The push-back effect

As the dust settles on the 24 hours push-back saga we can begin to draw a few conclusions as to how the different participants fared. Away from the noise and static of the instinctive reactions there might be an opportunity to examine whether or not the issue of “immigration” has seen any development. First of all there is no way we could ever conceive of a policy on immigration that is apolitical. That is a load of rubbish. A policy on immigration is by its very nature political. Parties are not there to simply echo popular demands but they should be clearly stating their position on the matter and offering their ideas.

In fact what we really do not need is the “partisan” approach where policy is either pulled out of the pocket in a knee-jerk reaction or simply phrased in such a manner as to serve short-term government or opposition goals without any eye for a holistic policy that clearly enunciates Malta’s position vis-a-vis the complex problem of migration. Let us see how the participants fared then:

The Sabre-Rattling Prime Minister (or The Blind Man’s Bluff)

Joseph Muscat has a problem. He is now being judged by what he does and not simply by what he promised to do. There’s a huge difference between Jane Marshall saying she believes in Joseph because he does what he promised (and he still had done nothing yet) and what every citizen is able to see for his own eyes now. Muscat is finding it hard to understand that while promises only have consequences in the mind of whoever wants to believe them, real actions have consequences in the real world and these consequences cannot be as controlled or doped as a propaganda message.

Does Joseph genuinely believe that he could pull off such a stunt as he did yesterday? Is it possible that his was an elaborate bluff full knowing that in the end the planes would leave for nowhere? Even if we did consider it to be such an elaborate bluff it falls apart immediately as was said so well elsewhere. The reason is because his bluff involves stoking the flames of intolerance and racism. Joseph created the expectancy of a full-fledged push-back programme turning the insipid Times commentator’s dream into reality – a ro/ro service of planes sending the despicable pest back where they came from. Taghna Lkoll had a new corollary. It was go back to your country.

And who was the bluff supposed to impress? Ah yes. Joseph’s second protracted gaffe. He insists on dealing with Europe as though it is somebody else. He insists on reinforcing the idea of Europe and Brussels as the enemy. Many a bleating donkey will repeat this notion before sundown. There might be an opening here for insisting on more burden sharing but Joseph simply ploughs his way into any hope of EU solidarity and reintroduces the Mintoffian roughness and lack of diplomacy. Sure he got plaudits (“Leader bil-bajd”) but is it from the right crowd?

The third gaffe from the supposed sabre-rattler is the appalling idea of showing publicly that our government is prepared to flaunt international law and join the ranks of international tantrum throwers like some latter-day Ahmadinejad. Only a while back somebody was calling Joseph Muscat a mature PM – we already struggled to come to terms with that before this charade. Now that it is over we see nothing more than a man incapable of understanding his role and the importance of international law.

Finally Labour’s treating of immigrants as pawns in this sabre-rattling saga was the cherry on the cake insofar as proof of Labour’s absolute loss when it comes to the real treatment of real human rights. The fallacy of all things progressive from gay rights to emancipation of different religions and more was never more evident than with Labour’s “selection” of which migrants to send back. In the same week when our Foreign Office had issued a travel warning for Maltese in Benghazi (Libya) we had a nazi-style selection progress to send the strongest among the lot (we care about women and children) to face the troubles. Weep if you remember how to.

Simon and the Moral Issue

The nationalist party had a hard time getting everyone to forget the ugly baggage it has stored in Dar Centrali when it comes to immigration policy. Over the years in government we cannot really say that the PN had provided some sort of moral standards when it came to dealing with immigrants. It’s all too well for ex-PM Gonzi and co. to stand up in parliament and insist that morality should come before the law (which we agree 100%) when not too long ago a nationalist government had no qualms in using a boat-load of immigrants as a negotiating pawn with that sans-pareil of democracy from the Italian government – Mr Frattini.

