Frontex boosted or is it window-dressing?

The approval by the European Parliament of substantial changes to the rules governing Frontex mean the European border agency is now able to have its own assets and not be dependent any longer on the goodwill of member states.

The changes, facilitated by an agreement reached between the European Parliament, through its rapporteur Simon Busuttil, and the Council of Ministers, should lead, it is hoped, to making the agency more effective. Frontex is now in a position be able to “purchase or hire equipment, such as vehicles, ships and helicopters, and may also opt to purchase assets jointly with a member state”.

Moreover, under a new mechanism, once Frontex and a member state agree on an annual programme of cooperation, the state will have to provide the equipment requested by the agency, “except if this creates a major problem”. This should help obviate cases that have arisen in the past of member states failing to provide assets and personnel promised for Frontex missions, thus effectively stalling the operations planned.

The new rules should also better define the agency’s tasks, the respective responsibilities of Frontex and of member states, their command and control, mechanisms for evaluating and notifying incidents and the applicable court for dealing with any legal issues. Frontex will play a role in coordinating joint operations for returning illegal immigrants to their country of origin “while fully respecting their fundamental human rights”. This will entail the welcome establishment of a “consultative forum on human rights” to assist the Frontex management board.

It has taken over a year since the initial proposals for strengthening the role of Frontex were first launched by the European Commission. The outcome appears to embody a bureaucratic tidying up of areas of responsibility between the agency and member states aimed at enabling Frontex to operate with greater clarity and, it is hoped, more effectiveness.

But other than clarifying the inevitable grey areas between the agency and member states – which, rightly, guard their sovereign responsibilities over their borders most jealously – one has still to see whether these changes will make the EU’s borders more secure or Frontex more effective?

Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi was correct when, while welcoming the changes, warned that Malta must remain vigilant because illegal migration was only passing through a temporary lull brought about by the unrest in the southern Mediterranean. Which means one still has to see how the “reinvigorated” Frontex will cope with a mass influx from Libya if this occurred.

Seen purely from Malta’s perspective, it seems unlikely that the changes will make any tangible difference unless there is also a willingness to alter the invidious stipulation – from Malta’s perspective – that the country hosting Frontex will be obliged to receive as refugees all those immigrants rescued in its (large) search and rescue area. This is an intolerable condition that would lead to this tiny island being swamped by immigrants in case of a major exodus from Libya.

While that condition remains in place, it is highly unlikely that Malta will host Frontex again and the improvements made at the edges to enhance the agency’s capabilities will, regrettably, remain largely academic.

Moreover, one can still doubt whether what is essentially a civilian organisation has got either the legal status, the military capacity, skills or the expertise to command and control military assets it could lease or purchase. It is therefore difficult not to wonder whether, at root, this latest move is no more than well-intentioned political window-dressing.