He can claim political victory in the stand-off with the Italians over the Pinar incident. But Home Affairs Minister Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici is careful not to sound exuberant since illegal immigration remains a major concern for both countries.

After your meeting with Justice Commissioner Jacques Barrot and Italian Home Affairs Minister Roberto Maroni in Brussels, you insisted that Malta will not change its position on the interpretation of international maritime law and rescued illegal immigrants would have to be taken to the closest safe port of call. This position is still being contested by the Italians. What will happen when the next boatload of immigrants is rescued?

We have to see the specific details of each individual case. The Pinar incident helped clarify certain issues. Roberto Maroni was not being informed correctly on how search and rescue operations are conducted.

There was also the lack of understanding about the meaning of a search and rescue (sar) zone. It does not mean a country is obliged to save everybody in the area under its responsibility but that it co-ordinates the search and directs ships towards the people in distress.

Mr Maroni was also given the impression that the Italian navy was entering Maltese waters, which is not the case.

The Italian authorities, not just Roberto Maroni, insisted that they accepted the disembarkation of these immigrants on humanitarian grounds and this must not be interpreted as a precedent. Will the Italians play ball next time round?

When the Prime Minister talked to Silvio Berlusconi and explained the facts, the Italian government acted immediately. In less than an hour it took a decision to allow the immigrants to disembark in Sicily.

However, I understand the pressure Mr Maroni faced. Their detention centres are full of Tunisians waiting to be repatriated and he could not proceed with the process. The two-month detention term imposed by Italian law was going to expire and the Tunisian government stopped collaborating with the Italian government at this crucial point since it demanded to be paid €100,000 for every repatriated immigrant.

It was an uncontested fact that the immigrants had to disembark in Italy, which was also confirmed by EU Commissioner Jacques Barrot. Mr Barrot is normally a very cautious person but he said that in this case the ship had to be taken to Lampedusa.

They did not give Mr Maroni precise information and he acted upon that information.

Who gave Mr Maroni the wrong information?

His aides.

But in 2004 Italy and Spain presented amendments to the 1974 International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (Solas) of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) so that people rescued in a country's SAR area would be taken to a port under its control. They continued to insist on this amendment last February. Is Malta isolated on this issue?

The fact that Italy and Spain went to the IMO to try and change international maritime law confirms that the EU has no competence in this matter and it shuns all the discourse that the EU should decide who was right or wrong. The same treaty that establishes the Solas Convention gives Malta the right not to adhere to this amendment and we are not alone. We acted proactively at an international level and although these amendments were introduced in 2004, five years later they still do not apply to us.

What will happen in the future only God knows, but God forbid Malta will ever have to abide by these amendments because it would be problematic for us.

The government claims that relations with Italy have not been tarnished by the Pinar incident. Others would say with friends like these, who needs enemies?

The friendship between our people is untarnished. At government level this incident served to bring us closer together. Malta stood its ground in a correct and reasonable manner. We managed to explain our position and clarify any misconceptions that were initially spread by the Italian media. This helped us show the Italian people that Malta was a country that shouldered its international obligations, contrary to what may have been the perception.

However, we cannot delude ourselves into believing that Malta can have its own immigration policy for the Mediterranean that is not in harmony with Italy's.

You referred to misconceptions in the Italian media; but Mr Maroni presented the Commission a dossier in which he claimed that 40,000 immigrants that were saved by the Italian navy were supposed to have been brought to Malta. He also accused Malta of neglecting its obligations to go out and save immigrants in at least 600 cases. Has he withdrawn the dossier?

Mr Maroni did not publicly withdraw the accusations but he had the opportunity to hear from me a completely different version to the one he was fed by his aides. First of all the 40,000 figure was not believable because it represented all the people that left from Libya, and whenever Malta was the closest port of call the rescued people were always brought ashore here.

Does Mr Maroni's stand represent the Italian government's general view or does it represent the hard-line immigration policy adopted by his party, the Lega Nord?

Mr Maroni is the Italian Home Affairs minister, and for me he represents the government. I do not deal with Mr Maroni according to his political background but according to what he says. If what he says is wrong I will answer him; if what he says makes sense I will back him.

The Italians have insisted that Malta should give up its large search and rescue area, which stretches from Lampedusa to Crete. Will you be ceding this?

We have made it clear that there is no discussion on the size of our search and rescue area. It would be wrong to argue that Malta should give up its search and rescue zone because of the current problem with illegal immigration.

Why are the Italians pressing us to give up large parts of the SAR area?

The search and rescue zone has value for a sovereign country. We have been in possession of it for years; we have worked to satisfy the obligations that come with it and will continue to do so.

Could oil exploration be one of the reasons why Italy wants Malta to give up its massive SAR area?

There are various reasons. There is also the flight information region. It is true we are a small country but the large SAR area could be considered to be part of the bonus we inherited from our colonial past. It is an asset for our country and I don't think a country should simply give up its assets.

What concerns people is the interest being shown by the Italians and the Libyans in Malta's search and rescue zone.

The SAR region has potential and it would be a mistake for us to give it up.

In Brussels you insisted that the burden-sharing mechanism should be obligatory for all member states. Isn't this the same position adopted by the Labour Party last year which you criticised?

