Libya returns

"There was a table set out under a tree... and the March Hare and the Hatter were having tea at it ... 'No room! No room!' they cried out when they saw Alice coming. 'There's plenty of room!' said Alice indignantly, and she sat down..."

Nowadays, the "mad tea party" of Lewis Carroll's Alice In Wonderland often springs to my mind where a firm conviction is taking root that resolute denial of reality is no longer confined to the world of fantasy. The bizarre logic of the March Hare and Hatter looms especially large when I read about Malta's desperate efforts to reach agreement with Libya over the readmission of migrants.

The government has been hankering after the Libya connection ever since the Italian authorities airlifted more than 1,000 undocumented migrants back there. The deportation was roundly condemned by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, by the European Parliament and by human rights organisations. The denunciations did not stop Italy from pushing ahead with deportations, nor did they prevent Malta from leaping eagerly onto the bandwagon.

The Times (June 24) ran a report of a meeting of the House Committee on European and Foreign Affairs where Home Affairs Minister Tonio Borg reportedly said starting talks with Libya on controlling illegal migration had not been easy. The reason: too many EU countries wanted to impose "too many pre-conditions based on democracy and human rights". What does this glib dismissal signify? That the Maltese government is happy to forgo fundamental principles in its frenzy to reach agreement with Libya?

This is indeed a strange turn of events. Lest we forget, Malta once joined the rest of the democratic world in loving to hate Libya. The pathetic about-face in welcoming Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi back into the international fold is largely due, no doubt, to his willingness to be an ally in the US-led "war on terror". Anyhow, now that it is no longer our neighbouring bogey, Libya may be approached to take back thousands of undocumented migrants who transited through its territory en route to Malta. The only fly in the ointment, it would seem, is insistence on "too many" human rights safeguards from third parties. Why the fuss about human rights?

Libya's poor record in respecting fundamental rights, especially those of immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa, is the primary reason. A chief concern is that Libya has not signed the Geneva Convention relating to the status of refugees; it does not recognise refugees so it does not afford them due protection. The lack of distinction between refugees and other foreigners is particularly dangerous given Libya's growing tendency to arbitrarily deport thousands of black Africans to their home countries - 54,000 were returned last year - where they may face persecution and even death.

We cannot hope to ease our consciences by returning only rejected asylum seekers to Libya; a person whose claim for refugee status is turned down may still need protection. Anyway, that an asylum seeker has been rejected is no excuse to deport him to a place (Libya) where he stands to face gross human rights violations. Libya often detains undocumented migrants in camps with deplorable living conditions while those living outside face increasing racist attacks, possibly because of the government's changing attitude: until recently black Africans were a cheap source of labour, now Libyan authorities claim they are a dangerous burden.

If Libya does not want undocumented migrants, why is it willing to accept them back? In exchange, Libya is asking for EU support to reinforce its border controls to intercept more asylum seekers. But Libya has no formal relations with the EU, it is not bound by any of its human rights policies and it simply cannot offer protection guarantees to returned asylum seekers; quite the contrary.

Regardless, Dr Borg says Malta, Italy and Spain are insisting on a policy of returning migrants to Libya and there are high hopes for eventual agreement. Any such bilateral cooperation, as Amnesty International has repeatedly said, should be based on the Barcelona Declaration governing Euro-Mediterranean relations, which Malta is a party to, as opposed to Libya. A key part of this accord is respect for fundamental human rights.

Rather than hoping to bypass such principles, the Maltese government must ensure they are the cornerstone of any accord reached with Libya. An ad hoc partnership to return people without legal safeguards or proper scrutiny would put lives at risk and deny protection to those who need it. The government may tell us the aim is to prevent a national crisis - as the Mad Hatter said about his lonely tea party, "no place, no place" - however the end does not justify the means.

If our collusion with Libya fails to respect our international obligations we would make a mockery of the very European institutions we are so proud to be a part of and deal a mortal blow to our credibility as an upright member of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership.