Human rights and wrongs

On May 6, 2009, for the first time in the post-war era, a European state ordered its coastguard to forcibly return migrants at sea without screening them to determine whether any required protection or were particularly vulnerable.

This shameful so-called ‘pushback’ agreement between Muammar Gad­dafi’s regime and Silvio Berlusconi’s government failed to spark international interest, despite protests from humanitarian organisations.

Amid a sharp drop in crossings, the European Commission, along with the Italian and Maltese governments played down immigrants’ claims that they risked being tortured in Libya and that their human rights were being breached. It was convenient to do so.

The Maltese government even flatly turned down calls to hold an inquiry into whether the army acted correctly during a rescue operation in which 27 migrants were sent back to Libya. Worse still, opposition leader Joseph Muscat jumped on the populist bandwagon and argued that immigrants should be returned to Libya since there was no solidarity from EU countries.

Several other EU states simply ignored the Libya-Italy pact, the same way they still fail to acknowledge the problems faced by migrant-frontline states like Malta.

The Sunday Times had no hesitation in condemning that agreement in an editorial dated July 25, 2010, which stated: “Yes, fewer migrants mean fewer problems for the army, detention centres and the taxpayer. But at what cost to human rights?”

This newspaper’s unequivocal stand evidently upset an army of online commentators who constantly urge the government to send African migrants back to Libya – irrespective of their backgrounds, irrespective of the consequences.

In a landmark decision, the European Court of Human Rights on Thursday ruled that Italy violated human rights principles by spurning African migrants and asylum seekers. It also said Italy put these people at grave risk when it pushed them back to Libya.

Were humanitarian groups vindicated? Yes. Is that the end of the story? No. Should asylum seekers hand over their life savings to criminals to board a rickety boat in Libya to try and make their way to Italy or Malta? No. The issue is far more complex.

The international community should first unite with one voice to convince Libya to sign up to the UN refugee convention. Once Libya adheres to the norms of human rights, the EU and the West in general should give Tripoli all the help it needs to build structures from scratch to identify those migrants who are really in need of refugee protection.

It should be the UNHCR, with the help of experts on the ground, which decides on those entitled to protection – preferably before they enter Libya – not a soldier at sea.

This is a wish-list, of course, because in reality Italy shamelessly started negotiating with the National Transitional Council to recommit to migration control even before Col Gaddafi was killed.

The Western world cannot keep turning a blind eye to human rights abuses in Libya because it is too busy making lucrative use of its oil resources.

Amnesty International documented that Sub-Saharan African migrants in Libya are still at risk of torture or other ill-treatment. Reports of brutality against black migrants (mistaken as Gaddafi mercenaries) are still common.

Justice has finally been done to those who fought for their right to flee their war-torn country; yes, even through ‘illegal’ means.

But the international community should wake up to the fact that thousands of black Africans still fear for their lives in Libya. And some of them remain in this living hell because they were sent there by Italian government-sanctioned patrols.