Realpolitik dominated every aspect of the handling of the Greek tanker, MT Salamis, incident last week. It was realpolitik that impelled Prime Minister Joseph Muscat to refuse to off-load the 102 immigrants at Malta, and it was realpolitik that persuaded the Italian Prime Minister, Enrico Letta, to take responsibility for them in Syracuse. Who was right and what are the likely repercussions?
Realpolitik is about playing the game of politics based primarily on practical factors, not on ideological notions of morals or ethics. It is to face the hard realities of politics and diplomacy in a pragmatic and realistic way, not in an idealistic manner. At its most extreme, it is to accept that what is successful is right, and what is unsuccessful is wrong. Realpolitik is focused on the most practical means of securing national interests, often entailing a compromise on, but not abandonment of, moral principles.
There can be no doubt from this perspective that Prime Minister Muscat’s decision to refuse the disembarkation of the rescued migrants in Malta when the Greek tanker captain had been instructed to take them to the nearest ‘safe port’, which was in Libya, was the right one. This was realpolitik red in tooth and claw: the nearest ‘safe port’ in terms of saving the migrants from drowning was in Libya and that was where the Greek captain should have taken them. Only a short time before, in a copybook incident, a Turkish cargo ship had returned rescued migrants to Libya without international demur, having rescued them in Libyan waters on Italian search and rescue instructions.
In the case of the Greek captain of MT Salamis, however, heedless of his instructions, he proceeded towards Malta and sought to disembark them there. Quite rightly, the government refused him entry into Maltese waters and a stand-off consequently ensued between Italy, the EU Commission and Malta, with the Greek shipowner shouting from the sidelines as his commercial interests were affected. Much was made at this point in the saga that to ask the Greek captain to return to Libya would amount to a ‘push-back’ of possible asylum-seekers to a country where humanitarian conditions are poor.
But for Malta, realpolitik dictated otherwise. The MT Salamis had disregarded its instructions to disembark the rescued migrants in a safe port and it therefore had no right to proceed on its journey to Malta and to seek to foist them there. While there were genuine reasons under humanitarian law to fear for the safety of the migrants if they were returned to Libya, there were pre-existing legal reasons why they should have been disembarked in Libya in the first place. That was the harsh reality of the situation and it was one to which Prime Minister Muscat was determined to adhere. The national interest required strict adherence to international maritime law and a compromise on moral principles.
As to the Italian Prime Minister’s readiness to take the migrants off the MT Salamis and disembark them at Syracuse ‘on humanitarian grounds’, it now transpires that the Greek captain had been wrongly instructed by the Italian search and rescue coordinators to take the migrants to Malta, not Libya as had originally been stated. For Prime Minister Letta, therefore, realpolitik required that Italy accepted responsibility for his rescue coordinators’ failure, instead passing it off as a generous humanitarian action, thus hastening the arrival of a ship in which it had a commercial interest, earning the appreciation of the much maligned Commissioner Malmstrom and ending an embarrassing stand-off with Malta.
Where does this leave Malta’s policy on immigration? I have learnt over the years never to underestimate how little people in power know. I have the impression that Malta’s policy on immigration is being made up as it goes along. There is no master plan, except for a wish to reduce the burden of numbers on Malta. There can be no doubt that realpolitik dictated the way this incident was handled.
Realpolitik has a major role to play in demonstrating that Malta is determined to persuade the 27 other countries in the EU that there is a problem which is unfairly falling on the shoulders of Malta and the other southern peripheral states. But the government should also understand that there are limits to such a policy. The major limitation to realpolitik is when it falls foul of international law and international norms of behaviour. Even the most powerful nations in the world have come to recognise this: consider George W. Bush and the United States’ intervention in Iraq. Thus, while one can justify what happened with the MT Salamis, there could be no justification whatsoever for the implementation or contemplation of a pushback policy, which appeared to form part of the government’s posturings a month or so ago.
What are the likely long-term repercussions? Domestically, the Prime Minister is riding high. The actions he has taken have struck a populist chord. It is embarrassing for those Maltese who are educated, tolerant and unprejudiced to acknowledge this. But just as in every country in Europe where unsavoury political movements against immigration have sprung up, we have to accept that the Prime Minister appears to be in tune with the zeitgeist. Deliberately or not, he has opened up a Pandora’s box based on fear, prejudice and ignorance (according to one poll, 20 per cent of Maltese think Malta is being ‘invaded’ and 55 per cent favour a pushback policy) which he may have difficulty keeping under control when he finds himself prevented by international realpolitik from delivering on his promises.
Internationally, the situation is harder to read. There can be no doubt that Malta’s problems with immigration have rightly been put back on the EU agenda. However, at what cost? The insults levied at Commissioner Malmstrom have been disgraceful. The Prime Minister, who started the trend a few weeks ago when he snidely suggested she takes Malta’s immigrants to Sweden, should apologise unreservedly on behalf of his government for the foul and unbecoming language used by fellow-countrymen on her Facebook. She is sufficiently professional to ride above it, but I do sometimes wonder about the cultural gap that this kind of national behaviour exposes when Maltese ministers attend international forums, not always to their advantage.
Beyond Italy and Greece, I doubt very much whether Malta’s actions with the MT Salamis has registered very high on the political Richter scale. There are two diplomatic strands to the irregular immigration conundrum. First, the Minister for Home Affairs and National Security must persuade the EU Commission and fellow interior ministers of the need to develop a fair, simple and workable relocation policy. It is debatable whether the MT Salamis incident will have helped or hindered him in this effort.
Secondly, the Minister for Foreign Affairs must alert EU foreign ministers to the need for Europe to turn its mind to the Mediterranean’s migration problems. And, in parallel, he needs to focus, together with like-minded nations such as Italy, France, Spain and Greece, on finding practical and humane solutions to the source of migration in Libya and beyond.
Realpolitik has a role to play in each of these. But, at bottom, there is nothing to beat solid diplomatic graft.