The migration flow phenomenon is with us again. It has sparked emotions, as well as fiery declarations by Italian Interior Minister Salvini, who never fails to mention Malta at least once in his utterances. He falsely accuses Malta of shedding its responsibility, ignoring the fact that Malta is not party to any international convention which obliges it to accept migrants rescued in its search and rescue zone.
Malta’s only international obligation is to manage and monitor rescue operations in its zone, no more.
A clear distinction has to be made between two matters – matters which are totally different from each other: who is responsible for saving migrants in peril at sea, and who is obliged to receive them in their own territory.
As regards the first query, the answer is and has always been a simple one. The nearest vessel, whether Maltese, Indian, Italian or Australian, must go to the rescue.
It does not make sense that the nearest vessel closes an eye and nonchalantly waits for the country managing the rescue zone to come to the rescue. This issue is often confused with the second one, namely where should the migrants be sent once they are safely on board a rescue vessel.
Closing our ports and airports to rescue vessels and aircraft is a mean thing. It may be a populist measure but it is not justified at law
In this regard, successive Maltese governments have always held that such migrants should be taken to the nearest safe port. Since the Convention on Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) is an international maritime convention, it is evident that the word ‘safe’ refers to maritime law, not to human rights.
The only objection to such transfers is so-called refoulement, namely the action of sending migrants back to countries where their human rights may be violated or where they can face serious threats to their physical integrity.
The present government has followed the position always taken by Nationalist governments in refusing to accept in our territory migrants who were saved in a position closer to Lampedusa or Linosa than Malta.
It does not make sense that saved migrants should be transferred to a territory which is further away from the point of rescue.
What I totally disagree with in the current government’s policy is the element of disallowing NGO vessels to berth in Malta to execute rescue missions and, weirder still, disallowing rescue aircraft from taking off from Malta for the same purpose.
One has to draw a line at this point.
Closing our ports and airports to rescue vessels and aircraft is a mean thing. It may be a populist measure but it is not justified at law, nor is it justified on any humanitarian or moral basis.
Archbishop Charles Scicluna and Bishop Mario Grech were right in criticising this action. They did not enter into the merits of who should accept saved migrants, but objected to the callous decision to disallow rescue vessels and aircraft from basing themselves in Malta for humanitarian missions.
It is like closing an eye to the deaths of hundreds of migrants in the central Mediterranean, in true Salvini fashion.
I do not believe that a centre-left government should adopt such tactics for populist reasons.
It should stand firm in its position under SOLAS as it applies to Malta – a stand which I have openly defended – but it should not cruelly block NGOs from leaving Malta to rescue boat people.
That is not in accordance with the Maltese values of hospitality and solidarity.
Tonio Borg is a former deputy prime minister and European commissioner.