Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1497281
maltatoday | SUNDAY • 16 APRIL 2023 9 INTERVIEW human smugglers, not migrants Nor are they necessarily moti- vated by the same political – or even military, for that matter - aspirations. Some of them are content to just be the next 'Gadd- afi', of their own particular town or village... others, on the other hand, have genuine ambitions to (quite literally) 'take over the en- tire country'. In fact, this is – I would say – the main difference, between these local militia leaders, and criminal organisations such as the Mafia. In most cases, these people will also be heavily invested, in main- taining their own 'public profile'. Many of them feel (often, with good reason) that they actual- ly have a political future of their own, in that country's volatile, unfolding situation. And while they might look upon human smuggling as just 'another revenue stream', to fi- nance their own rise to power... their personal ambitions are not necessarily limited to just being 'criminal entrepreneurs', for its own sake. Many of them also want to maintain a foothold – and ideally, a 'legitimate' one - in Libya's ever-changing political landscape. So when all those discussions were taking place [in 2017], about the possibility of yet another po- litical 'reboot' in Libya... all of them were very concerned, about how they themselves would ac- tually 'fit' into the changing pic- ture. Especially considering that – given the international climate, and the intensity of the media spotlight on Libya, at the time – being associated with human smuggling, had by then become as politically 'toxic' as, say, being associated with terrorism. Meanwhile, the Government of National Alliance also had its own (rather obvious) reasons to be worried about the same sit- uation: so in a sense, you could say that there was this 'perfect storm', whereby various different interests happened to suddenly – and fortuitously - 'align'. As a result, the GNA offered those militias the opportunity to legitimise themselves, in the eyes of the world, by aiding in the 'na- tional effort to clamp down on human smuggling'... and granted: once again, it proved to be just an- other 'revenue stream', for them- selves – in the sense that many of them ended up on government salaries: and were therefore able to pay their own foot-soldiers, without having to actually make all that money by 'taxing' illicit markets, to begin with... All the same, however: what mattered more than the money, to them, was clearly the 'legiti- macy' of actually working hand- in-hand with the UN-approved Libyan government (even be- cause, at the end of the day, they had been making much more money when 'participating' in the human smuggling market, than when 'policing' it.) Nonetheless, the upshot was that these people ended up being co-opted by the state, as it were: and suddenly, they found them- selves playing the part of 'sher- iffs', instead of 'outlaws'. And the result – as clearly shown by the data – was that the entire Liby- an network of human smuggling simply collapsed: almost literally, from one day to the next. Now: I'm not suggesting that any of these changes, in them- selves, have in any way 'solved' the issue of human smuggling in Libya: or anywhere else in the central Mediterranean, for that matter... In fact, you pre-empted a ques- tion I was about to ask any- way. So far, you have focused mainly on Libya's responsibil- ity to 'clamp down on human smuggling' – suggesting (if I understood correctly) that it IS in fact possible, for individual countries to effectively 'bring the numbers down'. But if Lib- ya could achieve that, back in 2017... why has the same suc- cess so far consistently eluded the European Union: with all its 'Frontex' operations; and end- less discussions about a 'New Migration Pact', etc.? First of all: I wouldn't go as far as to say that ALL the efforts of the international community – including, but not limited to, the European Union – have been completely 'unsuccessful', in this regard. In fact, another critically impor- tant reason for the same political processes I have just described, was precisely that there were also a number of high-level prosecu- tions - and other punitive actions - that were simultaneously being pursued at international level. One of these was the decision [in 2018] to impose international sanctions on human smugglers operating out of Libya... which did not, admittedly, achieve all the 'success' it actually hoped for, on the ground: in the sense that there was no further escalation, beyond the direct impact of those sanctions on the individuals who were actually targeted... Nonetheless, it certainly had a significant 'chilling effect', on Libya's human smuggling net- work as a whole. To give you one example: at the time, East African smugglers were known to be responsible for a large part of the number of migrants being smuggled into Libya... but many of them started winding down their operations, soon after those sanctions were imposed: possibly, out of fear that 'they themselves might be next'; or simply because they concluded that the operation was becoming 'too risky', to even be worth their while. Either way: those sanctions proved to be enough of a threat, to convince a not-significant part of that East African human smuggling network to just 'pack up its bags' altogether. And there have been other such instances: including a number of international criminal prosecu- tions, led by individual countries – such as Italy and the Nether- lands – which also resulted in a noticeable drop in the level of human smuggling activity, at the time. The problem, however, is that those efforts were never prop- erly sustained; and what's more, they are not upheld consistently, across the board... partly because there is no real 'common poli- cy-direction', that clearly unites all the various entities involved. On the contrary, what we have today is more like an occasional 'spurt of activity' – usually, con- sisting in individual efforts by dif- ferent countries, or other relevant jurisdictions (including the ICC) – which tend to be very 'success- ful', for as long as they actually last... but then, they never seem to last very long. And this is a great pity, be- cause – as the above examples (and others) keep proving, time and time again – those are the strategies which actually DO work, in practice. We know, from our own past experience, that 'prosecuting criminals' has a far greater track-record of success... than simply trying to build more 'walls', and more 'barriers', to just keep migrants out of Europe, at all costs. Now: I will not go as far as to say that the latter approach, by defi- nition, will simply 'never work, at all'. Nor will I argue that this kind of policy option should be 'kept off the table', at all times (even though, quite frankly, 'bor- der control' remains around the only thing that ever really gets discussed, around the European discussion table, AT ALL...). What I will say, however, is that: 'putting all your eggs into that one basket', in this particu- lar scenario, is CERTAINLY not going to work. What is re- ally needed, is not just 'border control', on its own – though that is, undeniably, an impor- tant component - but rather, a multi-pronged formula that also includes, among other things, 'safe and legal passage' for the migrants themselves. Ideally, this should operate on two levels: catering for both asy- lum seekers, who have a right to apply for international protec- tion... and also, for short-term economic migrants (of the kind that European economies stand to benefit from enormously, an- yway; thus creating a potential 'win-win' scenario, for all con- cerned.) Above all, however, this mul- ti-pronged approach also has to include an emphasis on 'crimi- nal prosecution'. In other words, we have to REALLY go after the criminals who actually run those human smuggling operations. Or to quote the slogan that was so popular in Europe, a few years back... we have to REALLY wage a 'war against human smugglers': instead of just a 'war against mi- grants' (which is what we really seem to be waging, most of the time.)