When Prime Minister Joseph Muscat threatened to push back a group of irregular migrants to Libya last July, he came across as a right-wing politician with no hint of solidarity. By using people fleeing strife as political pawns, thinking the EU would “wake up and smell the coffee”, Dr Muscat got nowhere.
On Friday night, Dr Muscat managed to regain some of the moral high ground. As news emerged that a boat carrying some 250 immigrants had capsised off Lampedusa, the army acted swiftly to save lives and Dr Muscat was right to order that a group of migrants disembark in Malta. The majority of them are Syrians fleeing the brutal Assad regime.
Dr Muscat has now earned the right to fight his cause at a political level because he put solidarity into practice. Suddenly, Malta became part of the story, at least in the eyes of the world media.
Being a former journalist, the Prime Minister is good at sound-bites. He said the seas around us have turned into a cemetery and the broken “thing” needs to be fixed.
But beyond words and clichés, is there really a solution in sight? Short of trampling over asylum seekers’ rights, the answer for the short term is No.
Let’s forget for a moment that migration is a very divisive issue, where leaders are often concerned with its domestic political impact.
People who are entitled to refugee protection have every right to flee their country, even through unconventional means. This means any attempt to prevent them fleeing Libyan coasts would be termed illegal under the UN refugee convention. As was all too evident last Thursday, when the Libyan Prime Minister was temporarily kidnapped, Libya remains plagued by violence and fragmented institutions.
EU Commissioner for Home Affairs Cecilia Malmström reiterated her call to all EU states to quickly make available the necessary resources to allow Frontex to define the details of such an operation.
But one does not to be an expert to realise the next big dilemmas: What will happen to those migrants rescued at sea? Who will take them in? Will we resort to the usual pass-the-buck tactics, or, worse, will the border patrols push them back to the hell they fled from?
Ms Malmström called on member states to engage more in resettlement of refugees to find safe ways for them to receive protection in the EU. The so-called burden sharing concept is a double-edged sword. Will it actually encourage more migrants to take the risky trip, hoping they could eventually be relocated to some Scandinavian country?
The only feasible short-term solution is for the EU and the UN to set up a processing centre in North Africa that will allow for asylum claims to be assessed before migrants decide to take the risky trip. Easier said than done, of course, considering the instability in the region.
What should be easier is for the EU to amend its so-called Dublin II Regulation, which dictates that asylum requests have to be handled by the EU country where the migrants first arrive.
Dr Muscat is right in saying that over the long term the EU should provide development aid to the migrants’ countries of origin. The ultimate solution lies in eradicating wars and poverty, but this is sadly a distant pipedream. Countries like Syria and Somalia have been torn apart by war, while in Eritrea, thousands are imprisoned on political grounds.
But beyond the political leaders, each one of us has to do our part in shedding our prejudices if we really hope for a solution. It is selfish to think this issue is only about us, when it is more about the suffering endured by fellow human beings.