Open Arms Sea Relief Operation. Have all the rules been followed? Who is telling the truth?

(B2) The sequestration of Proactiva's Spanish ship Open Arms by an Italian prosecutor, upon returning from a rescue mission off the coast of Libya (March 15), gives rise to a series of questions and contradictory information: who sent the ship there? Did the NGO force it, commit a mistake with regard to the law of the sea and Libyan sovereignty? Who was authorized to intervene? B2 investigated, cold. Here are the facts as we were able to reconstruct them.
This article complements our previous papers, written in the news (1) and somewhat contradict the official version, which is quite simple: 1) we are not aware, 2) we trust the Italian authorities, 3) the Spanish NGO did what it had to do, but it is still wrong since legal proceedings are underway.
Where did the incident take place?
40 miles from the coast according to the European Commission (based on EU and Italian sources), 70 miles from the coast according to the NGO. These two versions are accurate but reflect different incidents. In fact, there were two rescue interventions on the morning of March 15: the first 35 miles from the coast, which took place without a hitch and without intervention from the Libyan coast guard; the second about 70 miles from the coast, where the Libyan coast guard vessel intervened.
In all cases, we are largely outside territorial waters (the 12-mile limit), contrary to what was previously indicated by the European Commission. There is no discussion possible. The NGO ship therefore did not commit any attack on Libyan sovereignty.
Who sent the NGO there?
The Spanish did not go there on their own. They were called… by the MRCC in Rome (the Italian coordination center). Italy therefore sent an emergency notice, via immarsat. This forces any ship in the area to deviate from its current route to rescue shipwrecked people. This notion is not debatable, regardless of the relief zone. Then, the versions diverge. From a European source, it is reflected that the MRCC of Rome first sent the NGO, then the task of coordination was entrusted to the MRCC of Tripoli. On the NGO side, we are more precise. By telephone, the Italians told the Proactiva ship: the Libyans will take care of it. But without really expressly delegating responsibility. “ This is not a way to transfer responsibility » is the opinion of the NGO. She then sent an email (to have a trace) expressly asking them if they were entrusting the relief task to the Libyans. The MRCC in Rome was then very vague. Basically: deal with it...
Who was the first ship on site?
This may seem like a detail. But it's important. According to the usage of the law of the sea, it is the first on the spot (and with the capacity to do so) who coordinates the rescue. According to all the information in our possession (including the videos), it was the NGO ship that was there first. When the Libyan coast guard boat arrived, the rescue operation had already begun. The first survivors (women and children, according to custom) had already boarded the two RHIBs (inflatable boats). Life jackets were being distributed to others. According to the rule, it was therefore up to Proactiva's ship to coordinate the rescue.
Is there an intervention of external means?
Officially the answer is that no European means have intervened. In fact, the NGO has twice heard an unidentified helicopter (perhaps the same one), coming from the north (in other words not from the Libyan coast). One flew over the area and passed quickly. The other made several turns, contacted the Libyan coast guard via channel 16 (the emergency radio channel), in English, before leaving the shore. The nature of the helicopter is not known. These could be Libyan helicopters… or Italian helicopters. This could also be helicopters under European mandate. Finally, it could be a helicopter from another nation whose ship was not far away, and which heard the call for help. In any case, there must be traces.
In all likelihood, given their contact with the Libyan coast guard, it could be an Italian helicopter, operating under national cover. NB: This is a common practice to carry out missions which are not strictly within the European mandate, or to have more freedom: the helicopter returns to its original nationality for the necessary time (a few seconds or a few minutes sometimes).
Is there a Libyan MRCC?
There is a structure which prefigures an MRCC, which coordinates part of the relief. Only part because it does not have authority over the entire Libyan coast nor over all the Libyan coast guards. The Europeans (and the Italians especially) are seeking to consolidate this MRCC, by financing it, equipping it if necessary, or even assisting it directly. In theory, there is a EUNAVFOR officer who liaises with this MRCC (or rather is in liaison with them). But this MRCC is not legally recognized at the international level, since there is no recognized SAR. To do this, simply take the IMO list of active MRCCs. There is no trace of a Libyan MRCC, nor a telephone.
Do the Libyans have an officially recognized (SAR) area?
Neither. When a country makes this type of request, the procedure is for it to submit the corresponding information via the “global search and rescue plan” (SAR) module of the IMO Global Integrated Maritime Intelligence System (GISIS). Libya has not yet submitted this information to GISIS, the International Maritime Organization confirmed to us. And indeed, when we query the GISIS database, there is no Libya file entered (nor Tunisia for that matter).
Why are we talking about a Libyan SAR zone?
The Libyans did make an (informal) request in the summer (August) 2017. But they withdrew this request. Because they saw clearly that they were going to encounter a refusal. The file was not complete and they did not meet the minimum criteria to have an internationally recognized SAR zone.
Is there monitoring of coastguard vessels?
Officially yes. " We monitor the work of the Libyan Coast Guard. We have planes, ships observing them and we also have periodic meetings with the Libyan Coast Guard » affirmed the commander of the European operation Sophia, Thursday (March 15) visiting Tunis. Italian Rear Admiral Enrico Credendino also said he had " provided Go-Pro cameras to Libyan Coast Guard boats to save their work (read Booklet 19.03.2018). But apparently not everywhere… At least that’s what a European diplomat told B2. The power of surveillance only applies to the coast guards trained by Europeans.
In this case, the Libyan coast guard vessel 648 which intervened did not appear to be part of this surveillance. Which is quite extraordinary. In any case, this is interesting. This means either that the surveillance system is not complete and that there are holes in the surveillance of the Libyan coast guard (which appears in black and white, however, in the operation plan of Operation Sophia), or that it did not really work, or that the surveillance system worked but that the (Italian) military in charge of surveillance preferred not to take responsibility for it.
Are the Libyan boats operating outside the zone?
Yes, there is a 'gentleman's agreement' passed between the Italians and the Libyans so that the Libyan coast guard vessels intervene outside their territorial waters when the incident takes place not far from the coast. In fact, we can legitimately ask ourselves the question: has the EU changed its position?
(1) Read about this incident:
- A rescue nearly went wrong off the coast of Libya. Italy and Malta block their ports
- The Proactiva vessel seized by the Italian authorities. The NGO accused of criminal association
Read also:
- New incident with the Libyan Coast Guard (V2)
- In the Mediterranean, ersatz ad hoc solutions without a strategy (Francis Vallat)
- Migrants in Libya: the EU should not be ashamed of its role. A problem with the Libyan coast guard?
- Can Europe continue to fund the Libyan Coast Guard? ask the PS deputies
- 5 dead off Libya. Libyan coast guard indicted (V2)