The border patrols carried out every summer by Frontex – the EU’s border security agency –in Malta’s stretch of the central Mediterranean have, over recent years, been of invaluable service to Malta.

Over and above boosting the capacity that the Armed Forces of Malta holds in dealing with distress calls on the high seas, the patrols have served over the years as something of a floating deterrent to human traffickers wary of being apprehended during the course of patrols.

They have also given the islands a sense that they are not on their own in dealing with what was a nearly overwhelming tide of irregular migrant arrivals over the last five years, with last year having served as a refreshing exception to the rule.

But that all now stands at serious risk, with the government having threatened, quite rightly, to no longer host Frontex missions should the new rules of engagement thrashed out at European Union level see the light of day once summer Frontex patrols are to resume.

At the centre of the controversy is the dilemma of where to take migrants who have been rescued at sea – to the patrol’s host country or to the nearest port of call? The question is one that Malta has found itself embroiled in on several occasions in the recent past.

Up to now, the guidelines used have been those stipulated by international maritime law – that anyone rescued from distress on the high seas should be taken to the nearest safe port of call. But, it is also argued, the provision of the international law of the sea was drawn up before the advent of the mass migration phenomenon.

Now, following the European Parliament’s approval, that has all changed and the new guidelines state that unless migrants can be returned to the country from which they set sail, they should be disembarked in the country that is hosting the Frontex mission.

Firstly, in the case of both Malta and Italy, almost every migrant intercepted had begun their Mediterranean voyage from Libyan shores. And even if Libya were to accept the migrants back, the practice would undoubtedly fall foul of human rights and possibly even the principle of non-refoulement given Libya’s sketchy human rights record and the alarming reports of treatment meted out to migrants in Malta’s southern neighbour.

Secondly, it is unfathomable how the European Council as well as the European Parliament deemed it fit to run rampant over the established international maritime law. Requiring rescued migrants to be brought to a patrol’s host country would undoubtedly in many cases mean far longer travelling times and the loss of precious hours in which injured, exhausted or possibly dying migrants could receive essential landside assistance. This in itself is a contravention of basic human rights.

Thirdly, the question now begs as to whether Italy which had also abstained like Malta from a vote on the matter at European Council level, also intends refusing to host Frontex patrols under the current rules. Such a development would leave Malta’s patch of the central Mediterranean virtually uncovered, unless a nearby and obliging country were to be found to host the patrols.

But even so, such a development would greatly increase hardships on the high seas, with weary and injured migrants needing to travel much, much further to the host country’s shores as opposed to the closest safe haven.

And finally, what was truly short sighted was the vote in the European Parliament, in the past so vociferous and also critical of Malta when it comes to safeguarding irregular migrants, which approved the new rules of engagement, just a week after the parliament’s Civil Liberties Committee voted against the proposed rules.

But then again, the Civil Liberties Committee had the advantage of being briefed by a policy unit that had drawn up quite a unique document measuring the different burdens being experienced by different member state on the front line of the irregular migration phenomenon.

That study found that Malta is the moist overburdened EU member state in terms of its irregular migration load. The study found that Malta is the least naturally equipped country in the whole of the European Union to deal with influxes of irregular migrants, despite the fact that the islands’ have a disproportionately high flow of asylum requests.

The study combined the EU27 member states’ respective gross domestic products, land areas and populations with a view to identifying the capacity of each member state to deal with the irregular migration phenomenon.

Malta’s GDP and its population density, according to the study, place the country as the least able to handle migratory flows out of the entire EU27, but it also found Malta takes in a proportionately far higher flow of asylum seekers.

Combining the indicator with actual flows of asylum seekers, the study, with respect to Malta, finds the country’s capacity is relatively low while the flows of asylum seekers it receives is proportionately high – the very argument the Maltese government has been making at EU levels for years as it seeks greater burden sharing in an area that in the past has strained the islands’ capacity to deal with sometimes large influxes of asylum seekers.

The concept behind the report is to establish a sort of liability when it comes to the EU taking in refugees and asylum seekers from third countries.

The whole of the European Parliament would have done well to have at least leafed through the report before taking a decision that was so disadvantageous to Malta.

But, once again, the issue was once again turned into a political football by the Nationalist and Labour parties as each attempt to gain political mileage from what is a very emotive subject in Malta.

First we had a PN European Parliamentarian lashing out against his Labour colleagues for not having done enough to persuade their fellow European Socialists to vote out the new rules.

Then we had the Labour Party striking back with full page newspaper adverts blaming the government for having abstained from the vote, along with Italy, at European Council level.

Again, political mileage that should not be awarded since by having abstained from the vote the government can now negotiate Malta’s position on an ad hoc basis in every Frontex operation.

The issue has once again proved deeply divisive in Malta as well as a public relations tool of dubious merit. Both parties would do well to bear in mind the country’s humanitarian responsibilities before pointing fingers and diverting the focus from what it should be all about – the wellbeing of fellow human beings looking for safety.

Malta must stand its ground, but it will have to do so as a country united.