Malta has continued to come under fire from the European press over its handling, or alleged lack thereof, of migrants finding themselves in distress while attempting to traverse the Mediterranean.
Not only has Malta been harshly criticised for failing to intervene in situations that the Maltese authorities insist occurred inside Libya’s search and rescue zone, but press reports are erroneously lambasting Malta for flaunting international laws by failing to undertake rescues inside its own area, and for not allowing a French naval vessel, La Motte Picquet, to offload the bodies of some 21 migrants it picked up in Libyan waters.
The French media has been particularly harsh on the matter of the recovered corpses, claiming Malta had refused the French navy vessel entry to a Maltese port to offload its macabre cargo last Friday.
The situation was such that Maltese ambassador to France Vicky-Ann Cremona was compelled to issue a press communiqué to all national French media yesterday in which she clarified the “false and completely incorrect reports of the way in which Malta managed the events of 1 June”, which was followed by an outline of the sequence of events that unfolded on Friday and Saturday of last week when the French navy had informed Malta of its ghastly find.
Contacted by The Malta Independent on Sunday yesterday, Dr Cremona cited unfair and erroneous criticism in the printed media, while radio media over the last couple of days, she said, had been running reports every half hour to the effect that Malta had refused the landing of the corpses collected although, the media claimed, they were picked up near Malta’s shores.
The official version of events relayed by the Armed Forces of Malta, however, paints a very different picture.
“At no time had Malta refused entry into port of the French navy warship with the corpses,” the government said on Sunday, attaching the full sequence of events, which was also given to the French media yesterday.
According to the AFM’s sequence of events, Malta had agreed to accept the corpses, and had even been informed by the French navy that 30 body bags would be needed once the French ship made port in Malta, while a ship-to-ship transfer had also been arranged.
On establishing that the corpses had been recovered in Libya’s search and rescue area, the foreign affairs minister informed the French ambassador that Malta was prepared to accept the corpses but, as they had been recovered in Libyan waters, the Libyan authorities, as a matter of form, should be approached first with the request.
Two hours later, the French ambassador informed the foreign affairs ministry that the French vessel, for reasons unknown, would be proceeding directly to Toulon with the corpses.
The French media, Dr Cremona added, were also jumping to the conclusion that the 21 bodies recovered were part of the boatload of 53 migrants spotted by the AFM on 21 May and which later vanished without a trace from the grid – implying that Malta had lost the migrants and had now even failed to accept their corpses.
They do not, however, consider the fact that the French navy said that, given their state of decomposition, the bodies had been in the water for three days before they were found. If this is correct, the date of death would be established as 29 May, or eight days after the AFM had lost sight of the group of 53.
Moreover, reports reaching The Malta Independent on Sunday claim that the boatload of 53 migrants that had gripped the attention of the European media, are actually alive and in detention in Libya. A representative of the Eritrean Liberation Front in France confirmed that he had spoken to a migrant from the missing boat, as well as a detention camp officer who confirmed the group’s provenance.
How they had arrived in Libya, allegedly on 21 or 22 May, is not known. The United Nations High Commission for Refugees, which said the group comprised 28 women and six children, confirmed on Friday that it had also received indications that the group may be in Libya.
The UNHCR added that it is in contact with the Libyan authorities in the hope of locating the group, but has so far been unsuccessful. If reports that the migrants are in detention in Libya are found to hold water, Libya will face a number of uncomfortable questions, not least of which would be why the group’s safe landing had not been reported to countries such as Malta and Italy, which had been carrying out searches, while the UNHCR was urging countries to step up search efforts for the very same boat.
On Sunday, the Council of Europe’s Human Rights Commissioner Thomas Hammarberg called on the Maltese authorities to “soften their stance on providing assistance to irregular migrants whose lives are in danger. Support to people in distress and in dire need of assistance should always be a first priority”.
In another statement issued on Sunday, the government said Mr Hammarberg must have been reacting to incorrect international media reports. While the Maltese government has always met its search and rescue obligations, and will remain sensitive to migrants and anyone in distress at sea, the government said it couldn’t become the “policeman of the Mediterranean”.
The statement added that Malta cannot assume responsibility for those areas where it does not have, and cannot have, any jurisdictional rights, but will continue to provide search and rescue services to the best of its abilities, in full collaboration with neighbouring States’ rescue and coordination centres and according to international conventions and agreements.
While Malta continues to stand its ground, in that rescues and recoveries undertaken outside its search and rescue zone are outside its responsibility, it has not, according to media criticisms, sufficiently explained why migrants left clinging to a tuna pen towed by a Maltese-contracted trawler were rescued by an Italian navy vessel. Nor has it suitably addressed why a Spanish tugboat rescuing a group of migrants had to travel to Spain to disembark its unexpected passengers a week later, when they could have been landed in Malta within hours.