Italian Ambassador Paolo Andrea Trabalza says his country's request to take over Malta's search and rescue zone has nothing to do with oil. He talks about illegal immigration, Libya and neutrality.
Malta and Italy exchanged some very strong words last year over illegal immigration with both countries refusing to take in rescued immigrants and accusing each other of reneging on their responsibility. Has this affected relations?
Not at all. On the contrary, it strengthened their common view on the matter. The main reason for the strong words exchanged last year, in my view, was linked to the European Parliament elections. Evidently some political parties wanted to enhance aspects of this problem to attract voters' attention.
This was the main reason why it was fanned so much because before the start of the electoral campaign things were being done in exactly the same manner but they were being said in a soft way. For years the public did not hear much about the flow of immigration that was passing through the Mediterranean.
However, apart from this there was also a strong necessity and feeling on both sides for the issue to be brought to the attention of the EU.
You mentioned electoral interests as a reason for last year's controversy. At the end of March Italy votes in a number of regional elections, which are being touted as a major test for the Berlusconi government. Will we expect more of the same ahead of these elections?
They are different. European Parliament elections are national elections and these are only regional. It is true they are being considered as a test of the Berlusconi government but they will have no impact on it.
Are you happy with the way the EU reacted to Malta and Italy's concerns on immigration?
Yes. The European Commission is very much aware that the issue has to be dealt with by the Union and it recognised that Italy, Malta, Greece, Cyprus and Spain, who shoulder the brunt of immigration from the south, could not be left alone. When I hear people complain because nothing is being done I get the impression they do not realise that complex issues take time to digest before a solution is found. We have to keep raising awareness among other members of the Union but we have to realise that northern European countries also have problems with migration. Malta is not the only country flooded by this new phenomenon.
Italy seems to have found a solution by talking directly to Libya and reaching an agreement with them. What is this deal all about?
In general we believe that it is only through bilateral agreements with countries from where immigrants leave that a solution can be found. The longterm solution would be to equalise income between poor and rich countries. This agreement is in the interest of Italy and other European countries.
It was former Home Affairs Minister Giuliano Amato, under the Prodi government, who started the negotiations and these were continued under the Berlusconi government. The deal was not only about immigration but enabled Berlusconi to close once and for all 40 years of confrontation with Libya on war damages.
What is this agreement costing Italy?
I do not know the exact figure but it runs into millions. This is not a cost but a bilateral investment for a real detente between us. We hope it will help bring about a friendlier attitude from the leader of the Libyan state on other issues.
Can Libya, or rather Muammar Gaddafi, be trusted?
We must trust anyone. If we have the impression there is something nasty, we have to convince. We have to use confidence-building measures. In the past not many succeeded. If I sit at a table and talk to you but you have no confidence in what I am saying it is useless that we talk. I can talk for hours but you won't listen because everything I say is deemed a lie.
Talking and looking people in their eyes, like what happened between Berlusconi and Gaddafi, established what we consider to be real trust and friendship among the two. This means Gaddafi can be trusted but it depends on who he has in front of him.
The agreement also led to joint sea patrols with Libya to curb illegal immigration. Italy was heavily criticised by the United Nations, the Vatican and numerous humanitarian organisations for immediately repatriating immigrants who were rescued at sea without being given the chance to apply for refugee status. Are human rights important to Italy?
Yes. Libya is a member of the UN and so equal to other members.
But it is not a signatory of the Geneva Convention that protects refugee rights.
Libya has been democratically elected as president of the UN human rights commission and it has also signed the declaration on the protection of human rights of the African Union. We have to be coherent. Italy considers Libya to be part of the international system. As far as the critics are concerned, would they like to see the free flow of people from one continent to another, which will mean the end of any democratic system? Or shall we protect the democratic systems we have?
Why should democracy be threatened?
Let us recall the barbarian invasion of Europe. The long-standing juridical system that had been established under the Roman Empire collapsed and the medieval system was born with different laws.
