Editorial

Another year, another frazzled start for Frontex in meeting its long-promised commitments to deter illegal immigration in the central Mediterranean. Each year for the last three years we have heard high-sounding plans by the European Commission of how the EU's southern maritime borders will be protected from illegal immigration from North Africa. Each year our hopes are raised, then dashed on the rocks as the EU nations either fail to fulfil commitments to the provision of maritime and air assets or to agree on even the most basic operational procedures.

Nautilus III, a six-month long anti-illegal immigration EU patrol mission in the Sicily-Malta-Libya strait was scheduled to start on April 22 but was postponed because of disagreement among the four participating member states. It remains stalled while "rules of engagement", which should have been settled months ago, are debated.

The bone of contention arises over who should be responsible for receiving illegal immigrants rescued in the Libyan Search and Rescue (SAR) region. Under international law this responsibility lies squarely with Libya. But Libya - for reasons which are incomprehensible to EU members brought up to respect and fulfil their international and humanitarian obligations - refuses to take back illegal immigrants rescued in their area. Given Libya's intransigence, the reception of those rescued then falls on the closest safe haven to the point of rescue - almost invariably either Malta or Italy.

Malta and Italy have understandably argued that this would be unfair. They already bear the major burden of immigration from North Africa and it is about time that other EU countries also carried their share. While Malta and Italy are prepared to meet their SAR responsibilities - as they have done over the last six years since the phenomenon of mass illegal immigration through the central Mediterranean unfolded - they cannot surely be expected to carry Libya's obligations as well.

If the EU cannot stand back , as it rightly states, on humanitarian grounds while human dramas of the kind witnessed last year occur, then the corollary must be that the EU has to find a way of sharing the consequent burden. Malta made constructive proposals about this several months ago but the EU Council has failed to make progress on the issue. The bottom line is that EU countries do not appear to have the political will to adopt a comprehensive burden-sharing policy on this most vexed of human tragedies. The reality is that each country in the EU views the problem of immigration differently. Each has different domestic electoral, economic, employment and social pressures that dictate national priorities. Each is concerned with protecting its national self interest. Burden sharing, in this context, comes low down on the agenda.

That this is a short-sighted and blinkered approach seems to cut little ice at the EU Council level. The problems in all EU countries can only be resolved by adopting a holistic, pan-European approach, in which burden sharing must play a key role. The illegal immigrants landing in south European countries do not want to stay there. The majority seek to move northwards where they can find well-paid work. The borders of these southern front-line states are also effectively the external borders of the United Kingdom, Germany, The Netherlands, the Scandinavian countries and others.

Until this geo-political reality is accepted by EU leaders, the kind of worthy - but somewhat limited - initiative exemplified by Frontex will remain frayed at the edges. It will take a broader political vision than is currently being displayed to resolve these issues.