Immigration, brain and brawn

Dom Mintoff's negotiation tactics, as Prime Minister in the 1970s, have been discussed by the Harvard Negotiation Project, for whom Mr Mintoff's reputation is chequered. One of his ploys in negotiating the closure of the British bases is singled out as requiring a special counter-move. But his use of the veto during the formulation of the Helsinki Agreement for European Security and Cooperation is a textbook example of how to win the battle but lose the war (later at Madrid).

In both instances, Mr Mintoff played tough. Only in one, however, was the toughness real. It was counterproductive in the other. A toughness that undermines one's position is really weakness.

In the national debate on immigration, both admirers and critics have re-visited the Mintoff precedent.

Accusations of weakness have been made against those who would settle for anything less than breaking international law in the treatment of immigrants, the sporadic use of the veto in European Council meetings and the call for sanctions against Libya. But what is the toughness in aid of?

If it is in defence of our form of life, then let us define it: a society based on law and order, which thrives when our politics are democratic and built around human and civil rights, our economics are based on a social market and where our means of persuasion are liberal, in the broadest sense, not authoritarian.

Any course of action that would end up undermining law and order, or our economy, would really be a fake toughness. It may win us a battle but it will lose us the war.

Some truly comic things were said in the name of toughness during the run-up to the European elections. The Labour leader has stood up to make the case for "legality", which he would pursue by, yes, breaking international law and relativising human rights (making them depend on "national context").

Azzjoni Nazzjonali insists it is being proved right by Italy's forced repatriations. But Italy has played by the book, bang on the edge of the right side of the law; what AN and Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando recommended - towing people who entered Malta back out to international waters - would tear up the rule book.

Sticking to the rules makes it possible for the rest of Europe to help. Yes, it has so far acted too slowly. But breaking the law would make it impossible for Europe to support us and would play into the hands of those who do not want to.

Meanwhile, calls for European sanctions against Libya, as Frank Portelli urged, may be frank or (electoral) frankincense. But effective? It would make it more difficult for Europe to help. It would destroy the case for a common European interest by pitting Malta's arguments against the various national European economic interests in Libya. Any guesses on whom European leaders will support?

All this is apart from the economic damage that some of these supposedly tough solutions would inflict on us. Aggressive action against Libya would have meant, among other things, no contracts won by Maltese companies at the recent Libya trade fair. Blatantly breaking human rights the Thailand way (as opposed to only arguably breaking them, the Italian and US way), would gravely risk having sanctions imposed on us by our European partners.

And, again, if we used the veto "sporadically" as urged by Joseph Muscat, any guesses on whether we would be granted any concessions on other matters that are also important for Malta's prosperity and social market, such as VAT-free food and medicines?

Action on the immigration trend needs to be taken. And that action needs to be tough, no doubt about that. But many of the "tough" actions that have been recommended would end up weakening us. Their cost is greater than that of irregular immigration. They lose sight of a broad range of Malta's economic and social interests. In the name of civil society, some poison the public sphere with authoritarian and racist discourse. In the name of law and order, they undermine the rule of law.

There is an alternative. A genuinely tough approach has been undertaken by the PN government. Alas, in this campaign, the PN has pandered to anti-immigration sentiment. But in Europe, through its ministers and MEPs, it has eschewed strutting, full of sound and fury, and sought to build up real muscle, in the form of alliances.

Any real muscle build-up takes time. Some good results are now coming in. Whether they will be enough in the short- or medium-term we have yet to see. But it is the only approach with a chance of success in the real world, as opposed to a fantasy video-game world where shooting the place up has no consequences.

ranierfsadni@europe.com