I am as convinced of John Dalli’s Bahamas philanthropic adventure as I am that Libya is a safe place for migrants. I don’t share Joseph Muscat’s view on either score. Frankly, I’m not sure Muscat is entirely convinced, but let’s not even go there because that’s pure speculation on my part.
And let’s leave Dalli out of this for the time being, not least because every article I’ve attempted to read on the subject has been far too long and labyrinthine. The combination of very suspicious and highly confusing has obviously had the intended result. I’ve lost interest.
Let’s stick with what happened in Malta last Tuesday when the Prime Minister denied a boatload or migrants the possibility to apply for asylum, and instead, went about making concrete arrangements for their ‘possible’ push-back to Libya, in violation of all national, international and human rights law, which prohibits states from returning anyone to a country where there is a real risk of torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.
Muscat was a little cryptic in his replies to the press and spoke in vague and circular terms.
On the one hand he made it clear he was considering all options at his disposal, while clearly keeping the army, the police force and our national airline – with two Air Malta flights booked to, Libya – on stand-by.
On the other hand, he insisted that his Government was committed to honouring Malta’s international obligations – though apparently not the one which obliges states to offer protection to asylum seekers.
And then, in what I can only describe as the human rights equivalent of a Sophie’s Choice, we were told that, in the event of a forced repatriation, pregnant women, children and the vulnerable would stay behind, which clearly put paid to the idea that Muscat considered Libya a remotely safe place to begin with.
Much has already been written about the arbitrary and discriminatory nature of this decision, which of itself is an anathema to human rights.
You see, human rights are by their very nature, indivisible. There can never be an either-or choice in the matter. The moment you prefer one person, one race, one gender over another; the moment you allow yourself the luxury of making a choice as to who deserves protection and who doesn’t, you immediately neutralise, and undermine that human right. When it comes to human rights, it’s a definite case of all for one and one for all – undermining the rights of one means undermining the rights of all.
Muscat’s options were thwarted by the timely interim decision issued by the European Court of Human Rights pursuant to a request by local NGOs.
We’ll never really know whether Muscat would have gone ahead and executed his master plan, although I sincerely hope this wasn’t just (blind man’s) bluff, and Muscat’s clumsy idea of waking Europe up with strong black coffee. I prefer the idea of a Prime Minister who genuinely believes in something (even if I don’t), than one who thinks it’s kosher to play chess with people’s lives just to make a point. That smacks of abuse of power, at best.
Now, to imagine that Muscat spearheaded all of this, or that this was his novel idea, would be very unfair, especially to his predecessors. Malta is not new to the policy of forced returns to Libya. When Italy started to implement this policy way back in 2009, then Home Affairs Minister Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici described the policy as “a very positive step which had the government’s support” – a position and stand his predecessor Tonio Borg would have been proud of.
When Borg, in his capacity as Minister of Justice and Home Affairs, forcibly returned 220 Eritreans to Eritrea between September and October of 2002, then Prime Minister Eddie Fenech Adami sat back and permitted the push-back. Although to be fair, perhaps Tuesday’s situation is more akin to that of 2004, which saw the forced return of Somalis to Libya. Fast forward to June 2012 – Borg showed no signs of remorse and expressed support for the Italian policy of Libya push-backs, especially “considering that Libya was now more democratic”.
Detention polices enforced by PN governments have largely contributed to the dehumanisation of migrants in public perception. Migrants are criminalised in our psyche and perceived as less than human.
Seen in this way, we are thus able to justify our despicable and inhuman treatment of them. If we were dealing with a boatload of North American Wasps, (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants) we wouldn’t feel remotely threatened or irritated.
Migrants are criminalised in our psyche and perceived as less than human
Of course, referring to the past or using the previous administration as some sort of (im)moral yardstick, in an attempt to right the wrong that occurred last Tuesday, won’t work. Muscat may merely be plagiarising the work of others, but in so doing, he is reinforcing an ugly mindset that was best forgotten and buried in our history books.
In the same way that there were obvious divisions within the PN government about the matter of immigration, there are going to be divisions within this government. What is clear is that this is a national problem that won’t be solved by resorting to bullying tactics, which only serve to compound the problem.
Muscat has said he will shoulder the responsibility of his actions but I am not even sure he is aware of the Pandora’s box he has unleashed. You see, in this case, his actions have produced a dangerous social media overreaction he may not be able to contain.
Muscat has effectively okayed and endorsed the unacceptable and has demonised the people who were merely doing a job which is far from easy or popular. I am talking about the NGOs who have a duty and a right to act in the way they did.
The last thing NGOs need is their own Prime Minister telling them they will now have to shoulder responsibility for their actions. That was unacceptable, unnecessary and uncalled for, to say nothing of dangerous.
michelaspiteri@gmail.com