Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1245222
10 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 10 MAY 2020 OPINION ANYONE remember a 1996 film called 'Ransom'? Ok, so per- haps it wasn't the most memora- ble movie of that decade… but it did illustrate a small, inconven- ient truth about classic 'kidnap scenarios'. In this respect, it could easily have been inspired by the re- al-life abduction of Paul Getty by the 'Ndrangheta in 1973… which anyone older than around 50 will surely remem- ber better, as it had dominat- ed the international news for months at the time. That, too, has been made in- to a Netflix movie… and at the risk of oversimplifying an in- tensely complicated plot: it re- volved around the hostage's oil tycoon grandfather, John Paul Getty ('the richest man in the world', back then) who initially refused to pay the ransom, or negotiate with the kidnappers: only to eventually receive his grandson's severed ear in the post. But back to 'Ransom'. In that movie, Mel Gibson like- wise plays a multi-millionaire whose only son has been ab- ducted. The kidnappers de- mand a ransom of $2 million for the boy's safe return… but (spoiler alert!) Gibson unex- pectedly turns the tables onto the bad guys, by offering the same sum as a bounty on their own heads instead. Hence that 'small truth about kidnapping' I mentioned ear- lier… which incidentally also applies to 'hostage-taking' sce- narios. To put it succinctly, the chances of a successful kidnap depend largely on two factors: one, whether the people you're negotiating with actually give a toss about what happens to the hostage; and two, whether they're willing to actually play ball with your demands. If (like John Paul Getty) their response is to ignore you alto- gether… or if (like Mel Gibson) they try and outsmart you at every turn… well, you're go- ing to have a problem on your hands. Sooner or later, you're going to have to proceed from words to action (like, for in- stance, by really slicing off your victim's ear, instead of merely 'threatening to'). But not even that can realistically be expect- ed work, in a case where the relatives really don't give a rat's backside about whether your hostage lives or dies. OK: by this point, some might of you might have already guessed where I'm heading with all this. For the past week or so, the government of Malta seems to have adopted a whole new strategy in its 'negotia- tions' with the European Un- ion on migration. And while it might not exactly add up to the crime of 'kidnapping'… well, it sure looks a lot like a classic 'hostage situation' to me. In a nutshell, our new strate- gy is to load rescued migrants onto 'pleasure cruisers' oper- ated by Captain Morgan… and keep them stranded out at sea, in international waters, for as long as it takes to force the EU into some kind of agreement about relocation. For this, we have the word of 'senior government sources', who told this newspaper that: "The migrants will be kept safe on board the ship until a European solution is found to the problem […] Now it is the EU's turn to show solidarity and shoulder responsibility for these migrants. […] the gov- ernment initiated communica- tion with the European Com- mission and other member states for these migrants to be relocated permanently…" And there you have it: replace the word 'ransom' with 'a de- mand for a relocation agree- ment' (and, naturally, remove the naked threat of physical vi- olence)… and what you're left with is an 'ultimatum' that is hardly very different from the basic premise of that movie. Right now, Malta is effective- ly holding around 160 people hostage – no other way to de- scribe it, I'm afraid – in an un- disguised attempt to pressure the EU into finally giving us what we want. But tell you what: I'm just as sick and tired as everyone else of all the 'knights in shining armour' who have recently – but only recently – emerged to condemn Malta's handling of the latest migration crisis. (Not least, because they include people who had nothing what- soever to say about similar, sometimes much worse, atroc- ities committed in the past… to say nothing of their own occa- sional roles within the govern- ments that committed them.) So for the rest of this arti- cle, I'll resist expressing any further opinion of my own re- garding the 'morality' or 'legal- ity' of this stratagem. (I trust you all already got the general idea anyway). Instead, I'll look at it through the strictly pragmatic lens of 'realpolitik' – i.e., as Malta's latest move on the foreign pol- icy chess-board: nothing more, nothing less. At a glance, I'd say it seems to have a lot more in common with the real (trag- ic) case of Paul Getty, than the fictitious (happy-ending) one of 'Ransom'. Let's start with the obvious: Malta has been practically beg- ging the EU for a 'relocation agreement' for well over 15 years now… to no avail. Ad- mittedly, it was the EU's very intransigence that precipitated such drastic action from Malta in the first place… But… well, that only leads us to the first of several gargan- tuan ironies embedded within this policy. The EU has never cared about the issue before. So what on earth gives us the impression that it would be any more willing to listen to our demands today: simply be- cause we 'threaten' them (fig- uratively speaking, of course) with the 'fate' of 160 people… about whom the same EU, time and time again, has made it abundantly clear to us that it just… doesn't… give… a toss? To put that another way: the EU has already ignored the deaths of an estimated 19,000 people (source: InfoMigrants) who have attempted to cross the Mediterranean since Oc- tober 2013: when, if you'll re- member, around 350 died in a single day, after a migrant boat capsized off Lampedusa. You may also recall how that tragedy had prompted loud protestations of horror and outrage, from all the EU offi- cials who attended the victims' mass-funeral in person… as well as solemn declarations and promises along the lines of: 'Never Again'. Well, seven years have since elapsed, and – despite constant complaints by all its southern member-states, including Mal- ta – the EU has taken no dis- cernible action of any kind to prevent further loss of life at sea… beyond 'Operation So- phia', of course: which is ironic in itself, as this European in- tervention was actually aimed at training and funding the Libyan coastguard to handle the responsibilities of its own SAR zone… in other words, to ensure that rescued migrants were all taken back to Libya (or, even better, never got to leave its shores at all.) And then, we all turn to the European Union for 'justice', Raphael Vassallo Migration crisis, or hostage situation?