Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1240944
10 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 26 APRIL 2020 OPINION WITH this article, I'm going to break at least one of the rules I set for myself around 10 years ago: when I started interviewing people on a regular basis, while also writing an op-ed column in the same newspaper. Put simply, the rule is to nev- er use this column to respond (or react) to any of the people I interview… in other words, to keep my two weekly press contributions – interview, and opinion column – as separate and distinct as possible. This week, however, I decided to make an exception. But first, a bit of context. Last Tuesday, I sent an email to the AFM's press office re- questing an interview with AFM commander Brigadier Jeffrey Curmi, on the subject of the criminal charges filed against him (and 11 members of the AFM) on two distinct counts: one, an accusation that AFM members had 'sabotaged' a mi- grant vessel; and two, that the AFM had failed to respond to a distress call, in a case which re- sulted in the loss of 12 lives at sea. The response I got (see below) was not enough for a full-blown interview… but I felt it deserved to be published anyway, for rea- sons I'll come to later. Before proceeding, however: a small word about the editing process. The email I sent con- tained six questions… but what I received was a single answer to all six at once. As it would be inconvenient to read all the questions first, and then try and figure out which part of the answer correspond- ed to which question… I took the liberty of splitting up the text accordingly. This created a small chronol- ogy issue; which I resolved by simply reversing questions two and three. Nonetheless, if you lift out all the answers, and place them all in sequence… you will be left with the exact reply I was sent by Brigadier Jeffrey Curmi on Friday 24 April, with no al- terations or omissions. In any case, this is the inter- view in Q&A format: Q: On April 9, NGO Alarm Phone claimed that crew of the patrol boat P52 boarded a migrant vessel in Maltese waters, and 'sabotaged' the engine. This was reported by the international press. Yet when contacted by local press, a spokesperson said that the AFM had 'no com- ment to make'. In fact, there were no official communica- tions about the incident at all. Why did the AFM refuse to give comments, or make any attempt to clarify what hap- pened in that incident? A: We thank you for your in- terest in the Armed Forces of Malta. It is submitted that it is in- cumbent on those levying the accusations in question to ver- ify their sources and seek cor- roboration which substantiates their claim, not the other way round. False, inaccurate or irresponsi- ble posts on social media are re- gretfully commonplace. Were the AFM to comment on every false allegation, social media post, fake news, and/or inaccu- racy by some media outlets, a full day's work would probably still not suffice. Q: New evidence submitted on 21 April suggests that the incident was not 'sabotage', but a routine rescue procedure used in all cases. Couldn't the AFM have avoided this mis- understanding by explaining the facts of the case from the outset? A: This was not a case of a misunderstanding occasioned by the AFM, but one where an NGO presented as fact an in- correct accusation, to the det- riment of the Armed Forces of Malta, which accusation was reproduced by other media out- lets who similarly did not seek to verify the information. Unfortunately, as noted, in- accurate and irresponsible re- ports are too many for the AFM to stay addressing and clarifying all of them. Q: Was there an internal in- quiry launched into the alle- gation at the time? A: With respect to your que- ry about an internal inquiry, it is emphasised that 66 persons on board a migrant boat were brought safely to Malta. Hence this was a successful operation were human lives were saved. The facts of the case being re- quested were and are being duly provided during the course of the Magisterial Inquiry. Q: A separate report con- cerns another migrant vessel which found itself in difficul- ty, eventually resulting in five people confirmed dead, and seven missing. Alarm Phone claims that this boat was adrift in Maltese waters for days; and that it alerted the Maltese au- thorities about this boat on 10 April. In a press release, the AFM claimed that rescue op- erations started the moment the boat drifted into Malta's SAR. Can you supply a clear timeline of the facts of this case? A: Since the matter is now the subject of said Magisteri- al Inquiry, no additional com- ments will be made at this stage as prudence demands that the Inquiry be allowed to take its course. It is additionally noted that the information suggested in some of the questions appears to be based on media and/or NGO reports which are amongst themselves contradictory or of dubious nature and makes fore- gone conclusions on their basis. Please also note that your sug- gestion that the AFM issued a press release on the matter is incorrect. Q: The AFM did not deny receiving the notification on 10 April. Yet it was only on 13 April that a rescue mission was launched. Between the time of the alert, and the rescue, 12 people are understood to have died. Was the AFM monitor- ing the vessel since 10 April? Are we to understand that the AFM was aware that people's lives were in danger at sea, yet only acted when those people became our country's legal re- sponsibility? A: It is finally noted that Mal- ta's obligation under the 1979 SAR Convention is to coordi- nate search and rescue within its area of competence, known as the search and rescue region, and not to conduct all rescues with its own State assets. On the contrary, the same Convention stipulates in no uncertain terms that both pub- lic and private resources can be used. Rescue Coordination Cen- tre Malta upheld its obligation to coordinate at all times. Q: Government has declared Malta's ports to be 'unsafe' (and therefore 'closed to mi- grants') during the COVID-19 pandemic. How will this im- pact future rescue operations? Does it mean that the AFM will no longer attempt to rescue mi- grant vessels in distress at all? A: The government declara- tion referred to informs that resources cannot be guaranteed in the context of the COVID-19 public health emergency, and not as suggested. Your attention is kindly directed to the rele- vant government press release for proper interpretation of the same. With renewed thanks for your email and interest in the AFM. [End] Right: now for the rule-break- ing part. Under normal cir- cumstances, I wouldn't bother publishing a reply that, under scrutiny, doesn't amount to much more than a lengthi- er-than-usual 'no comment'. But the circumstances are far from normal. Whatever mis- takes may have been made in the way those police reports were handled, the fact remains that 12 people died at sea, when it was Malta's legal responsibility to save them where possible (note: I dealt with the 'sabotage' case in my last column, so I won't go in- to it again here); and meanwhile, two whole weeks have gone by, and we still don't have any form of official account of the precise details of this incident. Granted, this does not trans- late into automatic guilt on the part of the AFM (and this where NGOs and sections of the media are clearly getting it wrong)… but 12 people dying in Malta's SAR is not a matter that can be so lightly brushed aside, either. Let's take a closer look at the answers, though. There are three basic arguments being made here: One, that the AFM cannot comment on the case at hand, because it is now subject to a magisterial inquiry; Two, that the AFM is under no obligation to respond to allega- tions by the media or NGOs, be- cause the onus of proof lies with the accuser, not the accused, and; Three, a blanket assertion that "Rescue Coordination Centre Malta upheld its obligation to coordinate at all times." To the first argument, I would counter that there actually wouldn't be a magisterial in- quiry at all, were it not for those allegations being made (howev- er spuriously) in the media. Besides, 10 whole days had elapsed before Repubblika ac- tually filed its police reports… Raphael Vassallo Asking too much Whatever mistakes may have been made in the way those police reports were handled, the fact remains that 12 people died at sea, when it was Malta's responsibility to save them where possible