The immigration Armageddon

Some Maltese seem to live under the impression that the island has been struck by some cataclysm... as if a meteorite has fallen from the sky and destroyed a part of the island simply because 290 people have been rescued from the high seas.

Instead of reminding those who elected him that Malta has a legal obligation to offer its protection to these people, Joseph Muscat speaks of compassion and hints that if other European countries do not answer Malta's call for help, he will stop being charitable.

Moreover, instead of educating the public about Malta's obligations, he speaks like the average Joe Blogger: replying to European Commissioner Cecilia Malmström's comment that Malta's migrant arrivals have not reached an alarming rate, Muscat invites her to have Sweden, her home country, accept them.

Sweden is definitely the wrong target. It does not even fit in the caricature of a former colonial power turning its back on Africa. Sweden has always been at the forefront of international solidarity. In 2012, 43,900 asylum seekers arrived in Sweden. Nearly half were from Syria, Afghanistan and Somalia, and will qualify for protection.

The problem with Muscat is that in opposition he raised expectations by talking about pushbacks and hinting at suspending international obligations. Now that he's in government, these empty promises have returned to haunt him, with some starting to ask, "Why hasn't he pushed them back?"

Now he further fuels expectations by hinting that he might still do that at some point in the future. This leads to my suspicion that he is using this issue to deflect criticism on other issues. Right-wing politicians like Nicolas Sarkozy and Silvio Berlusconi were experts in this kind of posturing. Ultimately it proved to be their undoing, as their hard talk simply gave legitimacy to populist movements like Marine Le Pen's National Front in France.

Of course, Muscat's comments always include a disclaimer - that he wants to be hard with politicians not with migrants. Still, his ultimate threat is closing the door on migrants.

His other threat is the veto. But this is in itself problematic: how can one use the veto on an unrelated issue without losing credibility on the international stage? Is this his way of persuading others to accept Malta's justified plea for an effective mechanism for shared responsibility? Moreover, is it worth risking our international reputation, which is so valuable in economic terms, simply to pander to popular sentiment?

I am sure that the cost of turning Malta in to a pariah nation will outweigh any benefits from strong-arm tactics. Poland learned this well following the threats of the Kaczynski twins to veto the EU treaty in 2007.

Ultimately, the people who are most likely to sympathise with Malta's cause are those who are most likely to be repulsed by Muscat's bullish speeches. What Malta needs is alliances with political groups and civil society, which will create the necessary level of consent for shared responsibility - something which is opposed by politicians who engage in a discourse similar to Muscat's.

Moreover, such tactics have not worked in the past. A decade ago it was Tonio Borg who hinted at suspending Malta's international obligations. It is very positive that the PN has now taken a stance against pushbacks. I am sure that resisting the populist temptations comes at a political cost, a cost willingly paid by the Greens in the past.

Yet it is worth remembering that in 2009, when commenting on the Italian pushback policy, Simon Busuttil himself said, "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 from last year and so were the number of tragic deaths." I just hope that Muscat also has a similar change of heart.

But what irks me most is the lack of perspective when politicians who should know better present the arrival of a sizeable number of migrants as some sort of national emergency.

We all seem to forget that Malta includes 13,000 perfectly legal workers hailing from 190 different countries. These do not qualify for international protection but are allowed to stay here because we require their work. Yet many of the arguments used against the migrants at sea should apply to the migrant workers - for example, that Malta is too overpopulated and cannot deal with so many different cultures. Since these fellow human beings do not pose any insurmountable problems, why should a more limited number of migrants from Africa pose such problems?

Many people also conveniently ignore the fact that successive governments have sought to attract foreigners to buy property to Malta, with the new government going so far as to lower the thresholds to facilitate their foreign residency.

All talk that Malta lacks the space to accommodate migrants contrasts with the reality that despite having the highest number of vacant properties in Europe, successive Maltese governments have sought to attract more foreigners to absorb the property glut.