Human rights must be protected - Gavin Gulia

Labour home affairs spokesman Gavin Gulia insists Malta should reach an automatic repatriation agreement with Libya over illegal immigrants but only if the human rights of those repatriated are safeguarded.

Dr Gulia was contacted in the wake of comments by Labour leader Alfred Sant, who said that ultimately the national interest comes before human rights in this issue.

However, Dr Gulia defended the Labour leader's stand and said that in a press conference on Saturday, Dr Sant had stated it was time for the government to take a concrete stand on the matter and stop beating about the bush.

Asked at that press conference whether Malta should toy with the idea of postponing some of its international obligations, Dr Sant had said that soon the country would have no choice but to take unilateral action.

Labour is currently discussing the issue internally and will be making its stand public in the coming days.

Dr Gulia declined to expand on what was meant by "taking unilateral action", saying that he would rather not pre-empt the party's official position. "It's a complex matter that involves not only me as home affairs spokesman but also foreign affairs, the economy etc."

He stands by the call for action, however. "It's time we take concrete action to counter the inertia shown by the EU and the international community attitude vis-a-vis Malta's plea for help. This letter-sending business is clearly not working," he said, making reference to correspondence sent by Home Affairs Minister Tonio Borg and Foreign Affairs Minister Michael Frendo to request the support of the EU, Libya and other organisations.

"They seem to be competing against each other on who manages to send the most letters to the EU but nothing concrete is coming out of this strategy and we need to take action."

When asked to specify what action will be taken, Dr Gulia harked back to when the Labour government had threatened to use its veto at the notorious Helsinki UN summit, back in 1975. "Labour governments never shied away from taking difficult stands in Malta's interest. The same applies to the oil drilling incident with Libya back in the 1980s," he insisted.

Despite having close ties with Libya then, the Maltese government took a firm stand when the Libyan government had sent its fleet to stop Malta from drilling for oil in its territorial waters, Dr Gulia pointed out.

"We did not write letters then or plead with the Libyan government. We took firm action. Ok, I'm not saying the government should have considered taking action immediately but now let us not be humiliated. I said previously and I say it again: The €1 million the EU allocated to Malta as emergency funds is an insult. We need burden sharing not money. However, if the EU insists on helping financially it should be proper help and not a token."

Dr Gulia sees the news that the Dutch have agreed to take 30 illegal immigrants as positive step. However, Malta entered a bilateral agreement with the Netherlands and therefore his criticism of the EU stood. "Thirty is a very small number but its positive nonetheless."

He denied that Labour's call for unilateral action echoed sentiments expressed by Dr Borg.

"Any action should be taken in respect of countries and not the immigrants. How can you not feel obliged to assist a boatload of people who are in distress because they ran out of fuel or are famished or their boat has capsized or are caught in the middle of a storm?

"If Dr Borg meant that Malta will supply fuel to boats that are stranded, then I personally would not make a fuss about that. It's a problem less for Malta. However, when this happened the Italians sent the illegal immigrants back to us and we accepted them."

On the issue of automatic repatriation, which essentially means that Malta would send illegal immigrants back to where they came from without screening requests for asylum, Dr Gulia was categorical: "Yes, I would accept such an agreement with Libya, just as Italy has such an agreement with Libya and with us. This does not mean that it would always be used - but that in the case of crisis we would be able to send back illegal immigrants.

"Malta should never have accepted a repatriation deal with Italy before it had signed one with Libya. The government should have asked the Italians to help Malta strike a deal with Libya since they had already made their own arrangements some year ago.

"The Italians managed to strike a deal with the Libyans on the fishing conservation zone despite our long standing friendship with the Libyans. It seems the international community historically encroached on Malta's right to search for oil and to fish in the Mediterranean but funnily enough we are expected to handle the problem of illegal immigration on our own."

The government was currently trying to resist an attempt by the international community to have Malta's search and rescue patrol areas extended substantially, he added. "In practice this would mean that Malta would have to accept larger numbers of illegal immigrants. How can Malta be expected to patrol an area stretching from Tunisia to Cyprus. This move must be resisted through positive action and not merely by exchange of correspondence."

But does Dr Gulia feel confident that Libya will safeguard the human rights of the illegal immigrants who are automatically repatriated there from Malta?

"I am confident illegal immigrants would not face persecution in Libya. The country is opening up to the West and has made considerable progress. Let us not demonise Libya... you cannot compare Libya with some of the sub Saharan dictatorships."

If Libya were then to repatriate persecuted asylum seekers to the country they fled, Dr Gulia believes that Malta would have to revise the agreement. "People who are genuinely seeking asylum have to be given refuge."