Muscat’s transformation: From demagogue to statesman

Joseph Muscat’s conversion from hawkish rhetoric on immigration to a more humanitarian stance may well have been the consequence of a change of heart on the part of our Italian neighbours after the loss of 400 lives off Lampedusa in October, 2013.

It was this tragedy which led to the launch of the Mare Nostrum search and rescue operation and to Italy’s unofficial decision to take up the migrants it rescues from the sea, even when Malta is the closest port of call.

Moreover, unlike Lawrence Gonzi, who faced a hawkish Italian right wing government whose home affairs Minister was Roberto Maroni of the anti immigrant Lega Nord, Muscat has found more reasonable interlocutors in Enrico Letta and Matteo Renzi.

Ironically, back in April, 2011 Muscat had praised Maroni for standing up for his country’s national interest by refusing entry in Lampedusa to a boatload of migrants saved by the Maltese. 

Now, four years later, Muscat finds himself attacked by Lega Nord leader Matteo Salvini for “pushing back” to Italy migrants who he claimed should be taken by Malta.

Moreover, unlike Lawrence Gonzi, who was constantly criticised by Muscat in opposition for not doing enough for Malta’s national interest, on this issue Muscat now finds the support of the Nationalist opposition. 

Muscat’s alignment with the European Socialists who advocate more humane solutions to the immigration problem, may have also contributed to Muscat’s change of heart, which started on the eve of the MEP elections last year.

With arrivals at an all time low and the PN cooperating with him on this issue, Muscat is better placed to enact a national integration policy, an area completely neglected by the previous administration.

Muscat’s defunct action plan 

It was a deliberate choice on Muscat’s part to turn migration into the main issue of the MEP elections held in June, 2009.

Just three months before his first electoral test as PL leader, Muscat sent shockwaves by presenting a hawkish plan to parliament which vaguely hinted at Malta suspending its “international obligations” if numbers of migrants were to reach a critical point.

He even suggested putting the plan to a referendum and let the people decide.

The government, he said, should establish the number of migrants, which Malta could host in a suitable and sustainable manner. “And if the international community did not act and the number of arrivals continued to exceed what Malta could handle, Malta should not exclude the suspension of its international obligations,” he had said.

Muscat insisted that this “did not mean allowing people to drown, but helping them and then seeing them on their way”.

“One could not allow people in, out of respect for international norms, only to put them in facilities which were not even fit for dogs,” he said.

Moreover, Muscat also showed a poor understanding of international law, insisting that “the first point of legality was that one should enter a country legally”, ignoring the fact that people who are brought in Malta after being rescued in the middle of the sea are not breaking any law.

One interesting point in Muscat’s 2009 speech is that tolerance succeeds only when numbers are within manageable limits. This may be one of the reasons why Muscat dished his hawkish stance after 2013 when Italy started taking most of the migrants rescued at sea. This may suggest that Muscat’s concern on migration is based on popular apprehension on numbers rather than on xenophobia or racism.

In fact Muscat did refer to the need of an integration policy which was completely absent at that time; saying that “migrants should be given education and training, including community living, English, and respect to authority”.

But Muscat did not resist the temptation to pander to deeply rooted prejudice in his landmark 2009 speech, claiming that in Birzebbugia migrants placed stones in the middle of the road and people’s cars were damaged, that in Marsa residents saw migrants relieve all their natural needs in the middle of the road and that in Safi and Kirkop residents locked their doors whenever they heard a helicopter flying low, because they would know that migrants would have escaped, and some were found on people’s roofs.

Another running theme in Muscat’s plan was firmness with the EU by suggesting that when the sustainable number of migrants who could be accommodated was exceeded, Malta should use its veto where unanimity was needed in the EU. 

What needed to be changed, first and foremost according to Muscat, was the rule whereby the EU country which first received the migrants, remained responsible for them. The rule still exists but Muscat in government has still not used the veto, preferring diplomacy to threats.

In Maroni’s shadow

The Gonzi administration conducted its diplomacy on migration in the shadow of the hawkish Berlusconi government in Italy, which included the Lega Nord, an anti immigrant right wing party. Both the Nationalist government and the Labour opposition supported a controversial Italian policy of turning back to Libya illegal migrants found on the high seas in the Mediterranean. The policy was later found to breach fundamental human rights.

