Visa requirements

Mark Pace writes:
I noted that you have called on the European Commission to step up pressure on the United States to remove the visa requirements for Maltese citizens to enter the country.

Although the new EU member states are discriminated against since they require a visa to enter the country, unlike the original 15, at least once a visa is issued, it is valid for a period of 10 years.

This anomaly between the old and new EU members also exists for Maltese visiting Thailand. However, in this case it is much worse since a visa is required every time you enter the country.  Moreover, Bangkok is strategically positioned and is a stepping stone to travellers visiting Malaysia, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam and other Asian countries. It is quite normal for a traveller to have to return to Bangkok for connecting flights and unless you are travelling straight through and do not need to stay overnight then a visa charge is due once again.

My question is: Is the EU doing anything to ensure that citizens from all the 25 member states will be treated in the same way with regards to visa entry requirements to Thailand?

With regards to Thailand, there should be no difference in treatment between EU citizens. This is because a visa requirement is imposed both ways, that is, both on EU citizens travelling to Thailand as well as on Thai citizens travelling to member states.

This means that Maltese citizens travelling to Thailand are not treated differently from other EU citizens. Equally, to date, Thailand still remains among the list of countries whose citizens require a visa to travel to the EU.

Since the reader mentions other countries, it would be relevant to explain the visa situation with respect to each of these countries.

For instance, there is now no visa requirement to travel to Malaysia, so the reader may prefer to travel to or via this country in order to avoid the hassle of visa requirements in Thailand.

As to Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam and indeed, most other Asian countries, there is a visa requirement imposed by EU countries and normally this is met by reciprocity, that is, Maltese (and other EU citizens) would equally require a visa to travel to these countries.

As long as there is visa reciprocity, that is, that both sides impose a visa or do not impose it, one can hardly complain.

The problem arises with countries where there is no reciprocity; where we impose no visa requirement but they do. And it is even worse in the case of countries where the EU imposes no visa but then they only reciprocate with some, not all, EU countries.

This is the case with the US. EU countries, including Malta, impose no visa on US citizens travelling to Malta. But this notwithstanding, the citizens of 10 EU countries, including Malta, still require a visa to travel to the US whereas 15 EU countries do not.

This does not make for reciprocity. It is discriminatory, it is unfair and it should change.

Recently, the European Commission issued a report outlining the state of play on visa reciprocity. In view of enlargement, the Commission has been working to ensure that visa reciprocity is extended to all 10 new member countries. This has been achieved with many countries on the EU visa waiver list.

The most recent country to extend full reciprocity has been Malaysia, whereas full reciprocity has also been achieved with Uruguay, Costa Rica and Paraguay. Progress has also been achieved with Singapore and Brunei.

Brazil has finally indicated that it is willing to extend full reciprocity to all EU countries (including Malta). This should be the subject of a specific visa waiver agreement which is expected to be negotiated in the coming months.

Non-reciprocity still remains with Australia, Canada and the US.

Some developments have been reported with regards to Australia and Canada. However, the US remains the only country where no progress has been achieved. Indeed, from this month, the US introduced new procedures for visa applications which make the process even more cumbersome for those who do not have internet access since the application must first be completed online and then printed.

The Commission reports that the US "continuously hides behind the legislative criteria for refusing an extension of the Visa Waiver Programme, whereas political considerations obviously prevail".

It appears that the most important criterion that is not fulfilled by member states is the refusal rate of visa applications (which has to be below three per cent). But as the Commission points out, the objectivity of this condition is, at best, questionable as the fluctuations of its level lie in the hands of US authorities themselves.

In order to apply pressure, the Commission is therefore proposing counter-measures and is asking EU countries to impose a visa on US diplomats travelling to EU countries.

I will continue to follow developments on the US visa requirement and I will soon be tabling a joint parliamentary question asking for the matter to be debated in the plenary of the European Parliament.

Readers who would like to ask questions to be answered in this column can send an e-mail, identifying themselves, to contact@simonbusuttil.eu or through www.simonbusuttil.eu