Illegal immigration is one of the most urgent problems for the government that needs now to move from talk to concrete action before the spring/summer onslaught.
The recent two-day debate in Parliament showed there is a lot of common ground between the government and opposition. However, the two sides did not agree, even in principle, on a non-partisan comprehensive plan of action or a mechanism to deal more aggressively with the problem and prevent it from becoming a full-blown crisis.
Calling a referendum may not be the best way forward. It may be more practical and non-divisive to establish a Presidential blue ribbon commission, to be chaired by the new President and consisting of the Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition and a number of members from a cross-section of the population including the NGOs and the unions.
There is hardly anyone who has not already contributed to the debate in the media and the strong feelings, passion and furore the subject elicits may be easily judged from the comments from the general public accompanying articles on the subject and in the blogs.
We have heard a number of reasonable ideas and suggestions. We have also heard some bizarre ideas and strange proposals. No idea or suggestion, however, should be discarded or rejected haphazardly at this stage. A healthy, though sometimes passionate, debate may also be helpful to define the limits of the action that may be taken.
In spite of such a rich and comprehensive debate in the media and in Parliament, the feeling is that some important elements were left out, which makes any policy development and concrete action on the issue more difficult. No plan of action or strategy can ignore the international legislative obligations that were only dealt with casually.
The convention relating to the status of refugees which entered into force on April 22, 1954, and the Protocol on geographical limitations which entered into force on October 4, 1967, were both ratified by Malta, with an exception to the convention on the freedom of religion for refugees.
When it is said that Malta must honour its international obligations, it means that we must honour the conditions in the convention and the protocol. When it is said that Malta must not exclude suspending its international obligations it means that we may not exclude denouncing the convention since it would not be able to suspend only parts of it.
The preamble to the convention clearly recognises that "the grant of asylum may place unduly heavy burdens on certain countries" and calls on other countries and the UNHCR to be of assistance. So far in Malta we have seen some promises of assistance. Yet we have also seen scanty support, which may be due either to the fact that other signatories to the convention do not believe that Malta is that seriously affected or that they are simply not honouring their legal obligations.
The convention must be central to any discussion, strategy and plan of action on illegal immigration, since legally the right to seek asylum and the obligation to grant it are not universally recognised as part of customary international law. Moreover, any national legislation (present or future) would prevail over any international commitments made, particularly in a crisis situation.
Malta, as a sovereign state, exercises authority over its territory to ensure security and provides protection and defence for its citizens. We will never take any rash decisions to the detriment of genuine asylum seekers. But the island also has its obligation to address and ensure security for its citizens especially when faced with 'en masse' immigration taking into consideration its small area and dense population.
We are certainly not in crisis yet, but it is time to develop an aggressive strategy to prevent one from developing. The strategy or plan of action should conform to the obligations we had committed ourselves to and, more importantly, should safeguard the security and wellbeing of our people.
The Presidential commission should ensure and expedite such a plan and in the meantime propose immediate and short-term solutions on detention, repatriation and other matters after considering input from all quarters. It should also monitor real and potential impact in Malta resulting from international developments like the new open Africa policy of Libya.
The establishment of this Presidential commission rather than a parliamentary standing committee will not only show locally that the government and the opposition mean business and will work together but will also send a strong signal to other signatories of the convention. It will also send a resounding message to the illegal traffickers that Malta will no longer be an easy depository to their inhumanity.