming not to receive distress alerts, refusing to allow landings in Malta, detaining asylum seekers at sea, and attacking engaged NGOs appears to be the preferred strategy.
For many Maltese, certain types of migration (but not all migration) continue to be deemed unacceptable, with the key mantra being the dubious “Malta is full”. Most recently, debate and disagreement has focused on two issues, one immediate – the impact of NGO rescue initiatives – and the other broader and longer term: the role of the EU and EU policy.
Despite the evidence from the bulk of research which indicates that the most important factors influencing levels of migration are the political, economic and social situation in migrants’ home countries, many prefer to attack rescue NGOs, arguing that their actions fuel the activities of smugglers and migrants themselves. Impounding NGO boats, fining and jailing NGO activists is not a policy or an effective response in any way. Policy and response by definition must be far broader and can only be acceptable if they address all dimensions of migration policy, and not just its dysfunctions.
The second debate is far more significant and was sparked by the recent visit to Malta of Germany’s Minister for Europe, Anna Lührmann. She argued yet again that European countries must work together to create a “more orderly” system. She tellingly noted that such a system must respect humanitarian standards while ensuring solidarity between member states.
Importantly, she also reminded the government that “we cannot let people drown in the Mediterranean”, while in turn accepting that this is an issue that must be approached multilaterally. For many governments and people in the immediate Mediterranean area, such observations ring hollow in key respects. Europe does not have an agreed or effective migration policy. Rather, it has as many individual policies as it has member states, a reality often immediately apparent.
Europe remains deeply divided on the issue despite ongoing initiatives and strategies. Many member states are either hostile to or inactive on the agenda, leaving border states devoid of effective and appropriate support. In such a context, arguing that “we’re in this boat together” is not convincing as a policy or even a general approach. EU migration policy also fails to indicate that it is ready for the fundamental decisions needed.
In essence, the debate continues to be about how to operationalise the Union’s “internal solidarity”, the label routinely applied to the ongoing standoff between those member states demanding more effective action by border states (Malta among them) and those states’ responses which highlight the greater capacity and resources of the major EU members.
In effect, we are far from agreeing yet alone establishing a humanitarian, rights-based or coherent common framework for the governance and management of migration and asylum. Neither of the above debates provide an excuse or a justification for Maltese government policy.
Giving any meaning to the principles and values espoused by Malta at the UN and, most recently, the Security Council, implies developing and implementing a just migration strategy. While arguing strategically and robustly for a realistic and effective EU policy, our government must publicly lead by example and not hide behind the actions or inactions of others.