Editorial

Nationalist member of the European Parliament, Simon Busuttil makes a very bold and daring statement in The Times today. Referring to the rescue of a group of migrants, half of whom were returned to Libya and the rest transferred to Malta, he says: "Over the past years, I have consistently adopted a moderate line on immigration and received my fair share of opprobrium from hard-liners. But on this case I stand with the government." Presumably, he means he agrees with the government when it accepted that some migrants should be taken to Libya notwithstanding the North African country's track record on human rights and the handling of illegal immigrants.

To his credit, there were cases in the past when, despite his political background, Dr Busuttil did give the government a hard time and even took an opposing stand. This time, however, he seems rather rash in making such a statement when there are doubts about what really happened on the high seas when two patrol craft - one belonging to the Armed Forces of Malta and the other to the Libyan coastguard - moved in to rescue a sinking dinghy with just over 50 migrants on board on July 17.

He gives reasons in his article why he opted to back the government on this issue. Perhaps he knows more than most of us do. Or is it that more of these situations are likely to emerge in the coming weeks?

Shouldn't Dr Busuttil, usually a very reasonable person, have insisted first that all facts are established? This could only through by a proper, independent inquiry especially in view of conflicting accounts of what took place.

Who were the Italian-speaking members on board the rescue vessel/s? On which boat were these individuals stationed? What exactly was their role? Were the migrants transferred to the Libyan boat told exactly what that entailed? Yes, indeed, you first effect the rescue but, once safely on board, there is nothing to stop the crews to do what needs to be done. Indeed, the Maltese armed forces have said those who boarded the Libyan boat did so voluntarily. So some sort of communication between the crew and the migrants there must have been. Would any lives have been compromised had the rescued migrants been offered a choice?

Dr Busuttil rightly insists that hypocrisy must stop: "It is all too easy to condemn and to play the moral card. But there is more than a hint of hypocrisy in those who do so at the international level. For they have no reply when we ask them who is going to shoulder the responsibility." How right he is! But responsibility goes beyond accepting burden sharing - which is, of course, crucial too - and indeed becomes paramount when saving lives and safeguarding human rights. Does one stem the flow of illegal immigrants at any cost, including human life and the deprivation of fundamental rights?

Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi stuck his neck out on more than one occasion declaring that when people's lives are at stake he would continue to direct the armed forces to go to the rescue and then shoulder the political burden. Did this happen this time? Did some migrants go from the frying pan into the fire? Only a serious and independent inquiry can seek to establish that. Why has Dr Gonzi ruled out such an inquiry?

Like Dr Busuttil many will ask: What now?