Speaking to a delegation of journalists in July, the head of the Libyan Coast Guard (LCG) told the room that his crews have rescued more than 9,300 people from the Mediterranean Sea this year. Masoud Abdul Samad praised the group’s professionalism, and said it will continue to fulfil its duties from Libya’s new, EU-funded Maritime Rescue Coordination Centre once it becomes operational in October.
There was no mention of the masked armed men who intercepted a recent NGO rescue operation off the Libyan coast, nor of the video footage showing the LCG attacking a dinghy in the Mediterranean with dozens on board. The widespread and well-documented abuse and killings in migrant detention centres on Libya’s shores were not touched upon either.
This was a PR exercise, not an honest accounting of the coast guard’s activities or impact.
It was also part of a wider project of extracting resources from the EU, in exchange for being its border guard on the other side of the sea. Samad’s talk came a day after Libya’s prime minister, Abdul Hamid Dbeibah, urged Europe to send more money to prevent people from transiting through Libya to try to get to Europe. He told states they had a “moral responsibility” towards migrants and refugees, and should support their North African partners in securing their borders.
Human rights groups and watchdogs agree that Europe has a moral responsibility toward migrants and refugees. But they also argue that deepening support for entities like the LCG does more to undermine that obligation than forward it. With the upcoming opening of the rescue coordination centre, Europe and Libya seem determined to plough on despite these concerns.
What is the Maritime Rescue Coordination Centre?
The plan to establish a Maritime Rescue Coordination Centre (MRCC) in Libya was first announced in 2017, with the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) conducting trainings in 2018. The centre was a key part of Libya’s successful application to establish its own SAR area off its shoreline in 2018. The vast area had previously been managed by Italian maritime authorities by default.
Marco Minniti, then the Italian minister of interior, told the Italian parliament in July 2017 that the rescue coordination centre would strengthen Libya’s ability to intercept migrants at sea. “The aim is to do this by the end of the year, or by the beginning of the next at the latest,” he said at the time.
Seven years later, the centre is still not operational. But it looks like it may just open its doors next month. While its opening may not significantly change the dynamic of SAR operations in the Mediterranean, the centre does signify a cementing of the EU’s reliance on Libya as an enforcer.
The LCG currently doesn’t pass on many of the distress calls it receives to nearby vessels, and almost never responds to requests from NGO ships
Rights groups say that, in the name of stopping migration, the EU has chosen to support a system of abuse and exploitation both on the water and in detention centres, a system in which the Libyan Coast Guard plays a central role. The MRCC, they fear, will only strengthen that system and consolidate the Libyan Coast Guard’s power further.
“[The establishment of the MRCC] will have political consequences in terms of the legitimacy of the Libyan Coast Guard”, said Valeria Taurino, the general director at SOS Méditerranée Italy.
But Taurino confirmed that she doubted much would change on the ground. “On the operational impact level, I honestly don't think it will change anything,” she said. “Will the Italian authorities feel less responsible [for rescuing people in distress]? I hope not.”
Unanswered distress calls and no safe port
Speaking to the delegation of journalists in July, the Libyan authorities gave vague answers about whether the MRCC will improve the coast guard’s capacity to answer calls for help. It is well documented that the LCG currently doesn’t pass on many of the distress calls it receives to nearby vessels, and almost never responds to requests from NGO ships.
“We know that they are not technically capable of detecting cases of distress,” said Iftar Cohen, senior legal advisor at Front-LEX, a legal hub challenging EU migration policies. “In order to locate distress calls, Libyan authorities rely on Frontex, Italy and Malta,” said Cohen. Without European financial and operational support, he argued, there wouldn’t be a Libyan intervention.
One of the biggest complaints about the LCG, is that, when they do rescue people, they take or ‘pull’ migrants back to Libya, where those migrants risk persecution and abuse in detention centres, and are unable to receive protection as asylum seekers.
Courts have confirmed that Libya should not be trusted with vulnerable migrants. Just three years ago, the captain of an Italian ship was sentenced to one year in prison for handing rescued passengers over to Libyan authorities while the country was still in the middle of a civil war. The Asso 28, a supply ship flying the Italian flag, rescued 101 people near an oil and gas rig in Libyan waters in 2018. Since the ship was Italian, it was sailing under Italian jurisdiction and therefore should have notified the Italian authorities.