Are you comparing the phenomenon of illegal immigration to the barbarian invasion?
No. I am comparing immigration today but with a similar movement of people that happened also at the time. I use the term 'barbarian invasion' because when I was raised that was the wording used. They are no longer called barbarian invasions but essentially they were movements of people coming from one side of the world to another.
The reason for the movement was there was food on this side of the world while there was none on the other. Today we are assisting a movement of peoples that has nothing to do with the Maltese immigrant who went to Australia or the millions of Italians who went to the US or South America in the past to search for work. It is a conceptual mistake for NGOs to ask us to remember how Italians were treated when they moved to other countries. They are completely different situations.
It was still a movement out of necessity. There was no work in Italy so they emigrated. It is comparable in some aspects.
It is not comparable because not a single Italian entered the US without permission. All those who left Italy did so after their visa was stamped by US embassy officials.
There have been numerous reports of immigrants being thrown into Libyan prison. Isn't Italy party to this treatment when it sends immigrants back to Libya?
We have to consider that Libya is a transit country. These people are not Libyans running away from their country. They are all non-Libyan citizens who have entered Libya illegally. They come through Libya's southern borders from far away countries such as the Horn of Africa. They travel long distances and die during their transit. I wonder why the NGOs don't focus their attention on the country of origin of these people instead of denouncing what Libya is doing.
They do focus on that as well. You get NGOs working in Darfur, Sudan and Somalia with all the dangers that exist.
Yes, but we know that before arriving on Libya's coast many of these people die. The percentage must be very high. Do we know what happens to them when they enter illegally in Libya through the southern border? How many of them die during the trip in the desert because of lack of water?
How many die because they are suppressed by the local police? Let us talk about this aspect and not about the end part of the journey which is the last link in the whole chain.
We have to interrupt this trafficking of human beings. This cannot be done if you continue opening your arms to those who are illegally sent to Europe, abused by people without any scruples.
They are also exploited by Libya.
No. Libya does not call them in.
Gaddafi had a policy of opening his arms to all Africans.
I don't know. I am not an expert on Libyan politics. But I know there is a huge trade in human trafficking which we can help to reduce if not completely eliminate. After the agreement with Italy the flow of immigrants slowed down and this also benefitted Europe. This also happened partially because of the economic crisis which coincided with the agreement.
Do you foresee a situation where the EU would have a controlled system that allows immigrants to enter member states?
The EU is negotiating with Libya a general agreement but talks are proceeding too slowly. I don't know why the process is not progressing at a fast pace. When Benita Ferrero Waldner, the EU Commissioner for foreign affairs, was handling the Libyan negotiations there were declarations they were going to be concluded but the process has now slowed down. We have to work more on this. Italy has pledged to finance half of the expenses to set up offices in Libya to monitor illegal migration there.
In the midst of the arguments between Malta and Italy over immigration last year, the Italian government had put pressure on Malta to give up parts of its search and rescue (SAR) zone. Why does Italy want Malta's SAR zone?
Malta's unilateral declaration that it wanted responsibility for this huge, disproportionate zone was presented in London and Italy immediately reacted, asking the Maltese to be reasonable since the country did not have the means or capability to manage such a large area.
Why should Malta have an area that even overlaps Italian national territory? The zone goes beyond the Pantelleria and the Pelagic Islands (which include Lampedusa) and almost reaches the territorial waters of Tunisia, not to mention the other part towards the east, which almost stretches to Crete. Malta said it wanted to keep it because it was a legacy of the British Empire. We do not think this is a good reason. By the same argument we can lay claim to Rhodes, which was a Venetian dominion.
Italy has declared several times, and I will say it again, that there is no connection between the SAR area and seabed resources. There is also no need for the flight information region (FIR) and the SAR area to coincide. The FIR can be large and the SAR can be smaller. Italy has never asked Malta to reduce its FIR. We promise, and Italy can also put it in writing, that a reduced SAR area will not affect negotiations over oil exploration.
