Category: Immigration

Categories
Immigration

Panacea Mediterranea

panacea_akkuza

The power seems to be in the numbers. If it’s birds then we’re asking how many must be illegally shot before it becomes blatantly obvious that the season must close. If it’s votes then we’re interpreting results as best suits our party of choice – and it seems that everybody can be happy in their own way. If it’s migration then we must sadly count the dead. Yes, the power lies in and among the number of dead because the political situation is such that unless many die (and preferably in as tragic manner as possible) nobody will give a damn.

So a tragedy involving close to 900 souls just about made it to push the issue of migratory flows onto the EU agenda. The Council of Ministers (Foreign Affairs) is having an extraordinary meeting in Luxembourg as I type. We have reached the point (again, may I add) when (as a Union) realise that there is a huge problem at our doorstep. It is impossible for the nordic nations to continue to turn their noses away from the stench of floating dead (I would apologise for the graphic nature of the description but then again there is a bit of anger built up and words are my only weapon).

We must understand though that there is no Panacea Mediterranea. What we see is actually a symptom of problems that originate elsewhere. The sub-Saharan belt will continue be the source of migrants in search of a land that treats them better, that will provide them a sense of decent belonging and dignity. The story of Moses and the errant Israelites of biblical fame continues to repeat itself century after century with huge masses of humans being displaced from areas of uncertainty either because of natural disasters or human cruelty.

The migration flow will, like water, seek the easiest passage to flow through, and right now the easiest exit point is the chaos that is Libya. So long as the Maghreb nations are in chaos they will prove to be the choice transit point for these peoples who have been so reduced to desperation that even risking their lives to Triton the god of the sea becomes a no-brainer.

Politically and diplomatically an entity such as the EU has two different spheres that it needs to influence and assist. First should be the source of the migratory flows – the war and famine torn dark belly of Africa – and secondly the transit nations that are currently submerged in chaos. Heaven (and more practically Earth) forbid that Daesh take further control of these exit points because they will exacerbate the religious tension thrown into the equation (and fools are those who will fall for the trap deeming Muslim migrants as some form of Satanic reincarnation).

It’s a tall order and one that has to be placed into the geopolitical context too. The UK is facing elections soon. Greece is still menacing to play a Samson and pull apart the pillars of the EURO by forcing an exit. Economic recovery on the Old Continent is still way away from forgetting the word “austerity” (though it has been banned from the books). Getting the electorate to understand the importance of economic (and maybe military) intervention in the weak points of the migratory flows is no easy task.

There is no panacea really. What we can strive for is more respect and more humanity. Whether it is when we are discussing the issue and whether it is in our engagement (in our smallness) whenever we can. Demonisation of migrants who made it through does not help anyone and only further increases the tensions. Playing into the facile hands of the populists who would erect a big wall in the sea and forget the problem until it explodes in their face manifold in the future is neither here no there.

It’s a human problem. One that involves all humanity. Whether we like it or not.

Categories
Immigration

Salamis

It has been described as one of the most significant battles in human history. Had the invading forces been victorious it would have signified the end of Western Civilisation as we know it. It all happened at Salamis, 480 years before the birth of Christ.

At Salamis almost 2500 years ago Xerxes’ Persian forces were once again trying to gain an inroad into the land occupied by a number of city states. Thanks to some wily moves, a bit of luck and some help from the elements (the Gods?), the Greek states managed to ward off the Persian danger yet again. Which is why Salamis is seen as quite an important turning point in our history.

Which brings me to the ship that goes by the name Salamis floating outside the shores of this island of ours. It fatefully picked up a hundred migrants who were stranded at sea and then was apparently ordered by both Italian and Maltese authorities to return its fare to Libya. All forms of legalisms are out in force at the moment. Mallia and Muscat are clinging to the rules of rescue at sea – basically the intent being to feign ignorance of the fact that the people who were saved would have been potential asylum seekers.

