Editorial

At the first justice and home affairs ministerial meeting held under the Portuguese Presidency in Brussels on September 18, it was agreed "to invite the Commission to continue its examination of the scope for further measures to address the particular pressures which member states may be faced with (on illegal immigration) and the suggestions made by Malta in June, and to report back to the Council as soon as possible". What this ponderous bureaucratic language is saying is that Malta's proposal that illegal immigrants rescued at sea by EU-registered ships - such as Malta's - in the search and rescue region of a non-EU state - such as Libya's - be shared on a proportional basis should be examined by the Commission. While Home Affairs Minister Tonio Borg was keen to show, understandably, that the EU was taking notice of our concerns, should one be optimistic about the outcome?

The facts are that the EU has no direct competence in this area and needs the agreement of individual states to move forward. Member states have diverse - sometimes divergent - views about illegal immigration. Some countries are heavily reliant on cheap immigrant labour for economic growth. Others, less so. While all EU states are clear about the political sensitivities of their electorates about uncontrolled immigration, multi-culturalism and the social consequences of multi-racialism, there is no agreement on how best to manage the issue on an EU-wide basis.

Although all member states pay lip service to the concept of solidarity and burden-sharing - both words feature prominently in all EU communiqués on illegal immigration - the gap between fine words and positive actions remains huge.

Malta has asked for practical burden-sharing in three critical related areas.

The first is the question of who takes physical responsibility for those illegal immigrants saved from drowning in Libya's search and rescue region. The Maltese argument is that if Libya is unable to fulfil its duties, then Malta would be prepared to go well beyond its own international obligations, on humanitarian grounds, provided that other EU countries agreed to take their share proportionally of those rescued by Malta. The alternative is to let migrants meet their ill fate and Libya to deal with its own international opprobrium. If other EU states are not prepared to share the burden, then they should not point the finger at Malta if it does not - or, realistically, cannot - act outside its huge rescue region.

The second, more important, request, and one which has the overwhelming support of the European Parliament, has temporarily faded from the radar screen. This is the urgent need to revise the Dublin 2 Convention that unfairly affects a country like Malta which is in the front-line of illegal immigration from Africa and has no hinterland within which immigrants can be absorbed. A more equitable formula for processing illegal immigrants arriving in the EU needs to be devised taking full account of the particular circumstances of Malta and other front-line states.

The third area is shared resettlement in other countries in the EU of those granted asylum or protected status in Malta. Some countries - a minority of the 26 other states - have offered help. More should, and could, be done if solidarity and burden-sharing mean anything.

Burden-sharing should not be empty rhetoric. It should have substance and meaningful sharing. The proposals which Malta has made would - if implemented - provide a tangible demonstration that the EU means what it says when it talks of solidarity and burden-sharing. Alas, so far there has been so much talk but, oh, so little tangible action in this direction.