There is a big difference because when the Labour Party insisted on obligatory burden-sharing the concept was not part of the EU framework.

This week we even saw the reluctance of the European Parliament to introduce a mandatory mechanism. On seeing this, both Mr Maroni and myself argued with the Commission to initiate the process for a directive on mandatory burden-sharing.

It is not enough for the Commission to create the necessary mechanism because the member states need to approve it. I know it will not be easy to convince the 27 member states but everybody told me it was impossible to arrive at a compromise solution last year and we did it. Some countries have started to engage with us on burden-sharing while others are reluctant.

The scenario today is completely different to how it was when the PL had insisted on obligatory burden-sharing.

Will you be ready to use the veto in Brussels to achieve this aim?

The idea of using the veto is not being put in its right perspective. Every country has veto rights. When Malta uses its veto it needs to use it intelligently. What we are saying here implies that if the Commission came up with a directive for mandatory burden-sharing I could be stopping it myself because I would have used my veto.

What I first need is the Commission to come out with a document even if later it would be difficult to convince the 27 member states. But I will not give up.

People feel Malta is constantly being let down. Take for example the Frontex patrols in the Mediterranean; they have not yet started. Is Frontex going to start this year or not?

Frontex should start within the next few days. The technical talks have been concluded and we will be getting the Frontex patrols for another year.

You are asking for Frontex to be transformed into a bigger agency that will be responsible for the repatriation of immigrants with no right to stay in the EU, including the processing of relevant documents. Are there objections to this in Brussels?

Frontex already has this remit but the problem is that it does not have a Mediterranean vision. When Frontex considers the issue of immigration in the central Mediterranean as a problem belonging to either Malta or Italy the agency becomes a problem in its own right. Frontex needs to change its mentality.

But who is responsible for changing this mentality?

The Commission can put pressure on Frontex. Malta has a right to expect Frontex to work properly. Frontex can work as long as it has more assets and is underpinned by the political will to make it work for everyone.

Frontex needs to be more present in the Mediterranean so that I can use its assistance effectively. However, last year I had a situation where the head of Frontex said that his agency "failed". I cannot accept that this European organisation, which has money allocated to it to defend Europe's frontiers, does not put the money where it is most needed.

If one looks at the budget administered by Frontex it is clear that not enough money is being spent on the Mediterranean. There is too much spending on training that can be used in other areas.

At the heart of all the diplomatic wrangling that took place last week were 140 immigrants, who were left in poor conditions stranded on a ship in the middle of the sea. Do you feel morally responsible for these people?

As a Christian I feel morally responsible to do something for the people in Africa suffering from hunger. In the Pinar case I had my mind at rest that they were aboard a big sturdy ship and that the Italians were taking care of them. Had the Italians informed us that it was impossible for them to provide assistance we would have intervened.

Malta is a compassionate country that engages in humanitarian operations. It bothered me when we were being portrayed in the media as a heartless country.

A recent survey showed that over 55 per cent of African immigrants in Malta experience widespread racism and harassment. Does it worry you?

Yes. I want to read the whole report to determine how the survey was conducted and what questions were asked, but the news in itself is not comforting. This is also one of the arguments that needs to be made with the Commission to ensure it acts proactively on the issue because the seeds of fear in those who are already scared of these immigrants are being nurtured in the current climate.

Aren't politicians responsible for sowing the seeds of fear that are germinating into racist sentiments?

I hope not. I am on record a number of times condemning racism and I have also acted to stamp it out. We may be using the wrong tools to deal with the problem and so we need to assess the situation and change our ways. Our country would be wrong to allow people to fan the flames of racism or xenophobia.

Reason can prevail without the use of strong-arm tactics, and the Pinar incident also sent out a message to those people who wrongly believe that we are not prepared to take a strong stand. When somebody tries to reason things out it does not mean that he is weak.

One of your biggest critics this year was Gozo Bishop Mario Grech. In a homily he lambasted government's detention policy. Have you talked to the bishop on the matter?

I am not bothered at all that the Church expresses its views on these national problems. I have sent a private message that I would like to meet with the bishop, and if it is the case, even with the Archbishop, to have an opportunity to explain the government's policy. Sometimes one can get the impression that we can do without the detention policy. Let's face it, it is not a nice thing.

Isn't the detention policy itself sowing the seeds of racism because it brands immigrants as criminal?

I fear the contrary is the case. The consequences of leaving these people out on the street upon arrival are much worse. Detention is not pleasant but at least we do not have immigrants living in shanty towns or under cardboard boxes.

What Mgr Grech said does not bother me because his comments were genuine, more so in the context of the good work undertaken by some Church organisations in dealing with immigrants, such as the Peace Lab in Ħal Far.

But I would be irresponsible to dismantle the detention centres because it means that all the people we rescued would simply be left on the streets and that would increase criminality, instil more fear in people and simply create more disorder in society.

There are projects aimed at improving the conditions in detention but we need to understand the problems on the ground as well. These are not people coming from the University of Oxford. They come from completely different cultures and they suddenly find themselves doing things they are not accustomed to. It is an enormous challenge but it would be a big political mistake to remove the detention centres.

Watch excerpts of the interview on timesofmalta.com.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.