Those dreaded NGO’s have caught on to this farce and have immediately issued a call for the migrants to be allowed to disembark. “Not on my island” quoth Mallia. “It’s a point of principle”. Really? Both Italian and Maltese authorities seem to forget that they have been busy warning their own nationals to keep a wide berth of Libya – not exactly a safe haven for whomever to be obliged to disembark to. The class of idiots that swallow the daily pill from the authorities that be have taken to swarming onto the facebook page of EU Commissioner Malmstrom – spewing out all sort of invective chief among which is “Don’t mess with Malta” or “Keep out of our country”.

Early this afternoon the opposition did little to help the cause by standing fair and square behind the Labour government’s position. It was probably not aided by the fact that there are many a similar skeleton in its cupboard – PN governments did have the habit of using poor souls at sea as bartering tools for international diplomacy.

Yes, both the PL and the PN have opted to paint our country the picture of intolerance and non-hospitality. The irony is lost on all those idiot tweeters and facebookers threatening that the Knights of Malta will fight back for their identity. Has anyone heard of the Hospitallers? Do we really need to be reminded over and over of our role as nurse and missionary of the Mediterranean? Do our politicians not see that there is no dignity to be found in blowing the nationalistic trumpet?

It seems not. It seems that the hundred plus souls on board the Salamis are bound to suffer the heat, the danger and the uncertainty. Because Mallia thinks it’s a point of principle. Because Busuttil wants to stay consistent with previous PN positions. Because Muscat still gets a hard on every time he believes he can emulate Mintoff – that most Arab of post-colonial leaders.

This time the name Salamis will not be synonymous with the saving of civilisation as we know it. It will be a great monument marking the continuing slide to our mediocre end.

 

 

Categories
Euroland Immigration Politics Values

Follement

The storm in a tea-drinking establishment captured most of the attention on the Sunday papers and media. You would be forgiven therefore (and for reasons I will explain later you would also be fortunate) had you missed the piece penned in the Sunday Times of Malta by Malta’s former ambassador to the Council of Europe Joseph Licari. The title makes no effort to hide Licari’s ultimate aim – “The case for refoulement“. He could have called it “Apologia for Joseph Muscat’s Madcap Idea of Pushing Back Migrants” but I guess it would have been too long and in your face. You would hope that the presence of the word “case” in the title to an article would mean that there would be a build up of cogent logic leading to a strong argument in favour of something: in this case that something being the not too kosher idea of “refoulement“.

Interestingly the actual principle in international law is that of “non-refoulement” – the principle itself being an enshrining of the accepted idea among international actors that refoulement is a no-no. Here’s good old Wikipedia explaining the origins of the idea:

The principle of non-refoulement arises out of an international collective memory of the failure of nations during World War II to provide a safe haven to refugees fleeing certain genocide at the hands of the Nazi regime. Today, the principle of non-refoulement ostensibly protects recognized refugees and asylum seekers from being expelled from countries that are signatories to the 1951 Convention or 1967 Protocol. This has however not prevented certain signatory countries from skirting the international law principle and repatriating or expelling bona fide refugees into the hands of potential persecutors.

In other words: “Non-refoulement is a principle of the international law, i.e. of customary and trucial Law of Nations which forbids the rendering of a true victim of persecution to their persecutor; persecutor generally referring to a state-actor (country/government).” Which is pretty much where Licari starts to deviate from the point in an attempt to find some justification for a form of refoulement that he can only imagine.

In primis, Licari goes to great pains throughout his piece to underline some form of trump-card that he variously defines as national interest or better still the international obligation to share heavy burdens. You see, a country may – according to Licari – allow itself to be bound by international obligations but these may be set aside should the country feel that its national interest be threatened or as he weakly deduces from a preamble of the 1951 Convention: “A country’s obligation to accept refugees is balanced by other countries’ obligation to help it carry an unduly heavy burden.” Sound familiar? Of course it does. Patriotism being the last refuge of …

In secundis, Licari segues off into some kind of justification by analogy about the issue of self-defence. A nation, states the wise former ambassador, is the best placed to assess when the tipping point has been reached and when to resort to declaring “self-defence”.Next step? Here goes:

In other words, a country must abide by the law but it has the right of self-defence. Killing is a crime but not if committed in self-defence, as no one has an obligation to suffer physical harm and everyone has the right to prevent it.