Although Malta never adopted a similar policy, a day after Italy repatriated the first group of migrants; Home Affairs Minister Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici had come out supporting Italy’s agreement with Libya.

Speaking during a debate at the European Parliament in 2010 on the incidents in the Mediterranean involving illegal immigrants, Dr Busuttil said the Italian policy was giving results.

“Although it was understandable to ask questions on Italy’s policy of returning migrants to Libya, it is indisputable that, as a result of these returns, the number of arrivals this year was down on last year and so were the number of tragic deaths,” he told MEPs.

On his part Muscat went as far as supporting the Italian government’s stance even when this clashed directly with Maltese interests.

Muscat praised Italy for defending its national interest by blocking a boat’s entry into Lampedusa on April 7, 2011 and he said Malta should do likewise.

Clarifying his statements a few days later, Muscat said defending the national interest did not mean allowing people to drown.

As soon as Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi admitted that his government had committed a mistake by not allowing the migrants to disembark in Lampedusa, Muscat called on Gonzi to send the migrants to Italy.

To this, then prime minister Gonzi replied: “How can one go onto a child or a man and tell them, ‘I saved you from death, now tonight I’m going to pack you up, put you in a plane and send you to Italy’?”

Muscat remained dismissive of Gonzi’s approach to the migration problem. 

He accused Gonzi of “senseless talking” who has brought nothing to Malta: “Instead of defending the national interest, he sits at EU meetings like a sheep and thanks those who give him charity.”

The pushback pledge

It was during quick-fire yes/no round of The Times’ leaders’ debate in the final days of the 2013 electoral campaign, that Muscat expressed his agreement with intercepting asylum seekers at sea and returning them to Libya if that country was considered “safe”.

On his part Lawrence Gonzi answered “no” when asked if he favoured a pushback policy.

One may well suspect that Muscat was well aware that when elected to government his hawkish approach would have to give way to a more statesmanlike stance.

But just three months after being elected Muscat gave the impression that he was still the same hawkish politician, who had been elected on the basis of a migration plan which included commitments to put pressure on the EU by using the veto and to “suspend international obligations” if numbers were unsustainable.

In reaction to remarks made by Home Affairs Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom, a Swede, that the migration numbers Malta is facing are not extraordinary, Dr Muscat said: “If she thinks the figures are not alarming, she can propose to the Swedish government to take migrants”.

Just days later the European Court of Human Rights had to issue an interim order to block a government pushback of 45 migrants after NGOs filed a prohibitory application.

On that occasion the Prime Minister announced that he had held talks with the Libyan government, and that all arrangements for a pushback had been finalised. “In the meantime we have learnt of an application to the European Court of Human Rights by NGOs, to stop a decision that the Maltese government had not taken yet.”

Muscat said his decision to finalise preparations for a pushback was a sign that his government had “stood up to be counted”.

“I carry this responsibility myself... but so must those who stop this government from securing the national interest,” Muscat said, in an obvious reference to the NGOs’ application to the ECHR. Muscat justified his hawkish stance as a way of making Europe “smell the coffee”.

In August Muscat continued testing the waters, refusing entry to 102 migrants rescued by the MV Salamis a Liberian flagged oil tanker. After three days of bickering on who should accept the migrants saved by the tanker’s captain, the Italians finally accepted responsibility for the migrants. 

“Malta’s position during this crisis was always strong, consistent and legitimate. Through this position, Malta sent a strong message,” Muscat said in a statement.

Ironically Muscat’s hard line stance on the Salamis also earned him the praise of the Lega Nord in Italy.

Italy’s change of heart

But what really led to Malta being relieved of the pressure of continuous boat arrivals was the Italian reaction to a tragedy at sea that led to over 400 refugees from Syria and Palestine losing their lives in the Lampedusa shipwreck.

Unlike previous right wing governments, the Italian government under Prime Ministers Enrico Letta and now Matteo Renzi, was no longer engaged in bickering with their Maltese counterparts over who is responsible for saving lives at sea in the Mediterranean.

