Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1435356
9 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 5 DECEMBER 2021 INTERVIEW be used as a weapon expensive foreign jurisdiction, where journalists will not have the financial means to defend themselves. This practice has to stop. On its part, the European Com- mission understands that there is a gap – or a vacuum, if you like – within the laws of both the Eu- ropean Union, and the individual member states: including Malta. So I do believe that we will end up with a very good proposal; but it will still have to be discussed by the various governments, be- cause the European Parliament does not legislate on its own, but in conjunction with the Council of Ministers. The report certainly marks an important step; but while it rec- ognises the financial difficulties faced by many media houses, particularly after the COVID-19 pandemic… it does not seem to include any tangible measures to address this issue. Are there any plans to introduce a finan- cial package, in this regard? This is something that is cur- rently being discussed... the Eu- ropean Union recognises that the traditional media are facing consistent revenue losses, in a context where social media – and the way we consume the news – is growing ever more accessible, and popular. As such, there is a need for the EU to assist the traditional me- dia; because the truth is that our entire democracy rests on that all-important pillar… just as it also rests on the independence of the judiciary; or the distinction between 'government' and 'par- liament'. The media, too, form part of a system of checks and balanc- es that is fundamental to our Constitutional model. It follows, then, that the traditional media must also be protected. To this end, a number of spe- cific measures have already been adopted, within the EU Budget, specifically to address the prob- lem that we have with 'disinfor- mation': in other words, 'fake news', and the 'post-truth' sce- nario. The European Union has just proposed fresh sanction against neighbouring country Belarus: after accusing its government of 'using immigrants as polit- ical pawns', by allowing free passage across its borders into Poland. But isn't there a contra- diction in the EU's stand against Belarus? After all, certain EU member states have also been known to 'use immigrants as political pawns'… First of all, when we talk about the 'government of Belarus'… we must be clear that we are referring to an illegitimate gov- ernment: headed by a dictator who has no legitimacy whatso- ever; and who has incarcerated thousands of his country's own citizens as 'political prisoners'… among various other human rights infringements. Moreover, the situation regard- ing Belarus is very different from the immigration situations we are more accustomed to: such as, for instance, the influxes experi- enced in the Mediterranean. For example: many of the mi- grants pouring into Greece, Lampedusa, or Malta, will be fleeing from war or persecution. Others may be seeking a better life in Europe: and in those cas- es, we must distinguish between those who are refugees – or eli- gible for humanitarian protection – and those who have no genu- ine asylum eligibility at all, and should be repatriated. That, in a nutshell, is the EU's general migration policy. Once you cross the border into the EU, there will be an asylum process to determine your eligibility for protection. If you qualify, you can stay; if not, you have to be sent back. What's happening in Belarus, however, is something complete- ly different. The people pouring into Poland, Latvia and Lithuania across the Belarus border, were all encouraged – invited, even – by means of 'tourist visas' offered to people from Istanbul, Bagh- dad, Pakistan, and elsewhere. Those people each pay around E5,000, on the promise that they will be 'taken to Germany'. When they arrive in Minsk, however, they are loaded onto military convoys – operated by either the Belarus army, or by mercenaries – and this is how they are literally being pushed in- to Europe. Faced with this situation, the EU's response had to be clear. Here we have a dictator, who is making a lot of money by ex- ploiting vulnerable people under a guise of a fraudulent 'tourism' scheme. This is why there are on- going discussions, within the EU, on how to strengthen and protect the Union's external borders. Naturally, as politicians we are also insisting that even EU mem- ber states must abide by their in- ternational law obligations. We have already criticised Poland, for instance, for leaving asylum seekers – including children - in conditions of extreme cold. This is not happening in Belarus, but in an EU member state. Having said this: the situation in Belarus cannot be compared to the sort of humanitarian cri- sis that we are more familiar with. It is more of what we refer to as a 'hybrid threat': in which a neighbouring country is abusing a frontier that is not as secure as it should be… in order to destabi- lise the European Union. The reality is that immigration, in this instance, is actually being used as a weapon against the EU. And our response to this threat has to be crystal-clear: we cannot allow dictators to drive a wedge between us, in the way we react… But the contradiction remains: in the sense that, on one hand, the EU tries to project a 'hu- manitarian' image; but when it comes down to hard facts, it does everything in its power to prevent immigrants from enter- ing the bloc. How, then, can the EU be credible, on the subject of immigration? I disagree with that assessment; and I'll tell you why. Lithuania, for example, has given protec- tion to around 4,000 immigrants coming from Belarus. These peo- ple all went through, or are still going through, the EU's asylum process: some have proven eligi- ble for asylum; others have not, and are currently being repat- riated with the collaboration of Frontex. But the entire process is gov- erned by the Fundamental Rights Monitor – a law which I wrote – that offers protection to all those who apply for asylum, and ensures that their fundamental rights are respected at all stages of the process. To come back to your question, however: the fact remains that it is necessary to have an immigra- tion policy in place. We cannot have a situation where everyone who wants to come and live in Europe, can simply do so without any proper asylum procedures. There has to be a system of com- monly accepted rules and regu- lations; that is the only way you can possibly have an immigration policy that is coherent, and con- sistent. This does not mean that there isn't room for improvement, however. If we look at the situ- ation in Malta: many of the asy- lum-seekers who arrive by boat, will end up not being eligible for protection. So why don't we consider a different model – as proposed, among others, by the UNHCR – whereby those people can apply for asylum in their own country of origin? Or, if that is not possible, at least in the coun- try to which they originally fled? If someone from Somalia (for argument's sake) ends up fleeing into, say, Egypt… why can't the asylum process be carried out there? By the same token, it is (or should be) possible to create 'humanitarian corridors', so that asylum seekers would not need to be physically present in the EU to apply for asylum. This is some- thing we have been working on for many years now. But – and here is where you may well have a point – not all EU member states agree, or are willing to co-operate towards this goal. And yes; this does expose a certain level of hypocrisy. Nonetheless, the EU's policy on migration remains clear: the question of whether asylum seek- ers are given protection or not, will always depend on the actual application process. But the fundamental human rights of all those people must be respected, in all cases, and at all stages.