[FR] The Malta Declaration: misleading results
On 3 February 2017, the European Council adopted the Malta Declaration. This text detailed the measures that European leaders wished to implement to ‘stem the flow of migrants’ from Libya to Italy. The declaration provided, in particular, for training, equipping and supporting the Libyan coast guard, intensifying efforts to dismantle smuggling networks, and establishing appropriate reception facilities and conditions for migrants in Libya.
Three years on, the results of the action taken illustrate the limited scope of European states’ migration policy, where border control has become the sole political compass, to the detriment of rights and principles.
The Malta Declaration is part of a continuum of measures whose main objective has been to close migration routes. After the Balkan route in October 2015 and the eastern Mediterranean route with the adoption of the EU-Turkey statement in March 2016, the Malta Declaration laid the groundwork for closing the central Mediterranean route.
In terms of realpolitik, i.e. numbers, these actions have achieved their objectives. The number of arrivals classified as ‘irregular’ by Frontex has fallen significantly since 2015. So much so that in 2019, the European agency noted that ‘the total number of detections is at its lowest level since 2013’.
However, this ‘success’ must be seriously relativised, as the “containment” of migration flows has had a considerable human and legal cost. In 2015, the ‘closure of the Balkan route’ led to the immediate creation of the Idomeni camp on the Greek-Macedonian border. Several thousand people, up to 12,000, were stranded in this makeshift camp during the winter in appalling living conditions.
In March 2016, the EU-Turkey statement effectively closed the eastern Mediterranean route between Turkey and Greece. But this came at the cost of a questionable legal construct. The declaration is based on the premise that Turkey is a ‘safe third country’. However, Turkey does not meet the conditions set out in Directive 2013/32/EU on asylum procedures to qualify as such. The deal between the Europeans and Turkey was therefore built on a flawed legal basis.
The Malta Declaration brought this sequence to a close by setting the objective of closing the central Mediterranean route. But by proposing to train and equip the Libyan coastguard, this declaration took cynicism to a new level. Better trained and, above all, better equipped, the coastguard now has the capacity to intercept boats in Libyan territorial waters and disembark migrants, asylum seekers and refugees in… Libya, where they are exposed to sexual violence, forced labour, exploitation, arbitrary detention and extortion. By keeping their actions within Libya’s area of responsibility, Europeans have freed themselves from their obligations, in particular the principle of ‘non-refoulement’, and have deprived those rescued of the protection that European law would have afforded them.
The closure of migration routes has been accompanied by other measures, particularly those targeting rescue operations in the Mediterranean. These include the desire of several European governments to expel and sanction NGOs exercising their ‘right to rescue’, the reorganisation of Operation Sophia to dismantle criminal networks into a surveillance operation carried out solely by drones, or the creation of a search and rescue zone under the control of Tripoli, everything has been done to ‘curb’ rescue operations. As a result, mortality rates have skyrocketed.
The Malta Declaration is one manifestation among others of a narrowing of thought and action, now focused on the border and its closure, regardless of the human, legal and political cost. In this respect, the ‘results’ of closing borders and abandoning rights have a devastating political effect. They satisfy those who hate the European Union and the principles on which it is based, and alienate from the European project those who consider that a construction based on the rule of law and human rights is a possible horizon. The base of supporters is shrinking. That of opponents is thriving.
While it is certainly the responsibility of Member States to ensure security on European territory, they also have a responsibility to do so in full compliance with the principles that have guided European integration. Respect for the law and for rights is a prerequisite for the continuation of and adherence to European cooperation. It is up to the European Commission to uphold and consolidate this legacy by using its powers to enforce Member States’ obligations.
But compliance with the rules is not enough. European decision-makers must now define a long-term vision for migration that goes beyond the narrow framework of borders and border control. This is a difficult task given the deep divisions between Member States, but it is necessary in order to define Europe’s position on human mobility issues and to provide citizens with a political framework of reference.
