Tonio Borg
Frontex - deterring human trafficking
The recent statement by Frontex chief Illika Laitinen to the effect that Frontex operations have failed in the central Mediterranean and that these operations are indeed a pull factor for other immigrants to try crossing over from Africa to Europe has thrown doubt on the feasibility and viability of future Frontex operations. Giving way to such misgivings would be a grave error.
Frontex operations have limited effect not because the operations in themselves are flawed but because there exists no agreement with Libya regarding re-admission of immigrants. Frontex patrols have till now centered mainly around saving lives - a laudable motive not to be forgotten in any way and conveniently and callously ignored by armchair critics who think that immigrants can be stopped from reaching our shores by merely putting in place a Frontex operation. When in 2005 the government insisted that Frontex organise patrols in the central Mediterranean, it knew that this would not be the panacea of the local immigration problem.
But it wisely insisted on these patrols for this was the best way one could involve EU countries in participating in the monitoring of Europe`s southern borders.
Secondly, not participating would have sent the wrong message to traffickers, namely that the central Mediterranean is, for human smuggling purposes, a free for all zone.
Thirdly, through Frontex we get 85 per cent EU funding for maritime patrols, which we would have done just the same.
Finally, these patrols, even if with limited effect owing to the lack of agreement with Libya, can act as a deterrent for would-be smugglers of human beings.
Malta has registered a 30 per cent increase in immigrant arrivals compared with last year. Lampedusa has received 190 per cent more than last year. There is no indication that this increase was due to Frontex patrols. Indeed, last year there was a slight increase compared with 2006 figures and Frontex patrols were in place then as well. Fomenting the idea that Frontex operations are futile would play in the hands of those, including European states, that would prefer to stay idle and let the southern peripheral states face their fate alone in this matter.
It is for these reasons that the government has insisted on an extension of Frontex patrols. This insistence was assiduously taken up by Nationalist MEP Simon Busuttil who succeeded in committing a further €30 million from European funds to increase and extend such patrols for the present and immediate future.
The pull factor pretext will soon be brandished the more we come closer to some form of burden-sharing mechanism, even if voluntary , within the EU. The main obstacle over the years to an adoption of some kind of burden sharing has, over the years, taken two forms. One is the crude and blunt objection: "Burden sharing is unacceptable because public opinion in different member states would not accept it; ask us anything but not this". The other more subtle, but more insidious, argument put forward against burden sharing was, and in some quarters still is, that laudable though such initiative might be to illustrate in practice solidarity among EU member states, such solidarity might act as an incentive or magnet for would-be immigrants. Immigrants would arrive in increasing numbers, knowing full well that in the fullness of time they would be comfortably resettled in some other member state.
If accepted, this argument would bar any kind of solidarity with states that are hard hit by the immigration phenomenon. No Frontex. No burden sharing. No resettlement ... lest more immigrants would arrive!
The argument is fallacious for a number of reasons: Immigrants have been arriving in Malta ever since 2002 - with or without burden sharing. So long as deep differences in wealth and prosperity remains between North and South, the flow will continue. Desperate people do desperate things; they put their life in peril by crossing deserts to Libya and risk their lives in rickety small boats on their way to Europe.
The pull factor argument is rearing its head even in local circles. The same quarters which criticise the government for not being forceful with the EU and which clamour that sovereign nations in Europe should, by the wave of some magic wand, accept resettlement of immigrants, protected or not, from Malta, are now, in true hypocritical fashion, whining that burden sharing will act as a pull factor for immigrants to Malta!
The red line has been drawn. Malta will insist, if need be, even at the next European Council, that a reference to the setting up of a voluntary burden-sharing mechanism under the auspices of the Commission be inserted in the Council conclusions. Nothing less will be acceptable.
Dr Borg is Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs
Popular Stories
In Discussion
9 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Raymond Sammut
Sep 26th 2008, 08:31
@ John Schembri
"Frontex minimised the blow , Lampedusa got 190% increase we got 30%."
How did Frontex minimise the "blow"? This is not what Mr Illka Laitinen said. He said:
"The Libyan authorities' refusal to stem the flow of departures from their country remains the main reasons for illegal immigrant crossings, but Mr Laitinen said the presence of more patrols by the EU in the area might also be a contributory factor."
This is contrary to what you are claiming. Frontex has actually contributed to the "blow" by providing a magnet to the illegals. If you think you are better informed and more knowledgeable than Mr Laitinen, then please explain your stance.