Drum roll please. Joseph Licari served 14 years as Malta’s ambassador to the Council of Europe. in this day and age when many a nationalist is pooh-poohing certain Taghna Lkoll appointments in the diplomatic corps (rightly so) they deserve to be reminded that this paragon of logical befuddlement was our man in Strasbourg during the nationalist watch. The race to mediocrity anyone?

It gets better. In tertiis, Licari’s article goes somewhat conspiracy theorist. In a mix between Dan Brown and Anders Breivikh he takes on the hidden powers that are supposedly influencing the mad decisions at the UNHCR and ECHR. NGO’s (unelected) get pride of baton followed by those dastardly religious leaders. The cherry on the cake comes towards the end. In an article obviously penned to justify the pushback of boatloads of sub-saharan people to their country the author suddenly turns his guns on the people to the north: you know them, the Nordics.

Together with religious leaders and NGOs, the Nordic countries form a triptych of preachers we have to suffer in today’s Europe.

Suffer eh. I just could not believe what I am reading. What began as a supposed researched case in favour of pushbacks of some form really turned out to be one hell of a joyride. Smoking. The question really is what.

And finally, just in case you were wondering about the existence of any legal import to anything Licari wrote, there is much more to the “exception” that can be found in article 33 of the 1951 Convention. First of all the exception itself requires very strict interpretation and application. Here is Cornelis Wouters in “International Legal Standards for the Protection from Refoulement“:

The danger to the national security or community of the country of refuge must be a present or future danger. Thus, the past conduct of the refugee may be relevant.As with any exception to human rights guarantees,the exceptions contained in Article 33(2) must be interpreted restrictively and applied with great caution. The exceptions apply to refugees, who in principle have a right to be protected from refoulement. The finding of dangerousness does not require strict proof, but must be based on reasonable grounds and therefore supported by credible and reliable evidence and not made arbitrarily. The burden of proof of establishing reasonable grounds is on the State and requires an individual assessment. A State cannot assume that a refugee poses a threat to its national security or community based on the fact that he belongs to a certain group and create a rebuttable presumption of danger.Article 33(2) must be applied in a manner proportionate to its objective.483 This means that (1) there must be a causal link between the refugee and the danger, (2) it must be shown that the danger posed by the refugee is sufficiently serious and likely to be realised, (3) refoulement is a proportionate response to the perceived danger, (4) refoulement alleviates or even eliminates the danger, and (5) refoulement is used as a last possible resort where no other possibilities of alleviating the danger exist.

Even more importantly than these strict conditions (that obviously cannot be applied by rounding up the healthy suspects and putting them on the next plane to Tripoli) is the concurrent application of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. A trifle detail to have missed for an ambassador of 14 years in Strasbourg. You see Article 3 of the ECFHR has been applied in such a way as to constitute an absolute prohibition on any action that could result in torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. More specifically, Article 3 of the Convention has been used to prohibit any possible refoulement: According to the Court Article 3 ECHR leaves no room whatsoever for a balancing act between the national security of a State and the need of the individual for protection. (That’s what ex-ambassador Licari does not seem to like about the Court and its supposed infiltrators).

Still from Wouters :

In all three cases mentioned above the applicant’s conduct in the country of asylum was no reason to allow exceptions under Article 3. The Court explicitly acknowledged in these cases that the protection afforded under Article 3 from refoulement is thus wider than that provided under Article 33 of the Refugee Convention which does allow exceptions.

States do have a right to be legitimately concerned about potential “wolves” – criminals hiding among a flock of refugees seeking asylum. To perform the illogical leap of justifying refoulement generally with this argument though requires not only a leap of faith but also a heavy dose of those taghna lkoll pills that risked transforming Malta into a pariah state last month.

With (ex-)ambassadors like these who needs meritocratic appointments?

