Ranier Fsadni
National security by voodoo
In the name of national security, the latest bandwagon demands that the government should take emergency action on immigration. But the protestors' suggestion-list is very short and, so far, little more than voodoo politics: black magic replacing policy.
Some make no suggestions at all. Others largely propose illegal actions. They effectively advise the government to become an outlaw state, degrade and endanger the lives of other human beings and hang the consequences. The snag is, the consequences would hang us.
An outlaw state becomes a pariah. The international and, especially, European sanctions would be severe, destroy Malta's reputation and cripple its economy. Nonetheless, the witchdoctors say, our national security would be enhanced.
The one suggestion that actually cites a precedent involving a western liberal democracy has been made by Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando (February 27). He proposes to tow immigrants out to international waters, point them in the direction of Libya and leave them there. This action, he says, is "practically identical" to the policy implemented by the US Coast Guard in the face of irregular migration by boat people from Cuba and Haiti.
Dr Pullicino Orlando breezily admits one difference. The US returns immigrants to their country of origin whereas Malta, under his proposal, would be pointing immigrants back to a transit country, Libya.
Is that really all?
The US policy towards Cuba, at least in practice, is not the same as that towards Haiti. Cuban would-be immigrants benefit from the "wet foot, dry foot" policy: those who manage to make it to dry land get a chance to remain in the US and pursue permanent resident status; those who are intercepted ("interdicted") at sea are repatriated to Cuba.
How is this "practically identical" to Dr Pullicino Orlando's proposal? The repatriations are made on the basis of a US-Cuba agreement but Malta has no agreement with Libya.
In the case of Haiti, the US policy dates back to 1981, with twists and turns in different periods. However, essentially the US Coast Guard's role has been to intercept Haitian boats in international waters.
What it does, and how it does it, differ in at least three fundamental ways from Dr Pullicino Orlando's proposal.
First, with few interruptions, the US has had either the formal cooperation or informal collusion of the Haitian government. For many years, the US Coast Guard was permitted to patrol very close to Haiti and sometimes with Haitian officials to hand.
Second, the US escorts the migrants back to Port-au-Prince. The US justifies its policy by saying it minimises loss of life by picking up immigrants on dangerous high seas. Dr Pullicino Orlando proposes to abandon them right where the US picks them up.
In some quarters, the US has been accused of breaking international law. The US claims that it is respecting the letter of the law, which, it argues, only applies once immigrants reach US territory (hence, the importance of interception in international waters and, when unavoidable, detaining migrants at a safe haven like Guantanamo Bay. Yes, that Guantanamo: in Cuba).
Here, then, is the third big difference: The mighty US cares to be seen to be upholding the law; Dr Pullicino Orlando says we should just break it.
At various periods, like today, the US has forcibly repatriated Haitians. Where possible, as in the Cuban case, repatriation was made on the basis of an agreement with Haiti's government. When the latter sometimes tried to squirm out of it, the US pushed its weight.
Size, alas, matters. The Maltese protestors harp on the disproportionate impact of immigration on a minuscule country. But they conveniently forget that size also matters when it comes to international cooperation agreements: they are far easier for large powerful countries to obtain since, often, one or two arms may need to be stroked or twisted.
US policy therefore provides no legal or political cover for Dr Pullicino Orlando's proposal. The difference between the two is fundamental. Oh, and did I say that the US uses a fleet that Malta on its own cannot begin to match?
Dr Pullicino Orlando's proposal is "practically identical" only to Thailand's widely-condemned policy. Far from providing a short-term solution to a real problem, it would antagonise Libya and make cooperation even more remote, if not prompt military action. At the same time, we would be losing the support, if not outright membership, of the EU.
He correctly recognises, in my view, that some of the provisions of international law are inadequate for today's situation. But brazenly breaking the law is the most effective way of rushing the international community to its defence. Changing it can only be a medium-term strategy that requires EU support.
