Ivan Camilleri, Brussels
EU border agency gets more funds
No illegal immigrants turned back this year
Frontex - the EU's Border Agency - will next year receive an additional €10 million in funds to add to its €70 million budget so that it can extend its illegal immigration patrols in the southern Mediterranean area.
The European Parliament has allocated the extra funding to the Warsaw-based EU agency on condition that the anti-migration patrols run throughout the whole of next year.
The move comes as this year's six-month operation draws to a close with various questions posed on the effectiveness of such patrols. The agency had already said patrols will take place on a permanent basis from 2009 onwards and the new cash injection should make this possible.
According to Nationalist MEP Simon Busuttil, who proposed the amendment approved by the EP's Budget Committee, the €10 million injection should only be used on "the commitment to permanent missions, notably at the southern borders of the Union as from 2009".
Of this amount, €5 million has been put in reserve to be released after the executive director of Frontex submits plans to make the operations permanent from January.
"Frontex has been successful in the Canary Islands, but less so in other areas like Malta," Dr Busuttil told the EP Committee before the vote. "We want Frontex missions to be more effective and to become permanent in immigration hot spots, as illegal immigration cannot be combated on a part-time basis, but all year round. This is why we are making sufficient resources available to achieve this," he said.
Last month, Dr Busuttil and Frontex's executive director Illka Laitenen clashed over comments made by the latter that this year's mission off Malta was a failure. Mr Laitenen admitted the mission was not managing to turn back boatloads of illegal immigrants approaching Malta, particularly because of the non-cooperation from Libya.
He also said the EU's increased patrols in the seas off Malta and Lampedusa might actually be one of the main reasons why these two islands this year received more migrants than ever before - since migrants felt they had a better chance of being rescued if things went wrong.
However, Dr Busuttil dismissed Mr Laitenen's comments as "clumsy" and accused him of trying to shirk responsibility.
According to the latest Frontex statistics, since the start of this year's operation in mid-May till the first week of October, Malta received 2,321 illegal immigrants. Not one was turned back by Frontex.
Lampedusa, the other Mediterranean island covered by this EU-coordinated patrol, received 14,171 illegal immigrants during the same period.
On the other hand, the mission conducted off the coasts of the Spanish Canary islands received 7,228 illegal immigrants with Frontex turning back 4,373.
In this case, the countries of origin, Senegal and Mauritania cooperate with the Frontex missions and have agreed to take back illegal immigrants leaving their shores. Libya does not, despite EU pleas.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Petrol price up 6c
'No need for early election if PM's...
In Discussion
10 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Raymond Sammut
Oct 20th 2008, 05:20
@ Dr Simon Busuttil
Illegal immigrants, originating from sub-Saharan Africa via Libya, can also be returned to Africa by Frontex via Senegal or Mauritania. This would position illegal immigrants closer to their respective homelands in sub-Saharan Africa and would save them from having to cross the Saharan desert on their return home. In fact, whether Libya cooperates or not should be irrelevant.
As it is, you are only re-directing more prospective sub-Saharan illegal immigrants from Senegal to Libya. At the same time, you continue to regard Frontex as a mere ferry, and not as a Coast Guard as the Greek PM has suggested.
Not only you have proved to be useless, but in actual fact you are a great detriment to the state of Malta. The Maltese people can now expect illegal immigrants to start appearing at Hay Wharf pretty much on a regular basis throughout the year.
Michelle Dali
Oct 19th 2008, 19:37
@ David Seychell - regarding your last comment - good point you've raised. Heaven forbid that should happen!
Denis Catania
Oct 19th 2008, 19:31
Does this mean more ILLEGALS?? To get a free ride to Malta.
Stephen Zammit
Oct 19th 2008, 19:25
I agree with Simon Busuttil that unless Libya is roped in, Frontex in the Central Med will remain much less effective than in the Western Med.
The diplomatic pressures by the EU should be re-doubled, and ideally addressing the southern shores of Libya, since, let's face it, Libya won't cooperate unless it is 'a win-win' situation.
As to Simon Busuttil rebutting Mr. Laitenen's remarks about complete failure of Frontex, I agree with his reasoning.