Categories
Immigration

The other boat people

The agreement between Australia and Papua New Guinea (PNG) regarding the treatment of Australia’s waves of boat people made the breaking news early this morning. Australia, it was announced, would be forwarding any refugee (asylum) seekers to PNG for processing and should their application become valid these asylum seekers would be resettled in PNG and not Australia. The arrangement is valid for twelve months and is subject to an annual review. In Rudd’s own words:

“Our expectation … is as this regional resettlement arrangement is implemented, and the message is sent loud and clear back up the pipeline, the number of boats will decline over time as asylum seekers then make recourse to other, more normal UNHCR processes to have their claims assessed,” Mr Rudd said.

No sooner had the news made the world wide web that repostings of the BBC report were being made on social networks by Maltese users – with such illuminating comments as “food for thought”. No doubt they believed that this move vindicated Joseph Muscat’s push-back ploy, and a cursory look at the facts behind the deal show that they there is no doubt that this is not a similar scenario. Let’s see why.

1. Human Rights

Yep. You have to begin there. The agreement means that the refugees are shifted to another point to have their asylum request processed. They are not shepherded onto a plane (with the added trauma of separating the healthy from the weak), they are not denied access to a lawyer or HR institutions and above all their entitlement to have their request treated is not prejudiced. Papua New Guinea is a signatory to the UN Refugees Convention – not an unstable country in the process of reconstruction. Here’s Rudd again:

“I understand that this is a very hard line decision,” Mr Rudd said. “But our responsibility as a government is to ensure that we have a robust system of border security and orderly migration, on the one hand, as well as fulfilling our legal and compassionate obligations under the refugees convention on the other,” he added. (9msn)

It’s not exactly a “stamping of feet” or “wake up and smell the coffee”. The Australian PM is aware that no matter how hardline you may get the combined duty of compassion and international obligations must and will be respected. A far cry from bluffing to break the law.

2. Promised Land Delayed.

It’s not all hunky dory. Australia is the land of promise for the people in that region. Not PNG, not Nauru. That however is what Rudd is banking on. His plan is a disincentive to smugglers who thrive on these illicit tours and mortal trips across the seas by sending out a message that the final destination will not be the land of Oz. It plays perfectly into the hands of recent “atavistic fears” aroused among the Australians – angry above all, at the lack of effort by recent arrivals to assimilate to the Ozzie culture. Settlers will instead have to adapt to New Guinean (Papuan?) culture since PNG has accepted for the refugees to be resettled within its borders.

A few notes on PNG will show that this is a growing democracy which is still plagued by a poverty gap with vast swathes of unexplored land. Fair game? So why did PNG accept the deal?

3. Money talks.

Well the PNG deal follows up on an earlier deal with Nauru. In both cases asylum seekers heading for Australia are (will be) rerouted to an asylum processing centre based on PNG or Nauru. The asylum centres are set up and maintained by Australia. That means that the money to pay for, monitor and run the centre comes from Australian coffers. Earlier centres were heavily criticised by the UNHCR for their conditions (a familiar story?) but Australia has pledged to build a new centre in PNG. That’s not just it… PNG needed more than a spanking new asylum centre to sign the dotted line and this is what it got:

In exchange for PNG’s agreement, Australia will fund further aid initiatives. These include redeveloping a major referral hospital in Lae, PNG’s second largest city, and assisting with its long-term management. Australia will also supply half the funding to reform PNG’s university sector and in 2014 implement the recommendations of an Australia-PNG education review. As well, it will support professional management teams in health, education and law and order. “And Australia, prime minister, stands ready to assist PNG further with other development needs in the future,” Mr Rudd said to Mr O’Neil. “That’s what friends are for.” (9msn)

International Cooperation

So Australia’s Rudd does get to shake the waters in the field of immigration policy. He admits that the PNG-Australia agreement might be challenged in the courts but also hopes that this will open the way for new global discussions on the treatment of immigrants and asylum seekers. The agreement exploits what Rudd seems to treat as a loophole in the international convention. The convention prohibits repatriation of asylum seekers but, according to Rudd’s reading does not prohibit resettlement in a different country – such as PNG.