There is, regrettably, no quick-fix solution to our predicament. The online vigilantes of national security may shake and writhe at this brutal truth. But the only remedy they suggest is sticking needles into a doll.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
23 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Eric Soames
Mar 7th 2009, 17:39
Corinne Vella: I laud your pugnacity but I will refrain from responding to your latest one because, I must confess, being no longer anywhere near Malta, it reads like a riddle to me and I know not of whom you speak.
Corinne Vella
Mar 7th 2009, 15:17
Eric Soames: No I wasn't being obtuse. English is an official language here in Malta. The historical time you mention could be better described to you by the former secretary general of a political party that sought close relations with other pariah states, some of which 'enjoy' that pariah status even today. He's busy inventing terms on this page but may spare the time to answer your questions. I meant Dunkirk. The 'conversation' with Sandro Pace had already picked up elsewhere.
Alfred Farrugia
Mar 6th 2009, 00:13
In January 2001, UNHCR Geneva expressed itself on the Dublin Convention in the following way. Can Mr. Fsadni share his thoughts on this? Has he any suggestions of his own?
“(v) Entry into the territory
UNHCR considers it wholly inappropriate to derive any responsibility for considering an asylum application from the fact that the applicant has been merely present in the territory of a Member State. Mere presence in a territory is often the result of fortuitous circumstances, and does not necessarily imply the existence of any meaningful link or connection. This holds true irrespective of whether the entry of the person in the territory of a State was regular or not. Even a person who was regularly admitted to the territory of a State cannot be assumed to have established a meaningful link with that State if he/she has only remained there for a short period of time.
In addition, this criterion places at a disadvantage countries bordering areas affected by refugee flows, and thus goes against the principles of responsibility sharing and solidarity which are at the basis of the Union’s endeavours in the field of asylum.”
http://www.unhcr.org/protect/PROTECTION/43662b3e2.pdf
A. Muscat
Mar 5th 2009, 23:37
We attack the immigrants for taking our Jobs and I don’t see comments condemning employers.
We argue that immigrants taking tax payers money while we forget the Millions the EU allocates for illegal immigrants. Once at it, Doesn’t the 40% of our new born babies that either of unknown fathers or out of wed-lock babies coupled with single parents (by choice) milk our economy dry?
We argue Illegal immigrants are behind the decreased number of tourists and forgetting the international financial crises.
We argue that immigrants would ‘convert’ Malta, while the church goers are decreasing by day.
I also read that, immigrants are forcing authorities to remove the Crosses from schools and we are forgetting that in EU constitution we have no reference to God.
Immigrants would destabilize Malt’s population by immigrants high birth rate while the EU see the immigrants as a bless for Europe population’s deficit.
Immigrants and our culture.
Culture that has been built through thousands of years and feels threatened by immigrants-Is such culture worth saving? If those immigrants do that they must be super genius and I would love to learn from them.
jimmy magro
Mar 5th 2009, 23:25
@corinne vella
gorillas is a term i created to describe the way border policepersons and sheriffs act with illegal immigrants in the USA. you might have other terms but that does not mean I do not have the rightto use any word I choose.
if you want any proof try to enter illegally into the usa from mexico.
Eric Soames
Mar 5th 2009, 22:34
Corinne Vella: I think you're being deliberately obtuse, for 'English' in the US situation, read the 'vernacular' anywhere else. Also one should think before throwing words like 'pariah' around, and I include Fsadni's previous article. Which time in history were you referring to when you alluded to Malta's pariah status? Dunkirk was a retreat/evavuation so I don't see the connection unless you meant the Normandy invasion which happened much further to the west.
Corinne Vella
Mar 5th 2009, 20:04
Really, if I were Ranier Fsadni I'd be tearing my hair out in despair by now.
Jimmy Magro: So the USA relies on gorillas to control its borders? That's amazing. I hope they're not a protected species.
Louis Gialanze: It's sounds like you're nostalgic for our (thankfully) former pariah status. Of course 'we' can act on our own and hang the consequences. Since when does being able to do something make it a good idea?
