Our European role is soon to be redefined through solving the irregular immigration issue. In this case, our politicians and diplomats need to chase other countries' decision-makers and make them understand our interest is theirs as well. Having had "our" European dream fulfilled, and rightly expecting EU support, in this context (something which is rarely done) European countries could well deserve to be blamed by us just as much as our southern neighbours do. A lot of time is being spent blaming Africa when that same time could be dedicated to making detailed proposals to Europe.
I speak of Europe, not just the EU. EU partners need not be the only ones to support us. To these, countries of origin of irregular immigrants, countries of transit as well as international organisations (be they the UN or Amnesty International) may well be added. For this is, after all, an international issue. An extremely large continent is overflowing onto the Mediterranean Sea and Europe and this not just because of post-colonial political failure in Africa but also because of international political failure.
Africa is the continent providing the highest number of irregular immigrants. Europe is the closest richer continent. Malta comes in between and this is why Malta and other Mediterranean islands are taking on so much of what should be an international issue to deal with.
So shouldn't the international community address the problem on an international plane? Isn't this but the other side of the stop poverty coin which has already become an international issue? Shouldn't the abolition of Third World countries' debts be made somewhat conditional upon multilateral and bilateral agreements in this respect too?
Shouldn't countries, political fora and associations condemning us be condemning themselves as well? Why don't they realise that our problem is their problem? No international issue is nowadays limited in space or restricted to a particular territory.
Indeed, one should focus on territory when looking for a solution to the irregular immigration crisis. It is ironic how in an age of globalisation, international law still divides territories according to geographical borders, continental shelves and territorial seas. Coupled with a policy of non-interference in national affairs this has oftentimes allowed wealthy countries to turn a blind eye to the harsh problems faced by the African people despite centuries of colonialisation.
The world's failure to cure the African problem on African territory has caused the patients to move northwards to European territories. Instead of hammering on nationalism it might well be worth taking up the option of international responsibility.
A second cause is always being overlooked in the irregular immigrants' discussion. Irregular immigrants themselves are proof of social discomfort in their own country if not an object of pity. Apart from any selfish, nationalistic solutions we must all agree that what should be obliterated is the death of people at sea (as well as the desert) and, on the other hand, the abnormal burden to be shouldered by populations receiving irregular immigrants (especially when this reaches the proportions as in Malta's case).
Why should we accept the guilt of letting people drown in our waters for the sake of not allowing them into our country? Shouldn't 21st century Europe come up with fresh solutions rather than go back to racism? Aren't we trying to solve problems using old tools when new ones can be developed? Or can new methods only be applied in other regions where the saving of human lives is not the only interest?
The moral dilemma we should be facing is that we want irregular immigrants to land safely as long as they do not do so on our shores. So, an ambitious project would be to provide alternative shores such migrants could head for. The increase of borders/shores (through the creation of man-made borders/shores) is the solution that comes to the fore.
But before justifying artificial shores, there is another problem to be addressed. The situation as it stands now means that a country identifying a case of human trafficking will end up with the extra responsibility of taking care of the migrants. If, on the other hand, such interception is not timely, the end result is likely to be a human massacre. This state of affairs is thus multiplying problems to either the irregular immigrants or the receiving state.
The regime could have worked when dealing with a one-off landing but given the systematic illegal transport into Europe the system becomes discriminatory against islands and peninsular states. Thus, locating human trafficking at an early stage without having to carry any jurisdictional responsibility could be the solution to the problem.
The Mediterranean was shaped the way it is by nature. However, the geographical dimensions could easily be changed by the establishment of fixed or mobile man-made structures to identify human trafficking before migrants reach any of the European shores. Such structures (that is, ships) could be positioned at chosen geographical points where supervision of the seas would best serve all parties. They need to be such as to be able to accommodate any irregular immigrants located at sea until their status is established - a platform where all legal and procedural questions can be processed. They will be financed by states that enter into agreement with each other, applying the same provisions of international law where states are unwilling to cooperate.
These structures could, eventually, be used for purposes other than irregular immigration, such as for economic purposes, maritime passage purposes, aviation purposes, regulation of the fishing zones, marine research, smuggling and drug trafficking control and at times of environmental crises such as oil spillages.
Such man-made structures should fall under an "international" jurisdiction regime. The issue would ultimately boil down to another diplomatic exercise between states once they recognise the matter as being an international and not a national one. Indeed, the issue of international jurisdiction of the high seas justified such a move because no state could be placed at a disadvantage - especially in the case of land-locked states. Should countries like ours, surrounded by sea, on the threshold of Africa, be forever placed at a disadvantage just because of our geographical location?
What has been said above with regard to shores applies also to established approved structures in the desert or "man-made oasis".
In a give-and-take world we should make the international community realise our interest is theirs as well and through the channels of international law and criteria to be established and agreed to by the countries that are at a disadvantage our diplomatic efforts should all point in the same direction. It is really time for the international fora to be addressed in this manner. In this venture we should stop relying on our own resources or those that ooze out of our EU membership. Unfortunately, none of these, so far, have proved sufficient.