Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1004621
17 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 15 JULY 2018 INTERVIEW to Malta. This is quite strange, because first of all we haven't been told which exact regu- lation this refers to... we still don't know where this is written down. We have been request- ing this [information], and we are in touch with lawyers to find out about this regulation. But at the same time we had a meeting with the Civil Aviation director, and we asked: 'Ok, if we need a permit, what do we need to sup- ply in order to get the permit?' But we haven't been told what documents we actually would need [...] This is quite interest- ing, because we're not landing in Libya; we have never landed in a Libyan airport. When we fly out of the Malta airport, we go to the local [domestic] flight terminal – because we fly Malta to Malta. Also, we never enter Libyan ter- ritorial airspace. We never go closer than 12 miles. We have all the flight checks to prove it. Of course, we do enter the Libyan air information area. There is a border between the Maltese and Libyan air traffic control areas, so to speak. When we fly over it, we call Tripoli and tell them where we are, just to avoid col- lision with any other aircraft in the area. This is a normal thing. But we never enter territorial airspace. Now, they request a permit, basically for us to come back to Malta after flying into the Libyan area... and first they don't tell us how to get the per- mit; and secondly they don't tell us where exactly that regulation is actually written down. There are also reports that Sea-Watch is currently under 'investigation'. Have you been told over what? We are not sure, exactly. We have been informed that we can- not leave the harbour; but when Transport Malta officials board- ed the vessel, they only asked for standard documentation, with- out telling us exactly what the investigation is about. Again, we have asked what specific docu- mentation we are expected to provide; but we haven't been given an answer. As you are aware, there is considerable resistance to Sea-Watch's activities in the Mediterranean, both from governments and certain sections of the population. Some argue that rescue NGOs 'facilitate' human smuggling, by providing 'drop-off' points for them to dump people at sea. Others suggest that there may even be collusion; that some NGOs are paid by smugglers. How do you respond to those accusations? The facts and the numbers show that there have always been people trying to cross the [Mediterranean] sea. Smuggling exists, so long as there are no legal and safe routes to Europe. People have crossed for tens of years; they used to cross to the Canary Islands, for example; but when the Libyan civil war started, the [Central Mediterra- nean] opened as a prime smug- gling route, because there was no government control. And smug- glers just make money out of people; they never care if there's anyone out there to rescue them or not. So, after 2014, when Italy didn't continue the Mare Nos- trum mission – which was ac- tually the last mission by a state to rescue people; when that was abandoned due to lack of fund- ing, there was a huge gap in res- cue efforts; and people set out anyway. That was in 2014, when we saw these pictures of mass casualties... when large boats capsized, and 3-, 4-, 500 people lost their lives in one day. That was when, for example, the head of our organisation decided to use his own private money, and buy a boat to do something. So, NGO vessels actually came in when governments, and the EU, abandoned this rescue zone. This seems to echo Maria Pisani, of the local Integra Foundation, who recently said that the EU's 'final solution is to let them drown'. Do you agree? Is there a deliberate attempt to deter people from attempting the crossing, by making it as dangerous as possible? Yes, there has definitely been a choice to turn a blind eye. And this choice was made as early as 2016. And even more than that, there is active support – train- ing and funding for the so-called Libyan coastguard – to hold back people in Libya. So, the sole in- terest of the EU is to prevent any people from entering Europe, without consideration for any human rights, or the maritime and refugee laws. The EU has now adopted another action plan to address the issue, after the recent summit on immigration. How do you interpret the latest policy? The priorities of the EU clearly seem to be restricting migration by any means possible. There is absolutely no focus on refu- gee rights, or human rights. We know [...] about human rights abuses taking place in Libya. Ir- respective of where people origi- nally come from, when they pass through Libya they pass through a system of kidnapping, torture, forced labour, enslavement and other human rights abuses. This has been well known for years. The people in the EU know this; the European Parliament knows this; yet they continue to deal with the government in Libya on a daily basis. The alternative, it is argued, is to bring all rescued migrants to either Malta or Italy. Many people here argue that Malta is too small, and its resources too limited, to cope with a problem of this magnitude. Don't they have a point? We clearly understand that for Malta, it would be very hard to receive as many refugees as, for example, Italy has received. But there is a more general problem, and that is the Dublin system. We have long been advocat- ing for a change to the Dublin distribution system of refugees, which is clearly detrimental to all the countries in the south of Europe: be it Spain, Greece Italy and now maybe also Malta. So there needs to be a fair distribu- tion of refugees, and there should be solidarity in the EU on this is- sue. Because this is a responsi- bility that needs to be shared between all member states. We know that people get kidnapped a lot; they get enslaved, there is forced labour; people get murdered; people get tortured; people get raped; there are a lot of human rights violations of all types