Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/187071
10 News maltatoday, SUNDAY, 29 SEPTEMBER 2013 When people becom As government calls for more solidarity from Europe after the Lampedusa tragedy, Europe reminds Malta that it still hasn't fulfilled its own obligations on the immigration front. RAPHAEL VASSALLO asks: are we exploiting this catastrophe to squeeze more money out of the EU? Tragedy in Lampedusa: the lives of 300 migrants are estimated to have been lost after a boat caught fire and capsized this week RESPONDING to this week's tragedy off Lampedusa – in which a boat carrying 500 people caught fire and capsized, resulting in an estimated 300 lives lost at sea – Italian senator Roberto Formigoni opened a broadside on Malta and Spain for "condemning migrants to death" as a result of the two countries' presumed pushback policies. Local reactions were understandably incensed, with many commentators publicly reminding Formigoni that the government he himself was once part of (i.e., the Berlusconi administration) employed a pushback policy for over a year, before this was ruled to be illegal by the European Court of Human Rights in 2011. As a result of this policy, hundreds of migrants were deported to Libya without an opportunity to apply for asylum: a right to which they are supposedly entitled, according to the European Convention of Human Rights. It was also correctly observed that Malta has to date limited its own policy to only 'considering' pushbacks as a means to stem the influx – but (unlike Italy) Malta has not actively pushed back any migrants, at least not since the mass deportation of Eritreans in 2001. Lastly, Formigoni was reminded of a controversial law passed by his own government, which proposed to incriminate people who offer assistance to migrants at sea – a law that openly defies all known maritime conventions, and which could conceivably have been a contributing factor to the loss of so many lives in this particular tragedy. Government's official reaction to the Formigoni slur was however more guarded, given the close ties that are supposed to exist between the two countries. Prime Minister Joseph Muscat said he would not be drawn into any direct rebuttal: "Comments made by sole politicians will definitely not impinge on the excellent relations between Malta and Italy," he said, in the context of a speech in which he also offered 'solidarity' to Italy (exactly why remains unclear, seeing as our neighbouring country cannot in identical ways. Both countries turned the loss of around 300 lives into an extension of their own previous arguments that 'Europe' – spoken of almost as if were a separate entity, and not a union of which both Malta and Italy are members – should somehow step in and solve all our problems with the wave of its magic wand. Likewise, the immediate reaction of both countries to the worst naval tragedy to occur in the Mediterranean in decades was to make a public plea for solidarity from Europe... for themselves. "All we have seen so far from the EU are only words," Muscat remarked. "The EU must not limit itself to state- last month that Malta had failed to fulfil its international obligations visa-vis immigration. "Malta is honouring its international obligations and upholding the provisions of international treaties," Muscat said in what seems to be direct reply to Malmstrom. "During the past hours, the Armed Forces of Malta, in conjunction with Italian naval authorities, were involved in yet another two rescue operations on the high seas." Human rights violations But is Malta really honouring its commitments and upholding the provisions of to international treaties? According to NGOs involved in Malta cannot keep insisting on responsibility sharing when it unashamedly shuns its own responsibilities any way be considered the victim of this tragedy). In all this exchange of barbs, accusations and commiserations, few seem to have noticed the detail that – if you ignore the direct attack on Malta in what was ultimately a throwaway comment on a TV chat show – both Malta and Italy have responded to the catastrophe in almost ments but extend its intentions in a perceptible manner with long-term solutions... Today's incident should not remain just a headline but it should lead to EU solidarity." Significantly, he also capitalised on the event by subliminally responding to earlier criticism by EU Home Affairs Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom, who had hinted in a speech immigration issues, the answer is a very emphatic 'No'. Last week, the United Nations High Commission for Refugees issued a report which concluded that Malta's systematic administrative detention policy in not in conformity with international law. The fact that Malta continues to receive relatively high numbers of asylum seekers, the UNHCR noted, does not absolve the state from its responsibilities (implying that such responsibilities are being ducked). Among the specific shortcomings identified in the report are: that the majority of asylum seekers in Malta are subject to prolonged periods in detention without access to adequate avenues to challenge effectively the decision to detain; and that there is no general mechanism in place to consider less coercive and alternative measures in individual cases at the time of the decision to detain. Elsewhere, Malta's bail system, the only statutory alternative available, is neither effective nor generally accessible to asylum seekers arriving in an irregular manner. "In these circumstances, it is UNHCR's position that the mandatory and automatic detention of all asylum seekers who arrive in an irregular manner, for the purposes of removal, is unlawful and arbitrary." Article 9 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights – to which Malta is a signatory state, and which is entrenched in the Maltese Constitution – decrees that "no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile". Malta found guilty More worryingly for Muscat's claims to have fulfilled international obligations, the European Court of Human Rights recently delivered a scathing judgment (Suso Musa ver-