Editorial

When Muammar Gaddafi paid an official visit to Italy last month, he made a number of controversial comments about religion, politics and illegal immigration, which have stirred up concern in Italy, Malta and throughout the European Union.

In language that can only be described as extravagant, he warned of an “influx of starving and ignorant Africans” and a “barbarian invasion” of Europe. He surmised that “Europe could turn black” if the EU was not prepared to acquiesce in his demand for €5 billion a year in exchange for more control over the flow of illegal migrants leaving Libya.

Should such behaviour be of concern or must Europe simply accommodate this maverick on its southern doorstep because it needs his oil and his business and also, equally importantly, because he holds the key to the exodus of thousands of migrants parked in his country straining to get to Europe?

Malta is in the front line; between a rock and a hard place. At the southern-most tip of Europe, it has had to live with this mercurial neighbour for the last four decades. It has always had to find a modus vivendi and, on the whole, it has succeeded. Maltese business interests in Libya are significant.

Italy, a far more powerful country, has had to do the same. It has lately bought its way into President Gaddafi’s favour by paying “reparations” for its years of colonial rule in return for huge business and commercial contracts.

Moreover, it has made a deal – the details of which are unclear – for joint maritime operations to ensure the return to Libya of any migrants “rescued” at sea. The result for both Malta and Italy has been the largest reduction in boat arrivals for almost a decade. It is an outcome for which Malta is inevitably grateful.

It is against this background that Colonel Gaddafi’s extraordinary demand for €5 billion a year from the EU to control the flow of African migrants should be viewed. The reactions from Brussels, Rome and Valletta have been suitably emollient. All appear to agree that there is a case for helping Libya to control its long, porous borders and, indeed, as Foreign Affairs Minister Tonio Borg has pointed out, this has long been a point of agreement between the EU and Libya. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has been even more circumspect about President Gaddafi’s request, albeit highlighting the need for any agreement to include provisions to help Libya develop proper legislation on asylum.

The crux of the issue is that, on immigration, the Libyan leader holds the best cards. The threat is real and Malta’s and Italy’s experiences since 2002 attest to this.

But he does not hold all the cards. Libya has only just come in from the diplomatic cold. It needs the EU’s investment and support in many areas, not least in helping it to develop more effective border controls. As Dr Borg said, Col Gaddafi’s statement should be seen as his opening negotiating gambit. The amount of financial aid the EU should be prepared to give him must be dependent on a proper physical assessment of Libya’s border control needs. It should also be made conditional on a full commitment to implement humane legal processes for asylum-seekers and refugees and to improve their treatment while in Libya.

It would be morally reprehensible for the EU to reach a deal without parallel binding humanitarian agreements.