We risk rushing in our comments to abolish the patrols and end up shooting at our feet! That would be ridiculous. AFM would be catering for southern traffic (in distress) with only three partol boats and throwing away 80% financial assistance from the Agency.
So yes, Busuttil is 100% correct in pushing for a redimensioning of the Agency, instead of bidding it goodbye!
David Seychell
Oct 19th 2008, 18:52
"The European Parliament has allocated the extra funding to the Warsaw-based EU agency on condition that the anti-migration patrols run throughout the whole of next year."
Since the human traffickers don't operate during winter, why Frontex should "run throughout the whole of the next year"? Since Frontex acts like a free sea-taxi for these irregular immigrants - well actually it's only free for them, not for the EU citizens who pay €70 million from their taxes - should we now start expecting them even during non-summer time?
David Seychell
Oct 19th 2008, 14:49
Without an agreement with Gaddafi, Frontex is like a house built on mud. It was destined to fail from the beginning.
"In the Canary Islands Frontex missions were successful and have led to a reduction of arrivals of immigrants by more than half this year. This occurred largely as a result of the cooperation of Mauritania and Senegal from which immigrants embark to head for the Spanish islands." - Simon Busuttil.
Since we DON'T have the "cooperation of" Libya, Frontex in the central Mediterranean, not only didn't "led to a reduction of arrivals of immigrants by more than half this year" -like it did in the Canary Islands- but increased the influx in Malta by 50% and 200% in Lampedusa. In other words, since Frontex in central Mediterranean is acting like a free sea-taxi for illegal immigrants and "Not one was turned back by Frontex", Frontex is cleary a huge pull factor towards Malta.
"However, Dr Busuttil dismissed Mr Laitenen's comments as "clumsy" and accused him of trying to shirk responsibility."
Dr Busuttil, STOP treating us like retarded donkeys. STOP FRONTEX IN THE CENTRAL MEDITERRANEAN UNTIL AN AGREEMENT IS REACHED WITH GADDAFI !!!
B Borg
Oct 19th 2008, 14:10
The EU and its institutions increasingly resembe Babylon with every day that passes. The head of Frontex admits that Frontex is a disaster, and the EU pumps more money down the drain into this mess. Well done indeed.
Hold on tight for an even greater number of illegals brought over next year, compliments of Frontex.
This money should be spent on repatriating these illegals.
James Dimech
Oct 19th 2008, 11:53
Well this is just the first part of a whole puzzle. Frontex or no Frontex, these immigrants would need to be saved anyway, by AFM only as a matter of fact. Simon Busuttil should keep up his sterling work on Frontex - however he should now move on to working on the second part, that is returning immigrants who have no claim to be in Malta
Sandro Pace
Oct 19th 2008, 10:44
It is ridiculous to read that Frontex did not turn any boats, moreso that it did not catch any traffickers. The government is blaming this so far unsuccessful venture on the lack of co-operation with Libya. This exposes a very faulty logic which is going to be detrimental.
If that is so, start Frontex only when or if co-operation with Libya is achieved. Or if the mandate is tougher. Otherwise Frontex is going to "see more boats, bring more boats".
Which is not the scope.
As the Greek prime minister rightly said, influx prevention and deterrence should be the primary objective. With or without burden sharing, eventually it has to come to this, for nothing is infinite. From Malta's point, the problem is only being postponed to future generations. Eventually it has to come to this, however grim.
But we need courageous statesman to start taking courageous decisions from now, irrespective of what is written (which is being abused). There is nothing immoral.
Michelle Dali
Oct 19th 2008, 10:22
'He said the EU's increased patrols in the seas off Malta...might actually be one of the main reasons why the island this year received more migrants than ever before...'
Let us hope that the increase in Frontex operations does not mean that more illegal immigrants will be brought to Malta next year. Now is the time to implement safeguards for Malta BEFORE Frontex starts ferrying them in again. We are already grossly overpopulated on this tiny island and have far more than our fair share of illegal immigrants. Recently released statistics have confirmed this. The EU must be made to acknowledge and accept this fact. Legislation must be put in place to protect Malta's national interest immediately.
Libya has no reason to be cooperative - they are illegal immigrants in Libya too. Frontex cannot use this excuse for not turning them back - if the EU insists on continuing to bring them in, let them be taken to a country that has the space and resources to accomodate these people. Malta does not.