From Mr M. Seychell
I refer to Daphne Caruana Galizia’s article in The Independent on Sunday of 23 September.
As usual, Ms Caruana Galizia is shooting from the hip without bothering to check facts. But then the object of her weekly diatribes is not to spread the truth but to be sensational and controversial. Actuality and veracity come very low on her list of priorities. Her article “It’s all about the money”, however, sinks to new depths and risks transiting from the absurd to the malicious.
She claims that “The search and rescue zone… rains down manna from heaven...”. She wrongly refers to the Malta Flight Information Region as “the country’s commercial airspace”, as if it were some warehouse up for rent. She even claims that “The over-flight fees rake in millions for Malta every year, and this is money that comes to us pretty much for nothing” and that it is “unearned” and “free money.” I could go on quoting such statements which, in effect, accuse Malta of charging fees for nothing.
Does it cross Ms Caruana Galizia’s mind that even countries with their entire F.I.R. over land charge the same fees as Malta does? These fees are fixed by Eurocontrol, which is the European body regularising air traffic in Europe. These countries’ search and rescue services are only called upon on the rare occasion of an aircraft accident and in most cases only involve the deployment of some fire trucks and ambulances to the scene of the crash. If Ms Caruana Galizia’s intention had been to be factual she would have researched what operating an F.I.R. entails. Even a simple Google search will turn up a wealth of information and documentation.
In return for air navigation fees charged, a state must provide an air traffic service up to Eurocontrol standards. In Malta this includes, among other things, provision of a radar service that covers most of our F.I.R. This coverage is provided by two radar systems, one at Luqa and one at Dingli, which, according to Ms Caruana Galizia seemingly are run on thin air for free by gnomes. On the same principle are run all the radio navigational aids, their upkeep and flight calibration, the meteorological office and its Doppler radar, flight planning services, the aeronautical fixed telecommunications network, the air traffic controllers’ training programme, and so on.
She states that “there is no such thing as a truly free lunch”. However, all these services are run on a non-profit basis for Malta. The fees charged for what she erroneously calls “over-flight fees” are not there to cover just search and rescue. That is but a minuscule part of the picture. Those fees are air navigation charges and they are paid in exchange for services rendered without any profit left over.
This begs the question: Since these charges were calculated on the basis of a normal air traffic environment that does not take into account scouring thousands of square kilometres of sea in search of illegal immigrants and ferrying them to Malta, should not these fees be increased to reflect the real cost of keeping our F.I.R? I wonder what the reaction of the commercial air operators would be, were they to be made to foot the bill. But somebody has to pay because, in her own words, ”there is no free lunch”. It seems that the only “free lunch” is being provided to the thousands of illegal immigrants now residing in Malta at our expense.
We are facing a situation where obsolete conventions are being applied to fast-changing circumstances. The first one is the 1951 Refugee Convention that was meant for another era. It is outdated, as is its notion of exile as a solution to refugee problems. It imposes no obligation on countries not to persecute or expel their citizens and it imposes no requirement for burden sharing between states. The asylum channel is providing an avenue for irregular migration and is linked with people smuggling, criminality and terrorism. The convention takes no account of the impact (political, financial, social) of large numbers of asylum-seekers on receiving countries and it is highly unlikely than many governments would sign up to it today.
If this convention were to be applied to the letter, none of these illegal immigrants would be entitled to refugee status in Malta because it states that unless they come directly from the country where they are persecuted, they are not entitled to refugee status. Moreover, once it is safe for them to return, they should be repatriated. Not only is this not happening but, as has become the norm, practically all those who end up on our shores remain here indefinitely. It would be interesting to learn how many of the thousands of illegal immigrants who arrived by boat have been in fact repatriated as opposed to the overall figure, which is normally quoted and which includes visa over-stayers.
The other convention is the responsibility for all search and rescue within the F.I.R. Search and rescue means just that. It does not mean keeping thousands of illegal immigrants in Malta at considerable financial and social cost. It is not just a matter of money. It is a demographic and cultural problem. We should learn from events in Europe where, in spite of years of integration indoctrination, immigrants have proven unwilling to integrate.
Malta is no exception, but the price we will pay is going to be much higher because of our size. It is obvious that refugee advocates, non-government organisations (NGOs) and certain media are either out of touch with mainstream public opinion or else have a vested interest in the situation. Current policy risks ending the right of asylum in Europe, considering that the current status quo is practically and ethically bankrupt from all positions. It is not a question of racism, it is simply common sense. Politicians who dream that illegal immigration will not be an issue in the coming election had better wake up.
Malcolm Seychell
BIRKIRKARA