B2 The Daily of Geopolitical Europe. News. Files. Reflections. Reports

Blog AnalysisMediterranean sea

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

A Proactiva relief operations coordinator on the phone with the MRCC in Rome (credit: Proactiva)

(B2) The sequestration of the Spanish vessel Open Arms of Proactiva by an Italian prosecutor, after 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 fault with regard to the law of the sea, Libyan sovereignty? Who was authorized to intervene? B2 investigated, cold. Here are the facts as we were able to reconstruct them.

This article completes our previous papers, written in the news (1) and somewhat contradicts 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 operations, on the morning of March 15: the first, 35 miles off the coast, which went off without a hitch and without intervention from the Libyan coast guard; the second about 70 miles offshore, where the Libyan Coast Guard vessel intervened.

In any case, we are well outside territorial waters (the 12-mile limit), contrary to what had been indicated beforehand by the European Commission. There is no discussion possible. The NGO's ship has therefore not committed any violation of Libyan sovereignty.

Who sent the NGO there?

The Spaniards did not go there on their own. They were called... by the MRCC in Rome (the Italian coordination centre). Italy has thus sent an emergency notice, via immarsat. This forces any ship in the area to deviate from its current course to rescue shipwrecked people. This notion is not debatable, regardless of the relief area. Then the versions diverge. From a European source, we reflect the idea that the MRCC in Rome first sent the NGO, then the task of coordination was entrusted to the MRCC in Tripoli. On the NGO side, we are more specific. By telephone, the Italians told the Proactiva ship: the Libyans will take care of it. But without really expressly delegating responsibility. " This is no way to transfer responsibility “We estimate on the side of the NGO. The latter then sent an e-mail (to have a trace) asking them expressly if they entrusted the rescue task to the Libyans. The Rome MRCC was then very vague. Basically: get by...

Who was the first ship on site?

This may seem like a detail. But it is important. According to the use of the law of the sea, it is the first on the spot (and with the capacity to do so) who coordinates the relief. According to all the information in our possession (including the videos), it was indeed the NGO's ship that was on the spot first. When the Libyan Coast Guard boat arrived, the rescue operation had already begun. The first survivors (women and children, as usual) had already boarded the two RHIBs (inflatable boats). Life jackets were being distributed to others. According to the rule, it was therefore up to the Proactiva ship to coordinate the rescue.

Is there an intervention of external means?

Officially the answer is that no European means intervened. In fact, the NGO has of course twice a helicopter, unidentified (perhaps the same), 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 by channel 16 (the rescue radio channel), the Libyan coast guard, in English, before leaving the edge. The nature of the helicopter is not known. It could be Libyan helicopters... or Italian helicopters. It can also be helicopters under European mandate. Finally, it may 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 a national cap. NB: This is a common practice for carrying out missions that are not strictly within the European mandate, or to have more freedom: the helicopter takes back its original nationality for the time necessary (a few seconds or a few minutes sometimes).

Is there a Libyan MRCC?

There is a structure that foreshadows an MRCC, which coordinates part of the relief. Only a part because it does not have authority over the entire Libyan coast or over all the Libyan coastguards. The Europeans (and the Italians especially) seek to consolidate this MRCC, by financing it, by equipping it if necessary, even by assisting it directly. In theory, there is an 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. All you have to do is take the IMO's 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's Global Integrated Maritime Information System (GISIS). Libya has not yet submitted this information to GISIS, confirmed the International Maritime Organization. And indeed, when the GISIS database is queried, there is no Libya file filled in (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 could see that they were going to come up against 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 works for the coast guards trained by the 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. Either way, it's puzzling. This means either that the surveillance system is not complete and that there are holes in the surveillance of the Libyan Coast Guard (which is black and white, however, in the operation plan of Operation Sophia), or that it didn't really work, or that the surveillance system worked but 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 coastguard ships intervene outside their territorial waters when the incident takes place not far from the coast. In fact, we can legitimately ask the question: has the EU changed its position?

(Nicolas Gros-Verheyde, with Emmanuelle Stroesser)

(1) Read about this incident:

Read also:

Nicolas Gros Verheyde

Chief editor of the B2 site. Graduated in European law from the University of Paris I Pantheon Sorbonne and listener to the 65th session of the IHEDN (Institut des Hautes Etudes de la Défense Nationale. Journalist since 1989, founded B2 - Bruxelles2 in 2008. EU/NATO correspondent in Brussels for Sud-Ouest (previously West-France and France-Soir).

s2Member®