Eric Soames: Some of the natives here refuse to learn English and do not respect laws. Perhaps they should be deported on those grounds.
J Farrugia: 27 minus 1 equals 26. That's how many countries your Maltese passport entitles you to live in.
Joseph Cauchi: Quo vadis common sense? That Malta should keep 'the status quo' is exactly what Ranier Fsadni's article did not say.
Sandro Pace: While you wait on the shoreline, guns at the ready, listen out for the long range missiles. Dunkirk, this ain't.
Jimmy Magro
Mar 5th 2009, 17:56
To be an outlaw state is not something that should remain considered as voodoo politics. After all we are dealing with voodoo situation. Malta has nevered received these large numbers of illegal immigrants. Israel has build a wall to protect its borders. The USA has a wired fence with border control gorillas (for armed policepersons). Libya encorages illegal immigration. And the list goes on.
The UN convention was enacted when illegal immigration was minimal and this is not etched in stone. Hence the Government of Malta must go to the UN to begin a movement to change this convention- in the sense that unauthorized travellers should not be afforded any assistance, whether on land, sea or air.
Illegal immigration is depriving the departing countries of some of their best human resources and these persons must remain loyal to their country. Illegal immigration has become big business. That is why the police needs a special unit to deal with this new challenge we are facing. The money that is being spent on illegal immigration MUST be returned into education investment for our kids.
After 9/11 the USA took voodoo measures and for Malta we have the similar situation. Nothing must be_excluded.
Louis Gialanze
Mar 5th 2009, 17:43
Corinne Vella - I will dip into the history books with pleasure - latest events first and foremost. So be honest with yourself and admit that EFA's gamble went amiss. We must therefore repeal the refugee act and re- criminalise all forms of illegal immigration to rid our country of the pestilence his government got us into. Yes we can act on our own - if only we stop begging alms to Brussels.
Michelle Dali
Mar 5th 2009, 17:26
@ Louise Vella. 'how many illegal immigrants is Malta supposed to take in?' You are right to ask that question. We have taken in far more than our fair share already.
The defeatist attitude of some people is really disappointing. Common sense dictates that Malta is not in a position to take in anymore illegal immigrants. Doing so would be detrimental to the country for so many different reasons.
This is why the government must make it known to the EU that while help will be given to illegal immigrants found is Malta's SAR area, under no circumstances will the boats be towed in to Malta. An agreement must be reached with the EU that the boats will, in future, be towed to a larger EU country for the illegal immigrants to have their claims for asylum processed there.
Corinne Vella
Mar 5th 2009, 17:15
louise vella: What's the excuse for atavistic irrationality?
Eric Soames
Mar 5th 2009, 16:56
Unfortunately the wetfoot-dryfoot policy (largely pressured in by the large Cuban community in Miami) has become rife with problems that have no easy answer. Cubans are not applying for the 20000 visas available to them prefering to short cut it on a 'fast boat' for anywhere from $6000 to $10000 payable to the owners of these boats who are quite happy to pitch their passengers off the overloaded boats when spotted by the Coastguard to ensure their own getaway. These castaways who had paid for a dry landing are now 'wet-footed' back to Cuba. There's also the problem of family members in Miami paying these smugglers, therefore aiding and abetting, and the practice of greeting the incomers at the marina has grown. By the way Guanatanamo which was used as a temporary staging point, was emptied out by a 1995 agreement which wrote off the numbers against the annual 20000 at the rate of 5000 per year in advance. Even Cubans in Miami nowadays feel that the preferential treatment needs to be dropped as the newcomers refuse to be assimilated, refuse to learn English, do not respect laws, etc. Lessons for all here.
louise vella
Mar 5th 2009, 16:41
Mr Fsadni has failed to say how many illegal immigrants Malta is obliged to take under various real or supposed laws - 50 000? 100 000? One million? There must be a limit.
There is one positive point: Mr Fsadni, one of the strongest defenders of illegal immigrants, says Malta is in a "predicament" with the unending influx. At last even the upholders of 'Christian values' or 'Maltese values' or 'international obligations' (various excuses for letting illegal immigrants invade Malta) have understood that illegal immigration is bad for Malta.
