The choice before us

The people of Malta are debating one of the biggest decisions that they have ever faced a choice of becoming a member of the European Union - a union of over 400 million people, who, following the bitter experience of centuries of war, division, rivalry, stifling state control, dictatorships and national isolationism, is seeking a common future based on shared sovereignty, democracy, the rule of law, free trade in a single market, respect for human values and solidarity - or else, to stay out.

In arriving at a decision, the citizen must not miss the wood for the trees. The value of the Union as a whole, its solidarity, security, vast internal market, world-wide political and economic contacts, and the opportunities that it provides, exceeds by far the sum total of its component parts, the details on which one might get lost in assessing one's personal gain or loss through membership.

If the slogan "Malta first and foremost" ever meant anything, this is the occasion where it should mean what it says.

Alternatives

The alternative to membership is staying out.

True, there may be another relationship with the EU, and in fact we have one already - the 1970 association agreement, which, one must not forget, imposes on Malta the obligation to implement a Customs Union with the EU. A future government of Malta, which is not a member of the EU, will have to decide on whether to honour or to abrogate this agreement. Which alternative will those who say "no" to membership choose?

I presume that in the same spirit that guides those whose tendency is to reject rather than to accept, the answer will be "no" again - neither honouring nor abrogating, but just ignoring reality, and indulging in creative conceptualising of new relationships, whatever that may mean.

Forty years ago I would not have hesitated to introduce my spouse as my partner, because at that time the word would not have conveyed the meaning that it has today. Today, that word means the very negation of the life-long and selfless commitment that marriage should mean.

What meaning are we to give to partnership in Malta's bilateral relations with the rest of the world, including the EU? It is also a rejection of a firm and lasting commitment on an equal basis?

Partnership

In this context, for the meaning of partnership we will have to consult not a dictionary, but the dream-world of Alice in Wonderland. The meaning is that which the speaker wants to give it. But, in this case, the speaker would be as foolish as the character in the book if he were to believe that the other side of the partnership has no alternative but to accept his version of what the partnership should entail.

This attitude would be more than foolish if, in a dangerous state of denial, he were to ignore the lessons of the past, the truths and the realities of today, as well as the well-known views of the prospective partner.

Past partnerships

Malta has had, like any other nation, any number of agreements - call them partnerships, if you wish - with other states or groups of states. Apart from the association agreement with the European Community, those with Libya, Italy, the Soviet Union, North Korea and the quadripartite talks involving Tunisia, Libya, and Italy, quickly come to mind.

The history of these agreements is not one of unqualified success. For long years Mintoff's government ignored the association agreement with the EC, and the benefits that came though it were due only the fact that the EC, in a magnanimous gesture, kept its side of the commitment.

Mintoff's government quarrelled with Libya, Italy, and the Soviet Union on the operation of these agreements or partnerships, because they did not produce what he expected. The quadripartite talks were aborted because Malta's view of partnership was not that of the other three partners.

It may be that the policies of the present proponents of the partnership concept, and their ways of implementing these policies, are better than those of Mintoff. Maybe, but the indisputable facts are that these promised policies resulted in a significant swing in 1996 in favour of these people, followed by an equally significant rejection after the implementing experience of the following two years, in 1998.

Referendum

The people's decision will be expressed in a referendum on March 8 with a very clear-cut question. The choice of the people of eight other prospective EU member states will also be expressed in a referendum.

Cyprus will not hold a referendum on EU membership as such, but accepts the decision of the government that negotiated the membership. Of course, there will be those in Malta who will maintain that Malta is different.

We are unique!

Paddling our own canoe

Irrespective of what partnership means to those who advocate it, or what it will turn out to be eventually, it does mean that Malta would have chosen to 'go its own way'. The phrase reeks of isolation, detachment, selfishness and reliance on one's own abilities in an arrogant manner.

Those who fear EU membership are accused of lack of confidence in the ability of the Maltese people to face successfully the challenges, and to grasp the opportunities, of this membership, in an environment of solidarity and equality, with set standards of quality to be achieved.

Those who favour 'partnership' accuse the others, wrongly in my view, of lack of confidence in the Maltese people to achieve the same, if not better, results, in the face of global competition, by going our own way, rejecting the solidarity which Europe, where we belong, can offer us.

I have represented Malta in international negotiations for decades, under different administrations, and I do believe that, as long as we shed our isolationist mentality, we can cut as good a figure as the representatives of any other state. However, whenever we sought to impose our views, or were unable to find the comfort of a welcoming group of states, we fared badly.

A researcher in the history of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) recently reminded me that, on one occasion, I had reported to my ministry that Malta was being called in the corridors of this conference, rather sarcastically, "the superpower in the Mediterranean". This was when Castille had decided that we knew best what was good for the Mediterranean, and we were saying nyet to the rest of the conference, which disagreed with us. In my report, I had the courage to add: "The pity is that it seems that there are people in our capital who believe this!"

Even today there are people in Malta who behave as if they believe that Malta is a superpower that can go its own way, ignoring the developments in the rest of the world.

Juche

The doctrine that a country should rely on its own resources and abilities, and to "go its own way" has found its best expression in North Korea's Juche philosophy. Anyone who is aware of current events knows that this has led North Korea to reach the stage where it could easily build a nuclear bomb, which could be delivered in one of the missiles that it has built.

Thanks to a secret partnership agreement that we had with North Korea, it supplied us with weapons in the past. Unfortunately, it is also true that the people of that country have died of starvation in their hundreds of thousands, and a smile is one of the rarest commodities over there.

As Malta's non-resident ambassador to North Korea I have seen as much of that country as my hosts permitted me to see. The tallest monument in the capital is to the Juche philosophy. At its base there are a number of marble slabs from admirers of this philosophy from abroad. One is from the "Juche Society of the University of Malta". Will the Maltese intellectuals, members of this society, please identify themselves to the Maltese public?

Another marble slab is less enigmatic. It is from the Malta Labour Party.