There is a fundamental, dramatic, and structural flaw in the bureaucratic accounts that continue to circulate regarding the massacres at sea: the idea that a decision—whether political or administrative—can override the duty to carry out a rescue at sea.
To hear someone justify inaction by referring to “policy decisions,” “law enforcement operations,” or the “buoyancy” of a gulet clearly overloaded with migrants is to deliberately ignore the fundamental pillar of human and legal civilization: it is not—and must never again be—power or politics that decides when to save a life, but rather the law that determines when a situation of danger arises and when action must be taken.
But each individual’s sense of ethics, based on experience and expertise, alerts the responsible official even before that—prompting them to prepare to act.
The duty to assist at sea, in fact, is not a concession and cannot be foolishly confused with pitiful electoral strategies. It is not a discretionary option left to bureaucrats, but a human necessity—an obligation enshrined in international conventions (Hamburg, SOLAS, UNCLOS)—which are merely the legal codification of the ancient code of the sea, that is, an ancestral ethical principle that prioritizes human fragility.
A fragility that is not limited to the open sea, but is inherent to the human condition itself: in the face of wars, poverty, and even the indifference of violently bureaucratic systems. When it comes to fragility, the sea is merely the most dramatic and immediate paradigm of this universal vulnerability. If the state, institutions, and laws fail to protect human beings precisely at the moment of their greatest fragility—wherever it manifests itself—then they lose their very reason for existence. To succumb to the rhetoric of “borders to be defended” by abandoning or turning back at sea those in danger is to deny and disregard the fundamental human bond.
And every overloaded vessel—lacking safety equipment or operated by inexperienced individuals—is in danger. The international manuals on air and maritime search and rescue and European regulations are crystal clear: there is no need for further interpretation during the operation; action must be taken.
Classifying such a situation as a “police operation” is not legitimate; it is a complete distortion that tramples on ethics and costs human lives and suffering.
No political directive, no ministerial circular can change the nature of things; every member of the chain of command remains accountable and has a duty to observe international treaties, as well as to answer to their own conscience—and both of these take precedence over any arrogance of temporary office.
One does not abdicate one’s responsibility by bowing to power. At sea, as on land, the law of life, respect for fragility, and the duty of humanity come before any power dynamics or police procedures. Always.
Servants of the state—at every level of the chain of command—swear allegiance to the Constitution and its laws, not to anyone’s electoral interests, and no uniform or official can ever justify themselves—not even to themselves—by claiming, “I was just following orders,” when it is our very civilization that is sinking.