Corinne Vella
Mar 5th 2009, 16:39
Louis Gialanze: If uninformed nonsense is wiped out for good, I can't say I would mourn its loss. You do seem genuinely worried so maybe it's time for you to dip into a few history books. I do recommend Ranier Fsadni's article.
Louis Gialanze
Mar 5th 2009, 15:34
Corinne Vella. The true maltese are never wiped out - they put up a fight. With your kind of attitude we WILL be wiped out and sooner than you think.
Corinne Vella
Mar 5th 2009, 15:09
Louis Gialanze: It's difficult to see what you're suggesting. A reenactment of the last 5000 years, perhaps? In that case, you'd better pack your bags - 'we' were wiped out a few times in that period, to be replaced by others. I don't imagine that that's what you'd like your future to be. You posted your comment beneath an article. Did you read it?
J Farrugia
Mar 5th 2009, 15:04
For the sake of argument let's assume that all of africa will come to Malta by boats. Pray mr ranier fsadni, what shall we do? take their boats and emigrate ourselves in other foreign countries? Even with the maltese passports, NO FOREIGN COUNTRY WILL ALLOW US IN, but will send us back to our OWN country. Malta. Another one: what about our country's finances? Are you going to pay for their living yourself through the high paypacket you may have? Our economy is already in shreds, what shall we do? Do you know the exact amount we have paid in 2008 for humanly taking care of the present load of illegal immigrants in detention and in open centres? If you dont know inform yourself. Charity must always being in our own homes. There is a limit to the amount one can absorb. Do you remember the Ugandans of Idi Amin Dada who were absorbed by Malta? If you dont, be informed!
Louis Gialanze
Mar 5th 2009, 14:38
We survived more than 5000 years on this barren island. Who says we can't survive another 1000 years is himself a defeatist and a whimp.Malta can take any sanctions the EU can throw at us. The truth is that the previous PN government prior to 2004 caved in to Brussels in its haste to join the Union. Malta is now just another island in the 'Caribbean'. Furthermore, national security is as good a reason as any to take drastic action now or else we are all done for. It's time to stand up and be counted!
Joseph Cauchi
Mar 5th 2009, 12:11
So, according to Mr. Fsadni, Malta should keep the status quo!
In other words, act like Nero!
"PLAY THE HARP AS MALTA BURNS"!
Quo Vadis Malta?
../..
Alfred E. Zammit
Mar 5th 2009, 11:32
"..... but Malta has no agreement with Libya".
That is precisely the point ! Why, after all the time that has elapsed since the start of the problem, is there still no agreement with Libya ? Libya is touted as our friendly neighbour, and Maltese government delegations are often reported going there for something or other. It is also a fact that Libya is THE transit country for immigrants to Malta. Why is there as yet no agreement between Malta and Libya aimed at solving this thorny problem ? I think the Maltese public needs and deserves an explanation.
G. Scerri
Mar 5th 2009, 11:15
Several reports in The Times have referred to the Government itself considering a suspension of the Dublin II Treaty. Where does that place the government according to the above?
Sandro Pace
Mar 5th 2009, 11:01
What a defeatist mentality. So size matters, we are makku indeed. I ask all whether this argued double standard treatment by the international community should be acceptable anymore? If at all real.
(Thailand is still there, no sanctions imposed, the condemnation is being exagerated, and worse, the government said it will toughen the fight against immigration rather than a coward retreat).
Military action by Libya for turning boats in its direction, from our waters? On what grounds? Hallina Fsadni. Have you ever stood up to bullying?
Yet if so, let them come. The demographic invasion turned military, we will be able to defend ourselves. We will meet any one coming with arms at the landing point. Hunters welcomed. And we have friends, measured by embassy area.
The EU has nothing in the cuff for Malta. We are makku.
Corinne Vella
Mar 5th 2009, 10:47
Now watch all the 'tow them back' locusts swarm in.