Agence France Presse report in the Global Post: makes the Maltese look like savages who let people drown, while Italy is the hero
ITALY ACCEPTS BOAT MIGRANTS AFTER MALTA REFUSES
Italy has agreed to take in 102 migrants rescued from a leaking dinghy after Malta refused to admit them despite EU pressure, the Maltese government said Wednesday.
The migrants, including a five-month-old baby and four pregnant women, were rescued from their badly damaged inflatable boat on Monday by the Liberian-flagged Salamis oil tanker 80 kilometres (50 miles) off the Libyan coast.
Basic communication theory for a political party/government which thinks that its sole audience is still the Maltese electorate: a message is WHAT IS RECEIVED, and not what the sender thinks he’s said.
The German asylum advocacy group Pro Asyl has accused Malta of threatening the use of force if the Salamis’ captain tried to land the refugees at an island port.
The organisation has urged the EU “to guarantee the reception of the rescued boat people in a safe port in Europe.”
“Threatening the tanker Salamis with military force sends out a fatal message to other boat crews again: look away, carry on, and avoid problems with people in distress,” the group said in a statement.
17 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/130807/italy-accepts-boat-migrants-after-malta-refuses
http://www.euractiv.com/justice/eu-presses-malta-help-boat-peopl-news-529739
X’misthija.
Ma nafx kif inrid naffaccja lin-nies kollha minn pajjizi Ewropej li naf u niltaqa maghhom ta’ sikwit jew inkella huma hbieb minghajr ma nhoss l-art trid tiblaghni.
Kif zebilhuna ma kulhadd.
L-Amerikani fil-fatt lanqas johorgu mid-dar. Daqstant misthija bil-barbarizmu tal-gvern taghhom u l-vjolenza li jwettaq taht il-velu tal-paci.
I’m sorry, but the second article is a complete distortion of what actually happened. It just goes to show how utterly abysmal the media (anywhere in the world) are at reporting events factually and truthfully and why I despair at what passes for journalism these days.
The second article makes no mention anywhere that the ships captain did not go to the nearest port of safety (against international law) after being instructed by the Italian authorities who were co-ordinating the SAR. In fact it comes up with absolute rubbish that the ship was threatened with force.
There is no mention that the Malta AFM did give assistance to the ship even though it was not allowed into territorial waters.
Didn’t they make the connection that as the Italian authorities were co-ordinating the SAR, then it made sense that Italy receives the migrants as there was no emergency situation on-board which required them to offload in Malta.
Whilst there is hysteria being worked up over the ship, maybe a light should be shone on the fact that today 86 migrants were picked up and landed here in line with Malta’s international and humanitarian obligations.
Some perspective and rationale please.
[Daphne – The nearest safe port for refugees fleeing Libya is not Libya but Malta. And yes, the prime minister’s tweets were extremely hostile to the ship-owners and captain. You need to understand that messages are what is received, and not what is meant or sent.]
Define ‘nearest safe port’. The law doesn’t spell it out literally. Safety is relative and derived from context. Libyan asylum seekers could not have been returned to Libya safely. It’s no different for asylum seekers of other nationality.
I repeat, the nearest safe port was Tripoli in the context of this SAR and not Malta even though you seem to wish it was. The Italian (not Maltese) authorities determined this as they were co-ordinating the rescue and would have, presumably, done it with the co-operation of the Libyan authorities.
[Daphne – This is unbelievable. You are quite deliberately using half-facts and partial information to back your unsound argument. ‘Safe port’ in search-and-rescue terms is not the same as ‘safe port’ in asylum-seeking terms. The European Commission decided on the latter basis. What Italy and Malta think is irrelevant. We all know what Muscat thinks about the safety of Libya for asylum-seekers: he doesn’t give a damn about how they are treated there. And Italy, you conveniently omit to mention, eventually allowed the tanker in BECAUSE MALTA REFUSED AND BECAUSE RETURNING THEM TO LIBYA WAS OUT OF THE QUESTION.]
When I worked in Libya in 2009, it was quite common for the local coastguard to intercept and offload migrant boats in Tripoli in conjunction with EU authorities. This is how I got to know several asylum seekers during my time there. So there is liaison.
