Apart from encouraging co-development as a means of addressing migratory flows, we must ensure that – particularly at the UN and within the WTO – we emphasise that the inequalities that certain exploitative trade policies breed are often inconsistent with the promotion of development in low-income countries. Such inequalities must be addressed if migration is to be effectively checked. For this reason I personally support the idea being floated of a Marshall Plan for Sub-Saharan Africa.

When EU Commissioner Frattini recently said that of the 650,000 illegal immigrants ordered to leave Europe, two-thirds avoided expulsion and remained in the EU, this went to show that there is a lack of political will and political consensus among European states to address this problem frontally.

Without resorting to xenophobia, we must intensify our efforts against the criminal aspects of illegal human trafficking.

Contrary to humanitarian aid, development aid should be tied to the conditionality of good governance as well as to a commitment to stem illegal migratory outflows.

It is with this in mind that we must distinguish between genuine refugees, who are deserving of humanitarian care, and those involved in international networks of human trafficking.

When I met fellow parliamentarians in Strasbourg I made the point that, as a Council of Europe member state, Malta is facing a situation where the growing influx of illegal immigration is having a devastating impact that is far from static, growing, as it happens to be doing, month by month – if not week by week. I argued that for this reason, apart from assisting less-developed countries, the Council of Europe must also safeguard the national interests of its own member states.

We cannot merely limit ourselves to talking of co-development policies when the presence of irregular immigrants, in terms of proportion to the resident population and the country’s geographical dimensions, are exerting ever-increasing pressures on our island’s social and economic fabric and resources.

For this reason, we need all the support that we can muster in meeting such a daunting challenge to our socio-economic direction and orientation.

The time for mere lip service is long past.

In international fora we should call for a revision of the conflicting policies on poverty reduction, globalisation, security, refugees and migration. At the same time, we should also call on the least developed countries to strengthen their own border controls and check outward-bound illegal or irregular migration.

The prospect of the return, re-admission and re-integration of illegal immigrants to their countries of origin, in full respect of international law, cannot be overlooked.

I do not want to sound alarmist, but the situation has become so badly out of hand in Malta that we can hardly consider ourselves a transit country any more, when many illegal immigrants decide to stay and settle here, even if they might have landed in Malta by default.

For this reason, rather than limiting ourselves solely to co-development to counter migration flows, we need a more balanced and radical approach that also takes into consideration the interests of Council of Europe member states like Malta within the framework of a short-term, medium-term and long-term strategy.

While irregular immigration should be fought at the roots, one also has to take into consideration the security threat that a small minority of such migrants can pose from a terrorist angle to recipient European states, particularly those bordering the Mediterranean – a viewpoint which our neighbouring country, Italy, also shares

Turkish delight

When I was in Strasbourg last week it all happened. We experienced a national strike that was a resounding success without union members splitting themselves into militant and moderate camps, and we also came to learn of the last minute breakthrough on EU negotiations with Turkey. Yet the climax was described as being “sweet and sour”, in the sense that the deal reached after hours of diplomatic brinkmanship will not necessarily guarantee Turkey membership – not even over a lengthy given period of time.

At day’s end Austria could still prove to be a winner in the sense that it will see its neighbour Croatia eventually join, while Turkish membership will still have to be submitted to a referendum on the admittance issue in both Austria itself and France. One cannot forget that in both France and the Netherlands the Turkish issue was one of the reasons why the EU constitutional referendum came a cropper.

On the other hand, I cannot personally see why, so late in the day, Turkey should be given a resounding “No” if it strictly adheres to the Copenhagen criteria. The idea that it is too populous, too poor and too Muslim smacks of xenophobia. But the hurdles that lie ahead show that, while the EU needs an evolution in its approach towards Turkey, Turkey itself will, according to Chirac, need to carry out a “cultural revolution” in order to join the EU.

Ankara’s biggest dilemma is that negotiations could last up to 15 years or even more, and then fail when it comes to the crunch. This makes the road ahead rocky indeed, although both the British and the Americans felt that a big breakthrough had nevertheless been achieved, given the strong resistance that prevailed until the last hour.

e-mail: [email protected]

Leo Brincat is the main opposition spokesman on Foreign Affairs and IT