Australia also plans to convene an international conference of transit and destination countries to consider how to improve global arrangements for refugees. The conference would consider the adequacy of processing arrangements and how Australia, the US, Canada and other countries could deal better with the resettlement issues.

So, no real stamping of feet. No threat to break international rules. The Australian PM gave his reassurances of compassionate treatment of the asylum seekers while setting up a framework the compatibility of which remains to be tested under international obligations. Having said that the way Rudd moved is diametrically opposed to what happened in the Maltese scenario.

That essentially is the difference between a statesman and a tantrum thrower fanning the flames of nationalistic fears. So, yes, food for thought indeed.

Categories
Immigration

Murder they wrote

The jury seems to still be inexplicably out as to whether Joseph Muscat’s bluff about the pushback strategy was commendable or otherwise. I say inexplicably because it does not seem to me to be a matter of opinion but of fact. Yet, there are plenty who would advocate that Joseph did the right thing and that his waterfall of badly mixed clichés – from “stamping of feet” to “waking up an smelling the coffee” are the necessary ingredients to get Europe going. The sad part is that it is not only your usual set of suspects who have swallowed the Taghna Lkoll happy pills but even persons who you would expect to have a critical mind. Let’s look at some facts:

1. The ECFHR is not the EU

They keep repeating this mantra that the European Human Rights Court decision is part of some conspiracy and that we should stick two fingers up at them and send the migrants to Brussels. Idiot’s guide to the EU number 1: The Court in question is part of the Council of Europe – an organisation based in Strasbourg with 45 member states including Russia and Turkey. Not the EU then.

2. The Illegality of the act

When Muscat chose to prep the planes and get the engines of forced repatriation running he was doing so knowing that he is in full violation of European law on Human Rights. Not EU Law. Not just that. His bit of sabre-rattling actually meant he was jumping onto the world stage by threatening to do something illegal. Let me put it into perspective for the slower among you. Think Saddam Hussein using human shields to prevent US bombing of targets. Think threatening to unleash Sarin Gas on protesters. Think threatening to drive with tanks over protesters. Think shooting border crossers on sight. Yes. That kind of illegal.

Does it matter that Muscat claims to have been bluffing? Hell no it doesn’t. Imagine I walked up to you and threatened to kill you if you did not hand over your cash. Then once you hand over the cash I tell you – “Hey, I’m only bluffing, but that got you to wake up and smell the coffee”. Right? And don’t give me the “ends justifies the means” bullshit. This government has proven to be so inept at understanding the boundaries of the rule of law that it is enough to give any ordinary citizen the creeps.

3. That Muscat’s Mental

It’s not my words. It’s the gist of the international press. His “bluff” had one effect and one effect only. He is being seen as an insane nutball who is willing to resort to illegal threats to try to get what he needs. Think Ahmadinejad meets Hussein meets Bush. While you were busy harping about some trumped up “national interest” your prime minister was busy flushing our national reputation down the drains. I can’t wait to see what the Economist’s side columns will make of this.

And another thing….. it’s not about saving face with the neighbours. Our reputation abroad is important because we work in a community of nations and should bear that in mind before we torpedo it with some ridiculous tantrum.

Don’t feed the animals

It’s a sign you see most time in the zoo. Our government needs some sobering up after this fiasco caused by its not being half as clever as it imagines itself to be. Right now the last thing the government needs is applause from the inane movement that cannot be made to understand why respecting human lives and dignity is at the basis of 21st century civilisation. You cannot pick and mix which lives to respect. You cannot selectively apply dignity. Just as you should never ever think about separating the healthy for the weak in some nightmarish remake of a nazi concentration camp simply because you wanted to “stamp your feet”.

So the next time that you think of praising our “gutsy” Prime Minister think of the human shields in Iraq at the time of Hussein and ask yourself: Would I have applauded Saddam for his gutsy standing up and being counted to the American forces?

I guess you know who should be smelling the coffee now.