[Daphne – ‘In conjunction with EU authorities’. No, in liaison with Berlusconi’s Italy, which is different.]
Read the SOLA and SAR conventions on the IMO website.
http://www.imo.org/OurWork/Facilitation/IllegalMigrants/Pages/Default.aspx
Also, the context would be leaving Libya as they are people in transit through the country. They are not Libyans but fleeing places like Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, Sudan, Ethiopia, Chad and Niger. Most Libyans come here legally on the daily Tripoli flight and not in a dinghy.
Yes. Muscat’s tweets were stupid as he’s a dumbass, but I think a degree of calm is needed as it seems to me that people are just trying to make political capital out of this on both sides of the spectrum just to prove how bad the other lot are.
[Daphne – You have got it the wrong way round. This situation is bad because the Labour government is unfit for purpose. It is not the situation which makes the government look bad, but a bad situation which has been created because the government is unfit. ‘Portrayal’ has nothing to do with it. There are facts. One of those facts is that recreational yachtsmen on a sinking Beneteau are not in the same ‘SAR’ category as asylum seekers on a sinking fishing-boat.]
All I can say in reply is wise man did once say never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
[Daphne – Well, that was probably the man in charge of the country right now, which is exactly how he got there and you’re still swallowing the bait.]
The media also completely missed what Manuel Mallia said: “This is not about immigration.”
Please. I’m sure that if it were a boat of Maltese fisherman stranded in the same position, the government would have INSISTED they are taken to Libya.
In keeping the Liberian tanker outside Maltese territorial waters guarded by an AFM patrol boat, the Prime Minister has once again shamelessly used migrants as pawns while he plays to the gallery.
The correct response in this case would have been to accept the migrants without delay: human decency demanded no less. Then, by all means, the government could have called for an investigation into the actions of the ship’s captain and his superiors, to determine whether any laws were broken or torts committed and, if so, whether it is appropriate in the circumstances to proceed with a prosecution.
At the same time, Malta could have engaged in quiet, diplomatic discussions with Italy and the rest of the EU behind the scenes, seeking to develop a multi-lateral protocol for addressing any future recurrence of this kind of situation.
Sadly, this is a government that does not believe in or support the rule of law.
Because the refugees of undisclosed nationality had last embarked from Libya in their attempt to obtain clandestine entry to Europe it does NOT necessarily follow that they were genuine refugees fleeing unsafe Libyan conditions.
They were refugees from more distant native lands who were consciously making use of the lucrative trade of illegal transport offered in Libya and promising clandestine entry to their mainland Europe destination.
A competent ship’s captain does not really need messages to be reminded of his responsibilities.
It does not necessarily follow that they are NOT genuine refugees. The case for asylum can be tested through due legal process in a country which can offer asylum. It can’t and shouldn’t be tested by returning asylum seekers to their point of departure.
I did not deny that some could have been genuine refugees. That is immaterial from the “safe port” aspect unless they were Libyans who were fleeing from conditions in Libya and for whom no port in Libya would be safe.
As far as I know, no one is pretending that they were. This is NOT a case of lodging rescued asylum seekers until their real status is determined. It is a case of of persons, not necessarily asylum seekers, in imminent danger of drowning and landing them at the nearest safe port.
This is a case of potential asylum seekers being forced back to their point of departure. As I said, the only test of their case is a legal process which is not possible in Libya.
If you don’t deny that some are genuine refugees, then you have no argument in facour of returning the ship to Libya.
Take your pick, they all make grim reading:
http://news.feed-reader.net/6260-malta.html
We have really sunk low if we have made the Italians seem like the heros.
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/malta-boat-2013-08-06
“”The Maltese authorities have a humanitarian duty to ensure the safety and well-being of those rescued. They must allow the boat to disembark in Malta and its passengers to be given any necessary medical treatment, as well as a chance to apply for asylum,” said Jezerca Tigani, deputy director for Europe and Central Asia at Amnesty International. ”
““The Maltese government is wasting precious time in refusing to disembark people in immediate need,” said Jezerca Tigani.”
“Amnesty International considers that no passenger onboard MV Salamis should be removed to Libya. This would violate the international prohibition against removing anyone to a place where they would face a real risk of ill-treatment or other serious human rights abuses.”