Never say never

It is unlikely that either the rougher seas in winter or the current apparent slowdown of the organised departures from the North African coast will give us more than a short respite from the influx of illegal immigration. And it will be a pity if this influx resumes with greater intensity before a comprehensive solution is found.

It is perfectly clear that the debate on this problem is not going to go away before some kind of a comprehensive plan is in place, and people know that all options open to us have been considered.

In spite of the feelings of some that the government is not doing all it can to prevent the problem of refugees from developing into a real crisis, the practical solutions that remain are rather few.

Logically, first we looked upon the EU to assist us in finding a solution. This assistance has not been forthcoming, at least not so far. Neither the burden-sharing concept nor Frontex have made an impact.

Our international obligations and national ethics prevent us from sending these poor human beings back to where they came from. Therefore we are left with only a few options, which must have been considered carefully by the government.

We know that our moral values and principles would never allow us to do much more than what we are doing now, namely containing with difficulty the problems that the uncontrolled arrivals of refugees bring with them.

Very little, however, has been said about what these international obligations are. While it is certain that the government has considered them, it is unclear why some obvious leads are not being pursued, and if they are, why they are not being made public.

The main international obligations are contained in the Refugees Convention which entered into force in April 1954 and which was ratified by Malta soon thereafter. Naturally, Malta therefore must honour its international obligations under this convention. This convention, however, does not ignore the difficulties that refugees may bring on the countries receiving them.

The preamble of the convention states: 'Considering that the grant of asylum may place unduly heavy burdens on certain countries, and that a satisfactory solution of a problem of which the United Nations has recognised the international scope and nature cannot therefore be achieved without international cooperation'.

The preamble also expresses the wish that other states and the High Commissioner for Refugees, who is charged with supervising the convention, assist such countries.

In addition, article 33 may also allow the return of refugees in some circumstances. This article may need a clear legal interpretation.

Finally, article 44 allows a country to withdraw from the obligations of the convention by simply informing the Secretary-General of the UN it wishes to do so. This is not an option at this stage. Although one should never say never.

To prevent Malta from ever even considering this move, the government may wish, especially if no concrete assistance is forthcoming from the EU, to bring the matter to the UN for its support as implied in the part of the preamble quoted above.

This may be an opportune moment to bring the matter to the attention of the UN General Assembly, whose president at the moment is the Libyan minister of African Union affairs. Although Libya is not a signatory of the refugee convention, this may be a unique opportunity for the UN General Assembly president to use his influence with his country's leadership.

At least this may offer a short-term solution by a serious effort to stop the boats from leaving the coast of Libya and by going after the ruthless individuals who make life miserable to so many unfortunate individuals.

On a national front, the matter is not yet receiving the non-partisan support it deserves, and therefore the government may want to consider ways to ensure this.

This can be done, for example, by appointing a Presidential Blue Ribbon Commission, with the leadership of both major political parties as members, to consider all aspects of the problem of illegal immigration, particularly how a solution could be found while still honouring our obligations under the convention.