It would always have been hard for the nationalists to appear genuinely concerned on the matter what with all their footshuffling on all things immigrant when they were in the driving seat. Conditions at the immigrant quarters, backing of Italian push-back policies and that ill-fated planeload of Eritreans would still return to haunt the sons of the Ugandan exiles. Only three years ago MEP Simon Busuttil was comfortable writing the following words in an article entitled “Why the hypocrisy must stop” (Times 28.07.2010):

“It is all too easy to condemn and to play the moral card. Bet there is a hint of hypocrisy in those who do so at the international level. For they have no reply when we ask them who is going to shoulder the responsibility”.

Which is where the PN still needs to grow up. As I said I am all for a revamped Nationalist position on immigration. Ideally this would involve a long term approach putting their policy in black and white. I am sure there would  be place for defining moral priorities and help the PN avoid a pick’n’mix approach depending on the latest crisis. As things stand though it is hard to be convinced by a leader who only in 2011 (March 25th) was still prepared to argue in legal terms over and above issues of morality (See “Libyan crisis caused migration policy rethink – Times of Malta). Which is not to say there is not place for hope.

What the PN needs to avoid is gimmicks such as the “65 lawyer” lawsuit. Call a spade a spade. Say that 65 lawyers from within the PN set-up signed a document that would allow the party to bask in the limelight. If it had to be a real lawyer’s lawsuit then why not open it to the whole of our professional brotherhood? Better still why not make sure that you actually have locus standi to see the thing through – as did the very commendable Michael Camilleri in his lawsuit for and on behalf of a number of NGO’s? There was something that smacked of the incredibly opportunistic in this lawsuit business (the PN’s not Michael’s of course). It was the PN trying to do a PL (remember the class action stunts?). A clumsy attempt at flashy PR. Failed.

The Bigot among us

Yes the issue has also shown that there are many, many among us who would have no qualms putting a couple of hundred innocent souls on a plane and send them to their doom. Just pop into facebook or the comment boards and you will see how this is not a case of the factitious loony few. It was not just Normal Lowell popping up his racist head to applaud Joseph Muscat. It was a slew of comments all over the place. It was a train of misguided thoughts and ill-informed criticism. At least Muscat could rest assured that there is more than a modicum of support for his theatrics.

The irony is that those who claim to be acting in the interest of the nation seem to be oblivious of the fact that a push-back policy risks making Malta a pariah in the international community. Their idea of making the country proud (and yes, of standing up to be counted) is one that flaunts international rules, defies moral duty and packages human beings in a lead box with wings before sending them out to the slaughter. Din l-art helwa my arse.

Utopia

Back in the days of the Crimean War Malta was a floating hospital receiving the wounded and injured from the battleground. The country can once again develop its capabilities as a safe harbour, promoter of Universal Rights and liberties, protector of the weak and beacon of light in an indifferent Europe. It is not just barracks for the migrants that could be built but centres for dissemination of information and education, events that focus on the plight of brother human beings across the world. All this and more would allow Malta to become a leader among nations in a Union that is shuffling its feet.

Being at the forefront of this human tragedy is not a danger to flee from but an opportunity to be grasped. A sense of duty is required. A moral fibre and a will to toil with sweat. These are real sacrifices that would not only make a country proud but would make us all better humans. Such a programme would require parties that think above partisan vote-winning interest. It would require genuine commitment and real men (and women) not rhetoric sabre-rattler or opportunistic bandwagon riders.

The Mediterranean sea is our history and our future. We cannot choose to only accept the Saints that are spat onto our island in some shipwreck two millenia ago. Destiny has put our islands at the crossroads of great events. We are either going to choose the path to be men and accept this challenge or tread the paths of many cowards before us who easily bully the weak and cower before the strong.

What will it be? It’s time to stop flogging the sea.

THEN Xerxes made vast provision for his invasion-for the building of a bridge over the Hellespont, and the cutting of a canal through the peninsula of Athos, where the fleet of Mardonius had been shattered. And from all parts of his huge empire he mustered his hosts first in Cappadocia, and marched thence by way of Sardis to the Hellespont. And because, when the bridge was a-building, a great storm wrecked it, he bade flog the naughty waves of the sea. Then, the bridge being finished, he passed over with his host, which took seven days to accomplish.