Pawns in a game of brinkmanship

The arrival of 1,500 to 2,000 people a year is no cataclysm, not for Malta, not if you can see it in the perspective of our ageing population, for example; or the fact that Malta already employs 13,000 foreign-born people legally, and even promotes itself as a country for foreigners to buy property here and get tax discounts.

What we are facing here are very real logistical problems due to the massive increase in crossings during this part of the year as had happened back in 2008-2009.

Only fools would underestimate these difficulties, which must create a headache for any government and a noble challenge for our armed forces at the frontline of this human tragedy.

Therefore our demand not to stand alone while facing this problem is legitimate.

Then again, our logistical problems are being compounded by the detention regime: they are overcrowded, and for what end one asks?

Readers should be reminded that had we not joined the EU, we would face this crisis alone because asylum seekers have to pass through our search and rescue zone to reach Europe. Nothing can change that sheer geographical fact.

Even if we had not joined Europe we would still have to abide by international law. Pushbacks are illegal both in the EU and outside it.

Malta is now in Europe. In 2012 the EU gave Malta €18 million for migration related issues. Malta will be receiving €80 million from the new EU budget to assist it on these logistical problems.

But Malta very rightly, expects that Europe's help is not limited to financial assistance, but also includes the repatriation of a number of protected migrants from Malta to other European countries.

Even if we achieve this noble aim and European countries accept to take responsibility for protected migrants granted, this would never solve our logistical problems: migrants will continue arriving by boat. Our army will be busy saving lives. Their asylum claims will be processed here. The only difference is that a number of them will leave, something that is their intention in the first place.

So even if we persuade European countries to voluntary take up part of our responsibility, it is quite unlikely that they will accept our demand for mandatory responsibility sharing. And the reasons for this are various.

One major reason is that most governments are wary of strengthening xenophobic, eurosceptic, and populist movements that will pounce upon them for bowing to EU pressure. Ironically, our greatest enemies are the same countries and governments that favour pushbacks in their countries.

Another reason is that some EU countries have already, and they still recall, taking a great number of refugees from the Balkan wars. And they didn't expect any burden sharing then.

And in reality, only the greens and the radical left parties of Europe (and in the European Parliament) support mandatory responsibility sharing.

One other reason, dubious thought it may be, is that governments think shared responsibility is a pull factor. But such an argument ignores the fact that the push factor is already there simply because of the scale of the human tragedy in the African continent. Europe will remain a magnet as long as problems persist in Africa. That is why international development aid and active contribution to peacemaking are so crucial.

Tackling the EU

So with the prospect of mandatory burden sharing so unlikely, what is Joseph Muscat really expecting from the EU?

The provocative pushbacks might get him to push migration on the agenda, something previous governments also managed to do. He might congratulate himself as a reward for his brinkmanship and let things rest until the MEP elections come around and up the tempo yet again.

With the ECHR stopping his pushback agenda, his only option is to pile pressure on the EU, or promote a Libyan solution in full knowledge that it is still grappling with the legacy of racism and armed militias in the aftermath of the Gaddafi dictatorship.

Muscat's logic is impeccable when he says the EU was quick to rescue banks but not migrants in need. But readers should note that Malta is no victim here: it is one of the few member states to oppose an EU tax on financial transactions and movements of capital.

The biggest cost in migration is not financial, but political. Enforcing mandatory burden sharing would galvanise populist sentiment against Brussels, while Muscat's own EU-bashing will galvanise his own populist movement, which now includes a well-defined right-wing fringe.

Confusing Muscat's own declared EU agenda, is the fact that people are now thinking we are forced to take migrants because of the EU, or that it was the EU that it stopped him from sending the migrants back (it wasn't, it was the European Court of Human Rights, a tribunal set up by the Council of Europe, which is not the EU).

What are the options?

Surely we should exclude migrants from any game of brinkmanship.

Muscat raised expectations that if satisfied, would turn the island into a pariah state that reneged on its international obligations. There is no justification in using migrants as bargaining chips.

Secondly, we should celebrate our role in rescuing so many people. We have to show the world why we have taken on this honourable role, a move that would increase international sympathy for us rather than being singled out by Human Rights Watch.  We need a positive PR campaign that celebrates as life-savers, not aggressive posturing.

Diplomacy, as shown yesterday by Muscat, appears to be far more effective than sabre-rattling. We must insist that Libya respects human rights and signs the Geneva Convention.

It's no easy task for the country ruled as a personal fiefdom by Gaddafi, to rebuild itself as a united nation and become a liberal democracy.

If we push back migrants and break the law, we are setting a bad example to Libya. They too won't care about the rule of law and human rights. It would be a vicious circle that does nobody, us and asylum seekers, any favours.