The national interest

The paramount duty of any government is to ensure that its people are secure and safe, and that their liberty, including their fundamental human rights, and economic well-being are assured. The goal of Malta's security policy is to safeguard the freedom and territorial integrity of the Maltese Islands, and the ability of its people to pursue their legitimate interests.

Security defined in this way is a broad concept. It encompasses the reduction or removal of the possibility of external threats against Malta's territory or its vital national interests. It includes upholding the rule of law and internal public order within the Maltese islands. It aims to create the conditions of security and stability within which to pursue Malta's national interests. These considerations were uppermost in the decision to join the European Union.

Malta is located in the midst of a volatile sea. The world today faces increased uncertainty and rapid change, not least from developments in the global economy. Uncertainties in the region have a vital influence on Malta's security. Nationalism, religious extremism, international rivalry, the widening gap between rich and poor in the region and disputes over resources continue to undermine stability in the area.

It is against this background that the steady and continuing influx of irregular immigrants to Malta should be viewed.

Since 2002 there has been a substantial increase in the number of irregular or undocumented immigrants arriving in Malta by boat. So far this year, over 7,000 immigrants have arrived in this manner. Since 2002 about 200 people have been granted refugee status and some 1,800 have been granted humanitarian protection. On being granted protection these individuals are immediately released to live in the community.

In addition to those immigrants living in open accommodation centres in the community, there are currently about 1,400 immigrants in closed accommodation centres, in detention. Most of these have applied for asylum and are awaiting the outcome of their application for refugee status. Some, though not all, will be granted some form of protection. It is hoped that some will be resettled in other countries willing to take them. Those whose application is refused will be repatriated to their country of origin.

The unplanned for contingencies arising from irregular immigration inevitably place strains on Malta's financial and human resources. The social, economic, demographic, cultural and security impact on Malta today - and on future generations of Maltese - raises inescapable concerns, which must be addressed responsibly.

To highlight or to question the consequences of large-scale immigration on a small community like Malta is not to be "racist". It is, however, to be aware of the social changes that a disproportionate influx of immigrants will bring to our society and the possible effects on the stability and well-being of the society in which we live.

Malta recognises its international and moral responsibilities to provide asylum or protected humanitarian status to those who genuinely need it. It has been just and humane in its responses. Indeed, a very high proportion of those irregular immigrants who have landed in Malta have been granted refugee status or humanitarian protection.

But the potential strains on Malta's social services, and on internal security, stability and public order, have also to be weighed in the scales. The possible consequences for the social cohesion, cultural and economic well-being of the country if the present pressures are not mitigated are matters that cannot be ignored by any responsible government.

Nowhere is this issue more sensitive than when consideration of Malta's policy on detention is concerned. Some non-governmental organisations have strongly argued that the present policy of detention is wrong. In their view, while a short period of detention (a maximum of two weeks) is considered unavoidable, all other arguments - the human rights and liberty of the individuals, the conditions in which detainees are kept and the fact that those who are given asylum or protected status are released in due course to live in the community anyway - point, they contend, towards the removal of all detention centres and the introduction of reception in open centres (or some form of community-oriented model) after a maximum of only 15 days in detention. The arguments for the removal of the policy of detention have been carefully considered. The concept of more community-oriented models and open accommodation centres is kept - and will continue to be kept - under regular review. There are, however, other factors that have to be weighed in the scales in deciding what constitutes the best balanced solution for handling asylum seekers in Malta. These include those all important factors which no government can ignore: the political and social consequences of such policies, the unique physical circumstances of Malta and the employment, housing and cultural impact of how we deal with irregular immigrants, as well as the financial and other resource implications. All these factors argue for careful management and control and the ability to absorb the extra numbers entailed in a well calibrated manner over time.

Malta cannot escape its geographical and physical limitations, nor can it alter them. In a country as small and densely populated as this - without the hinterland which most other EU countries enjoy - the impact of hundreds of asylum seekers on the community, both sociologically and economically, is far greater than in any other independent state in Europe, or elsewhere.

The benefits and disadvantages of putting many hundreds more irregular immigrants into community-oriented models, or open accommodation centres, on the lines proposed by the non-governmental organisations, have to be weighed with great care and sensitivity against the cultural, social and political implications for a society which, in Europe, is uniquely homogenous and has never before experienced the challenges that arise from a multi-cultural or multi-racial society.

The over-riding national interest, therefore, obliges Malta to tread carefully. In today's' circumstances - given the densely populated nature and small size of the island, the economic uncertainties through which Malta is passing as it adjusts to the realities of accession to the European Union and the global market place, the fragile local employment market and the intense pressures on social housing and the availability of public accommodation - the policy of detention and the mix of closed and open accommodation centres which are in place is the right one.

While Malta is determined to ensure that the period spent in detention by irregular immigrants is as brief as possible - it averages currently about five months - and that applications for asylum are handled expeditiously, it would be both impolitic and impractical to alter the current detention arrangements now in place. Considerable practical merit is seen in these arrangements that allow the government proper control of irregular, often illegal, arrivals in the country, and ensure the maximum protection, stability and security for Malta and its people.

In the existing circumstances, it is a matter of common sense to retain Malta's policy of detention - in the wider national interest. Nevertheless, a cautious, measured, pragmatic and balanced approach to this sensitive matter will continue consciously to be adopted, while at the same time ensuring Malta's humanitarian obligations towards those seeking refuge are honoured.

Mr Scicluna is adviser to the Minister for Justice and Home Affairs on illegal immigration.

Part III: Global migration and the international perspective.