“The Italian coast guard has been ordered by the Italian government to intervene and collect any boat people that even the Maltese authorities are technically obliged to intervene and collect,” a senior government official told MaltaToday in August 2014.

Operation Mare Nostrum, launched after the Lampedusa tragedy, included the use of amphibious ships, unmanned drones and long-range helicopters with infrared equipment, with six navy ships, each with crews of between 80 to 250 men.

The highly successful rescue operations had seen some 80,000 migrants arrive in Italy in 2014 and practically no boats in Malta.

Yet despite the drop in arrivals the Maltese army remained pro-active in saving lives in the Mediterranean. 

In the meantime Muscat seems to have realised that celebrating Malta’s heroic role in saving migrant life earns Malta more respect as a nation and more legitimacy to our demands than calling on others to “smell the coffee” and threatening pushbacks.

In this sense Muscat has become much more like his predecessor Lawrence Gonzi, who also celebrated Malta’s role in saving lives. But unlike Gonzi, Muscat can afford to do this without even having to worry about the arrivals of boats in Malta.

From Mare Nostrum to Triton

Although operation Mare Nostrum was terminated by the end of 2014 and replaced by a downscaled EU operation called Triton, Malta has still not seen any boat arrivals this year. 

Triton, the European Commission’s new operation to ‘manage migration’ in the Central Mediterranean under the control of the Frontex agency, began on November 1, 2014. 

When announcing Triton on 7 October, Commissioner Malmstrom confirmed that the operation was “tailored to the needs and requests of Italian authorities” and its objective is to reinforce border surveillance and support Mare Nostrum’s humanitarian efforts. But a week later, Minister Alfano gave notice that Mare Nostrum would shut down as from 1 November.

This meant that a mission to rescue migrants at sea had been replaced by one whose stated primary objective was that of protecting the borders.

Not surprisingly, the abandonment of an operation meant to avoid tragedies such as the loss of 400 lives off Lampedusa in 2013, and its replacement with an operation whose primary aim is not that of saving lives, has contributed to the latest tragedy which resulted in the loss of 900 lives.

On Thursday EU leaders agreed to treble the budget for operation Triton but they have not extended the area covered by Triton to include all the areas previously covered by Mare Nostrum. In the past, countries like Britain were hostile to Mare Nostrum, blaming it for attracting more migrants into Europe. 

Instead, EU leaders, Muscat and Renzi included, seem to be more interested in an operation directed against the criminal ring of people smugglers in an attempt to decrease the number of boats making the dangerous crossings.

In fact by prioritising military action against smuggler rings they could be responding to an increasingly xenophobic public opinion which is more interested in stopping migrants from crossing over from Libya than in saving them. 

Moreover by incorrectly comparing the trafficking of migrants with the slave trade of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, Renzi is ignoring the reality that that unlike slaves who were transported to America against their will, migrants actually want to escape to Europe and traffickers are unscrupulously exploiting this need.

Born again Muscat?

Still despite the ambiguity of the solutions concocted with his Italian counterpart Muscat has earned greater respect for the country by celebrating its role in search and rescue operations while denouncing Europe’s indifference.

Europe faces an appointment with history: “If Europe, if the global community, continues to turn a blind eye... we will all be judged in the same way that history has judged Europe when it turned a blind eye to the genocide of this century and last century,” he said on Sunday.

Muscat has also used the latest tragedy to change latent xenophobia and racism in his own party.

On Sunday Muscat sent a powerful message to his party’s grassroots by hugging a child of African origin.

Surely enough, Muscat has to keep reckoning with his own past. He was the one who gave legitimacy to the word “pushback” when a group of migrants was chosen to be deported to Libya. Moreover from now on, the word pushback will be used against him by the far-right.

But he has one advantage. The Maltese are not a cruel nation. When faced with tragedies like those happening in the Mediterranean, their instinct tells them that we should not let people drown. So calling for pushbacks in these circumstances is fast losing legitimacy.

But Muscat’s rhetoric will be severely tested by how far he will go in advocating solutions aimed at saving the life of migrants during discussions in Brussels.

For while Muscat was ready to consider using the veto when Malta had a problem with boat arrivals, it remains to be seen how far Muscat will go to make Europe awake from its slumber, now that Malta is only receiving bodies of dead migrants.