Under international law the duty of a country managing a SAR zone does not imply actually going out at sea to search for and rescue every vessel. The duty is to coordinate such actions. Are you saying Malta has reneged on this duty?
No, not at all. The Maltese operational centre was set up with the aid of Italian protocol funds and we also provided assistance to strengthen the AFM's naval capabilities to have the means to better organise search and rescue. It is correct to say it is the duty of a country managing a SAR region to coordinate. This means the Maltese operator calls the Italian Guardia Costiera and tells the boat where to go. We have done it and we still do it but it is nonsense and any reasonable person will find it strange.
However, it is also the duty of the coordinating country to intervene if there are no means available at the moment from other countries. If the Italian coast guard is engaged somewhere else they will not come and then Malta will be obliged to go wherever rescue is needed. It is easy to sit at a desk and order others around but in the end it is only the Italian boats that go out and rescue people in the Maltese SAR area.
Maltese boats did rescue people.
Be careful because last year there was the Pinar incident. The commercial ship rescued the migrants but next time they could invent some excuse.
The issue with the Pinar was the safest closest port of call to take the rescued migrants. Malta said it was Lampedusa while Italy insisted it was Valletta.
This issue has to be cleared as well, but it will never be unless people sit round a table and give meaning to the words. There is no definition of what constitutes a safe port. I asked the IMO for one and they told me it was impossible because there were too many parameters. Safe port does not mean the boat can berth. It has to be taken also in the context of the local population and the number of people being brought in.
Lampedusa is a small island with around 7,000 inhabitants and at a certain moment last year the reception centre was full of immigrants. The island does not have a hospital but a small clinic. Just imagine what can happen if immigrants in a full centre decide to get angry. They can really disrupt the situation.
Is Lampedusa not a safe port of call?
No and in fact the centre has been closed. When the phenomenon involved small numbers it was easy to handle but when it became a flow of people it was not safe and secure anymore. If we take in 150 immigrants who need immediate medical attention we will not be able to cater for them on Lampedusa.
Italy and Malta criticised Switzerland recently and said it breached Schengen rules when it blacklisted Libyan nationals. Was Libya correct when it retaliated by blocking Schengen area travellers from entering the country?
The issue is complex and it worries Europe. It is in everyone's interest to find a solution soon. There is always a solution but both sides have to find a satisfactory agreement. Positive developments have been registered. Mr Gaddafi's son would not have gone to meet the Swiss businessman in prison this week if he did not want to send a good signal. Malta and Italy's position was also reflected by French President Nicolas Sarkozy. Schengen should not be used as a political instrument when bilateral issues arise. An individual is put on Schengen's blacklist if he is a delinquent, somebody who can put our security at risk.
The US ambassador recently put the issue of neutrality under the spotlight when he requested for Malta to participate in the Afghan peace efforts. What are your views about this in the context of Italy being a guarantor of Malta's neutrality in the 1980s?
I am glad the US ambassador raised the issue and I think his words were not put into context. There was an exchange of notes between Malta and Italy on neutrality on September 15, 1980, and when Italy did this I find it hard to believe it did so on its own without other Nato countries being informed.
I believe Foreign Minister Tonio Borg explained everything very well recently, but I want to add one thing that has not been mentioned in the press. In the 1990s the Western European Union (WEU), now a defunct organisation, had set up the Petersburg tasks, which spoke of European countries' participation in humanitarian, peacekeeping and peacemaking operations under the guidance of the EU or Nato but always under the aegis of the UN.
When WEU was disbanded its tasks passed on to the EU as part of the Common Defence and Security Policy. By virtue of its membership in the EU Malta has made these tasks its own.
Furthermore, Malta has been a member of the UN since 1964 and in my view any participation in peacekeeping or humanitarian efforts is not in breach of the constitution as it is today.