It was never about the pushbacks. Or maybe it was – incidentally. But I believe Joseph Muscat’s cage-rattling was mainly an exercise in brinkmanship. A puerile and dangerous exercise which fanned the flames of racism and served no purpose, other than that of earning the country the condemnation of the European Court of Human Rights and the contempt of all right-thinking men and women.

The Prime Minister insisted it was not about push-backs but about showing the EU that we weren’t pushovers, and about protecting the national interest.

Phrases like these are like a dog whistle to many people – I dare say – the majority – of Maltese people. Dog whistle politics is the practice of using coded words to reach a target audience without alienating the public.

Dog whistles are only audible to ears that can hear sounds at a certain frequency. In the same way, dog whistle politics allow politicians to send veiled messages of support to voters with anti-migrant leanings, while maintaining plausible deniability by not using overtly racist language.

In this case, Muscat did not use the terms employed by Norman Lowell, who congratulated him for “refusing to pick up floating black garbage” from the sea. He hardly used the term “immigrant”.

Instead he used phrases such as “responsibility” and “standing up to be counted”. It all sounded so grand, so patriotic and so firm. It was intended to – and did – appeal to those people who feel threatened or concerned by the prospect of an influx of migrants.

They find little or no comfort from the EU (it is true that there is little to be had to date), and now the Prime Minister homed in on their insecurities, using precisely the right language which he knew would strike a chord with them.

Politically it was a brilliant move by Muscat. By grandstanding and threatening to use human beings for political leverage (How else do you describe sending migrants back to an uncertain fate in an undemocratic country without processing them first?) he has elicited the admiration of people from all walks of life and attracted cross-party support.

You cannot dump people on a plane and return to sender, just as you would a dress you bought on eBay and weren’t happy with

I am willing to bet that support for him has swelled even beyond March 2013 levels. However, on a practical level, Muscat has achieved little. The European Court of Human Rights has confirmed that which should have been clear from the outset – that you cannot dump people on a plane and return to sender, just as you would a dress you bought on eBay and weren’t happy with.

There has to be some processing and verification procedures before you can write them off as not deserving of asylum or humanitarian assistance. That much, should have been clear from the start.

And if this was meant as a ‘we mean business’ message to the other EU member states on the occasion of European Council president Herman von Rompuy’s visit, well Muscat must have a very skewed idea of diplomacy.

Did he think for a minute that returning migrants without due process would be lauded by the institutions of the EU?

Did it ever pass through the Prime Minister’s mind that if the EU institutions okayed his push-backs (in breach of Malta’s international obligations), every other member state would be tempted to follow suit – even in other areas – and the whole EU co-operation mechanism could come down like a house of cards?

The same reasoning applies to Muscat’s intention to use Malta’s veto in an EU forum. Although less reprehensible than his pushback policy, it is not going to gain us much support across the EU board. Granted – we may not have got much of it to begin with – but using a veto is a measure of last resort. If Malta does so, scuppering EU legislation or actions, we will attract opprobrium, not assistance.

The most disappointing aspect of the Prime Minister’s actions last week is that they were so unnecessary. I find it depressing to contemplate a government with such a lack of esteem of its diplomatic prowess that it has to resort to blackmailing other states into helping it, by putting people’s lives in danger. Because that – in effect – is what the Labour Government is doing – using migrants as pawns in its negotiations.

With a 36,000-strong majority, Muscat could have seized the opportunity to be an inspiring leader – not just a popular one. He could have afforded to take the right decisions – morally and ethically sound ones.

He would have grown in stature from the brilliant whiz kid campaign winner to a national hero for the right reasons. He could have chosen to lead and not to be lead down the paths of callousness and insensitivity.

Muscat has chosen not to do so. Instead he prefers to engage in dog whistle politics, unleashing the hounds of racism on the country.

cl.bon@nextgen.net.mt