The recent influx of irregular immigrants from Libya has again raised the question as to whether the Maltese are essentially racists. If we take as a measure the reaction of those posting comments online there seems to be an overwhelming case for concluding that the majority of Maltese are indeed racist.
But this is a very naïve way of looking at things. Maurice Cauchi in his contribution in The Sunday Times of Malta (July 14) hits the nail squarely on the head by stating that he supposes that he also suffers from some mild form of racism since like most of us he also has undesirable tendencies that probably spring from the dark underworld of the primitive unconscious – i.e. the fear of the unknown and unusual.
All this reminds me of the famous film Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner starring Spencer Tracy and Catherine Hepburn. Tracy and Hepburn play the part of two liberal-minded upper class parents who always taught their daughter, Joanna, to treat other racial groups as equals, but their comfortable world is shaken to the core when the daughter comes home for her holidays from university and brings over for the first time her highly qualified fiancé who happens to be black (played by Sidney Poitier).
The daughter is surprised and shocked to learn that her idolised progressive parents are very reluctant to accept the situation of a future black son-in-law.
Seen from Poitier’s standpoint, the scenario is not so very different. His parents also oppose the marriage. Poitier corners his father and tells him angrily: “Your generation will always think of itself as Negro first and a man second.”
This is not to minimise the fact that there are indeed elements in our society (although I maintain that these are in proportion a very small number) who are racists and take the least opportunity to foment hatred against the innocent victims of irregular immigration.
On the other hand, one of the main concerns of most people on irregular immigration revolves around the undisputed fact that Malta is too small and at the same time too over-populated to take fully on its own a constant flow of irregular immigrants. There’s a limit to absorption. Clearly no government can turn its back on this situation. There are serious consequences on the country not linked solely to the heavy financial burdens.
When in 1971 George Borg Olivier, always noted for his practical wisdom, ratified the landmark 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, he did so with some very important reservations to a number of articles on the grounds of Malta’s “own special problems, its peculiar positions and characteristics”.
The Government should once and for all desist from using the “push-back” threat. It is not only illegal but also un-Christian
When Malta joined the EU it had to do away with these reservations and ratify the full Convention. The situation became even more complicated with the adoption by the EU of the Dublin I and Dublin II Regulations which established the principle that member states responsible for examining asylum applications would be those very states where the asylum seekers first irregularly crosses into their borders.
Hence Malta became an automatic responsible state for irregular immigrants entering its shores by boats from North Africa.
Admittedly, the solution to the problem is not easy. Libya might not be the problem, but it surely is the source of many of the problems facing our country in this area. The situation has become more complex as a result of Libya’s many current internal difficulties at governance following the fall of the Gaddafi regime.
The backing of the EU is also crucial. Solidarity should not be in the form of platitudes only, nor financially only, but concretely mainly in the form of burden-sharing – an EU fundamental principle upon which its very existence is founded and continues to revolve. Neither should burden-sharing be selective, applicable only on the whims and peculiar areas of interest of certain member states.
On the other hand, the Government should once and for all desist from using the “push-back” threat. It is not only illegal but also un-Christian and demeaning of a civilised nation that prides itself on its long traditions of hospitality.
The solution should be diplomatic. Whether it should be the soft approach or the hard approach or a combination is a moot question.
Whatever decision, the Government needs beforehand to prepare the ground well. Nothing should be done on the spur of the moment. No country can do it alone. So Malta should first establish alliances and agreed positions with neighbouring countries well before it embarks on its EU initiatives in this regard.
One of the positive things that will happen in the next year or so and that could have an important impact on matters relating to irregular immigration in the Mediterranean is that the EU Presidency will be in the hands of the two main Mediterranean countries from January 1, 2014 – Greece first, followed immediately after by Italy. This is where the main negotiations should be concentrated in the next 18 months so that the subject of irregular immigration would feature prominently on the EU agenda during that period.