 

Categories
Immigration Values

Civil and uncivil society

The Muslim Brotherhood will be turning out in large numbers in Cairo on Sunday to protest the abrupt removal of what was after all a democratically elected government. The Maltese hapless clone of the British National Party will also be demonstrating in Valletta – voicing their support for what they interpret as the Prime Minister’s strong stand against Europe and in favour of the ill-fated push-back policy. These too are manifestations of civil society. The right to express one’s opinion is sacrosanct, there’s no two ways about that, and even the most abominable of ideas can be voiced – to a certain extent (let’s not forget it is not legal to incite people to commit violence or to be violent).

The freedom of expression is a victim of gross misinterpretation in Malta though – as has often been documented in this blog. All too often the right to have an opinion is confused with “being right”. Having an opinion, no matter how maladroitly it has been constructed, seems to be the one and only “right” that counts. Critics of opinions are themselves labelled as “intolerant” and it all goes rather awry when the subject is tolerance itself – as in the case of immigration. Muscat’s Labour has built a lot of mileage on the concept of “the right to have an opinion no matter how wrong” and continues to fan this twisted logic while in government.

I am not sure how pleased Muscat can be with the Sunday demonstration in his honour. He must have failed to calculate the long-term effects of his clumsy bluff. Demonstrators will be hitting the streets in Malta on Sunday practically clamouring for the PM to insist on flaunting international rules and fundamental human rights. Our modern progressive Prime Minister must not have seen that coming. Diplomatic and strategic short-sightedness is a clear trait of the Taghna Lkoll arsenal – and many seem to be finding that out now.

Which brings me to the rest of civil society. We have seen in the past few days a sort of sectorial backlash to Muscat’s proposed push-back policy (or bluff). First the lawyers, then the academics and now the authors were reported as taking a unified stand against the whole idea. To begin with there is nothing more reassuring than seeing sectors of civil society putting their money where their mouth is. I do sense though that the obsession with partisan division still sticks like a limpet with the majority of such initiatives.

It’s not a question of being a wet-blanket but if I set aside the authors’ declaration I look at the “academics” and “lawyers” joint positions and all I see is a smokescreen for a party stunt. The most blatant of the two was the 65 lawyer judicial protest.  Aside from the fact that in certain quarters suddenly lawyers became a force to be reckoned with the names on the list were not exactly an across the board petition gathered at one of the drink-holes where lawyers tend to agglomerate. “65 lawyers active directly or indirectly with the nationalist party” would have been a better label.

As for the academics and as Maltatoday put it “labour intellectuals” there was again a selective exercise going on. That common position was not circulated at the University Canteen for anyone who agrees to voluntarily append his signature. It was an exercise in “look our party allows dissidence” – which really rang foul when you put it in the perspective of the “elaborate bluff”. Why? Because if you were Joseph Muscat and you really had hoped that your bluff were called you would also need a way to distance your party and its credentials from what you knew deep down to be a nefarious position. What better way than have your token liberals and academics yell their disapproval?

The strongest messages came from an all too different milieu. Those NGOs who quit the LGBT forum clearly explaining to the hapless government that you cannot pick and mix in the world of fundamental rights. A government that has no qualms to send human beings to their doom (and separating families in the process) cannot be serious about other fundamental rights. Aditus and Drachma did the only possible thing and quit the forum. You cannot engage with a bluffer and with a government that uses rights pragmatically for vote-gathering purposes.

To conclude, the minefield of immigration policy cannot be “un-politicised”. It is as political as it can get. The discerning citizen must be able to distinguish between the genuine movements and the smokescreens set up by the parties to cover what has hitherto been a hopeless record in the field of immigration. In the post 9/11 world we have to come to terms with this realignment of civil society and bear these truths in mind while taking an active role.

Unfortunately, the genuine movements (for or against certain policies) operate in the same field as the political parties who have a strong grasp on the ultimate decision taking seats of power. The end result of such a concoction is as unpredictable as we can allow it to be.

If there is anyone who should stand up and be counted then it is that part of civil society that harbours values for values’ sake and stops thinking in the “us and them” dichotomy. It will be hard. Judging by the history of Maltese politics…. it will be nigh impossible.