Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1272935
9 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 26 JULY 2020 INTERVIEW ure to control the borders of Libya: which is in a protracted conflict situation. So it's a very complex issue. But the con- tribution we feel we can make – and I'm not suggesting that we'll solve all the problems, all the way through the pipeline – is to help establish a quick, safe and rule-of-law based system, which is dependent upon the return of those who are not en- titled to refugee protection. If the message could be made demonstrably clear from the process itself, and from advoca- cy and public information, that would help to dry up the inter- est of people smugglers being able to bring boats across into Malta's search and rescue area, and subsequently into Malta. There is also an argument that people smugglers thrive in the absence of any legal channels for migration. Local advocacy groups have campaigned for a legal mechanism, where- by asylum seekers would be provided with safe, regulated channels to enter Europe. Does the UNHCR agree with that ap- proach? We certainly would insist, as a matter of law, that anyone who reaches your shores has the right to claim asylum, and has to be treated under the terms of the Refugee Convention. But putting that to one side: yes, we very strongly want a rule-of-law based process for authorised travel, done in a regular way. My own experience - both here at UNHCR and in my previous work - is that the general pub- lic wants regularity, order, and proper processes. It's not that they're necessarily 'anti-im- migration', or that they don't approve of supporting asylum seekers and refugees. But what they don't want to see is boats illegally coming in dangerous crossings, with lives lost in traumatic circumstances: boats dashed against the rocks; horri- ble images of people drowning at sea…. nobody wants that. And nobody wants people coming into the country in an unauthorised way. People gen- erally want things to happen in an orderly, structured manner; this is very common, it is true across the world. There are, however, also what are called 'complementary pathways': through education programmes, through regulat- ed labour programmes; through community sponsorships - as well as applications to govern- ments, via the normal consular processes – it is possible to de- velop more authorised, regular and safe ways of coming into a country. Those are the pathways that are much more acceptable po- litically; and which may also help to share, if you like, the burdens and responsibility for people who would otherwise, in desperation, take these other, extremely dangerous paths… paths which lead to trafficking, criminality, abuse of women and children, and so on. It's an appalling situation, really. So one of the things we argue for very strongly, and consist- ently, through the framework of the UN's Global Compact on Refugees, is that if we work to- gether on this, we could achieve regular processes that are hu- mane, and that meet the needs of asylum seekers and refugees. But if we try to do it unilater- ally, in a competitive environ- ment with each other… and if we accuse each other of 'not playing the game'… it's not ulti- mately helpful. The only way we will manage this global move- ment of people is through the principle of solidarity; through diplomatic negotiations; and through the acceptance of a shared responsibility. What you describe seems al- most identical to what Malta has been officially demanding, at European level, for years: an agreed-upon burden (or responsibility) sharing mech- anism. So far, however, it has failed to materialise. What would you say are the main stumbling blocks? That is, in a way, 'the' ques- tion. Because globally, we at the UNHCR are very keen to see the principle of solidarity and burden-sharing becoming real. And things were going quite well in 2018: when [the Glob- al Compact on Refugees] was agreed. The international com- munity accepted the notions of responsibility sharing and sol- idarity; the General Assembly approved it; we then had the pledging conference, in Decem- ber last year… Nobody could have imagined, however, that within weeks we would have the COVID-19 pan- demic: which I think has signifi- cantly exacerbated the problem. It has provided an excuse, in some respects – a form of 'cam- ouflage' – for states to return to a highly individualistic and uni- lateral approach. They have be- come less interested in sharing the responsibility, and more in- terested in protecting their own national interest. Malta's (and Italy's) response to COVID-19 was in fact to close ports and harbours to migrant landings, and NGO rescue ves- sels. This was justified on the grounds of protecting public health. Do you think these measures were reasonable, or should the ports have stayed open for irregular migrants? We have a very clear answer to that question: given the hor- ror of how this pandemic could have played out - and has done, for some countries - of course, the circumstances of COV- ID-19 more than justified the closure of national borders. At its peak, 168 countries closed their borders as a re- sponse to COVID-19. And we, at UNHCR, fully support that. But what we also say is that you can protect your own bor- ders, as well as safeguard public health, whilst also ensuring that there is a right of access to claim asylum. That is not contradictory. It's not a binary question: you can do both. And many, many coun- tries have in fact done both. Individuals who've reached a frontier that is effectively closed, can nonetheless still make their claim – through dig- ital applications, for instance. They would then be put into quarantine; held in detention for a period of time, to establish identity, health and so on. Many countries have already shown that you can both protect your borders, and also allow claims for asylum, Now: I realise that this is diffi- cult; and as you can imagine, it was an extremely difficult posi- tion for UNHCR to be arguing, at a time when people were very, very concerned – rightly so – about the impact of this pan- demic. But we have seen many countries which have honoured their international obligations, while also protecting public health. It can be done. The EU has been criticised for neglecting its search and res- cue duties in the central Med- iterranean: creating a vacu- um that has so far been filled by rescue charities. Some of these NGOs have separately been accused of 'abetting traf- fickers', or unwittingly aiding their business model. Do you think the role of NGOs, in this context, is helping or hinder- ing the situation? Our fundamental position is that everyone must be rescued at sea. And this is not a new idea; it is a fundamental mari- time principle that has been in place for centuries. In a way, I would think it holds a special significance for Malta: given where you are, and your histo- ry as a maritime nation. But it's true for all parts of the world. People must be rescued at sea, wherever it is possible to do so… without endangering your own ship, crew and passengers. This is a fundamental impera- tive – saving lives at sea – and over these past few days, I have been very pleased to be able to thank Malta for continuing its work of search and rescue; we understand that you are contin- uing to co-ordinate and manage rescue operations… and we al- so understand the difficulties of being responsible for such a large search and rescue area. But without getting into the political complexities of this very difficult situation: the im- perative remains to save lives at sea. Now: is that principle being manipulated by people smug- glers? Almost certainly. But we, at UNHCR, believe and find that the NGOs have been enor- mously helpful. They've been rescuing where others can't; so I think our position at UNHCR is to be immensely grateful to the NGOs. That is not to say there aren't occasions where they may be manipulated: for instance, by people smugglers dropping off dinghies full of asylum seekers close to an NGO boat, knowing that they'll be picked up. It is, after all, a highly manipulative situation. But the NGOs' primary objec- tive is to save lives; and we do commend them for that.