J. Camilleri
Sep 25th 2008, 19:53
It seems to me that we are all assuming that "traffickers" are bringing immigrants and unloading them somewhere off Malta. It is probable that the small boats that we see coming here in are in fact leaving from Libya direct - it is after all dead easy to go due north to arrive in Malta. If this is the case, then the traffickers cannot be caught "in flagrante delicto", they have to be caught and controlled in Libya itself. Which is where reference to Gaddafi comes in. For Libya, these are illegal immigrants as well and Gaddafi should therefore stop the traffickers. As for Frontex, patrolling the international waters is good, in the sense that they can help people in danger. However, the knowledge that Libya will not take back illegal immigrants leaving its shores will not deter anyone from trying to come. They are in any case desperate to reach Europe and its better standard of living. As for those European countries who do not wish to help us, it may be a good idea to tell them that Malta could give illegal immigrants a temporary Maltese ID allowing them to travel and enter Europe countries legally.
J. Schembri
Sep 25th 2008, 18:05
"Do we live on the same planet earth, and more specifically on a tiny island in the centre of the Mediterranean called Malta?"
"No - Hon. Tonio Borg - not 'VOLUNTARY' but mandatory - listen to us please"
All of a sudden I am noticing a surge of comments about these poor boat people , which I must say are the victims in this human tragedy. What are we expecting Tonio Borg to do ?
Frontex minimised the blow , Lampedusa got 190% increase we got 30%. Dr Simon Busuttil appealed and got more finances for more patrols. Am I satisfied as a citizen with the results? Of coarse not and I believe that Dr Borg is of the same opinion.
We all know that these boat people started coming long before we joined the EU. So why are we 'connecting ' this issue with our membership with the EU? We all remember that we were expecting a steady flow of Sicilians when we entered the EU. This never materialised.
a.cassar
Sep 25th 2008, 17:59
All this talk can be summed up in one word LIBYA. If gaddafi is not brought to heel and made to respect international law and cooperate with the rest of the world no amount of talk will solve the problem. Why are all the countries of the Mediterranean afraid to speak out against Libya in the same manner that they do against Malta? I'm asking this question while knowing the answer...OIL. No country is ready to put its relations with Libya on the line for us. and that's that.
Francesca Abela
Sep 25th 2008, 16:22
No - Hon. Tonio Borg - not 'VOLUNTARY' but mandatory - listen to us please
Etienne Bonanno
Sep 25th 2008, 15:58
Why has there never been a concerted effort to catch these "traffickers" in delitto flagrante? Why is it that they are (apparently) never seen by the Frontex/Maltese patrols? Mr. Laitinen says that the "traffickers" would start sinking the boats as soon as they saw the Frontex patrols. Are we to believe that the traffickers with their boats are able to spot the Frontex patrols with no problems at all, easily evading them, while Frontex with all their fancy gagetry, radar satellite surveillence gps etc. etc., never manage to get one up on the "traffickers"??
It may not be possible to stop immigrants reaching our shores, however surely it is not against human rights to repatriate those who have no right for refugee status? Why is this not done consistently? Why does it have to be done "voluntarily"? If I were to overstay my visa in a country such as Australia I would be repatriated immediately, whether I want it or not. What is the difference with, say, Ghanaian immigrants? Can we have clear answers to these questions?
Raymond Sammut
Sep 25th 2008, 14:54
@ Tonio Borg
In reference to your statements:
"The argument is fallacious for a number of reasons: Immigrants have been arriving in Malta ever since 2002 - with or without burden sharing. So long as deep differences in wealth and prosperity remains between North and South, the flow will continue."
You would know, Tonio Borg, that deep differences in wealth and prosperity had existed long before 2002. Why, therefore, have they been arriving "ever since 2002", you mean particularly 2002, and not before?
How long, Tonio Borg, do you expect the "deep differences in wealth and prosperity" to remain, and how do you intend to keep managing the continuing "flow" during this time?
Sandro Pace
Sep 25th 2008, 13:04
'Nothing less will be acceptable'. What is less then 'voluntary'? The government will try to sell to the public that it achieved something.
A voluntary agreement is subject to many things...change of governments, change in public opinion etc. etc. They can always say 'No'. And they will probably do. When we will see the results of this so called agreement?
It has become a custom by politicians who cannot take tough decisions to blame people's concerns as 'armchair criticism'. Yes, as long as we bluntly say that we will continue pulling them out of the sea, we will achieve nothing. It is a blackmail.
Can Honor. Tonio Borg tell us how Frontex was a deterrence when no ships were halted and crew arrested. It could have deterred momentarily an unloading, the ship moved and unloaded them elsewhere. For the traffickers it is not a deterrent, but an annoyance. The same quantity if not less would have arrived even without Frontex.
Deterrence is when you disable their ships.
Such politicians are allowing international injustice to our country.
l Galea
Sep 25th 2008, 12:08
Do we live on the same planet earth, and more specifically on a tiny island in the centre of the Mediterranean called Malta?