But the captain didn’t make contact with an official rescue centre. He instead took the rescued people – including five minors and a pregnant woman – back to Libya. He was convicted by an Italian court for abandoning vulnerable people on his own initiative.
According to Francesca De Vittor, professor of international law at Cattolica, University of Milan, “no judge in Italy has ever ruled in favour of a disembarkation in Libya [because] Libya is not considered a safe port”. De Vittor said this remains the case with or without a functioning MRCC.
“European authorities would be legally responsible if there’s an action that might jeopardise the safety of migrants by facilitating the interception or disembarkation in Libya,” she said.
“The Italian MRCC or other national authority would be violating international law if they transferred [rescued people] to the MRCC in Libya, or if they asked a shipmaster to coordinate with the Libyan MRCC.”
A new rescue centre only increases the confusion
To complicate things, the definition of a ‘safe port’ is not entirely clear, since it may mean different things for different people. “For search and rescue, the goal of the ‘place of disembarkation’ is to bring the persons to a place where they will survive,” said Andrew Mallia, SAR and maritime security consultant, and former head of Malta’s rescue coordination centre. “When you look at protection issues [such as seeking asylum], the place of safety is a completely different thing.”
Applying [IMO guidelines] correctly would likely require Libyan authorities to find a disembarkation point that is not in Libya
Mallia explained that the IMO guidelines are not particularly detailed when it comes to disembarking people seeking asylum. But they do state that one consideration should be not to return anyone rescued “to a place where they risk persecution or ill treatment”. Focusing solely on this criteria would likely require Libyan authorities to find a disembarkation point that is not in Libya. And this is unlikely to happen anytime soon.
According to Tamino Bohm, head of mission for Sea-Watch, any activity, whether European or Libyan, which leads to people being disembarked in Libya would violate the maritime law that governs SAR operations.
“Libya can by no means be considered a port of safety,” said Bohm. “Any maritime operation which disembarks people in Libya violates the rights of those people”.
And yet, Europe’s support to the Libyan Coast Guard continues. Ota Jaksch, an assistant within the Left group in the European Parliament, told openDemocracy, “the European Commission is not interested in what could happen in Libya after establishment of a fully operational MRCC Tripoli, as long as people are prevented from entering Europe”.
More money, more border security
The long-awaited MRCC forms just a tiny part of the support Libya has received from Italy and the EU over the last decade. Much of that support has been funded by the €1.8 billion Emergency Trust Fund for Africa, established in November 2015. Jean-Claude Juncker, then president of the European Commission, said the fund would address “the root causes of irregular migration”.
Since 2017, Italy has put €42m towards ‘border and migration management’ in Libya, with the EU adding €16.8m from its own pot. The Italy-Libya project aims to “strengthen the capacity of relevant Libyan authorities in the areas of border and migration management, including border control and surveillance, addressing smuggling and trafficking of human beings, search and rescue at sea and in the desert”.
Between the EU-funded migration management project and Italy and Libya’s bilateral agreements, the Italian government has refitted or supplied the Libyan Coast Guard with at least 12 ships. In early 2023, Italy dipped into the same fund to provide Libya with another patrol boat, at a cost of €8m.
According to Italian magazine Nigrizia, in March this year witnesses saw one of those boats involved in the drowning of at least one person. During a rescue operation carried out by the German NGO SOS Humanity, the Libyan Coast Guard reportedly arrived and fired shots into the water. They reportedly also carried out dangerous manoeuvres, causing several people to fall into the sea and at least one person to lose their life.
The incident, and countless others like it, have not deterred Brussels from continuing to support the Libyan Coast Guard.
‘A moral responsibility’
Europe has closed its eyes to the human rights violations it sponsors on the Mediterranean. The Libyan Coast Guard isn’t the only questionable actor to receive legitimacy and funding in the name of stopping migration. But in this area, it has become one of the most powerful. The new rescue centre in Tripoli is likely to only cement that position.
And that is an abrogation of the “moral responsibility” Europe holds toward migrants and refugees seeking safe ways to reach Europe. It can, and must, do better.
