A 'strategy' document shorn of new initiatives and political vision

The first thing that strikes you about the Foreign Ministry's strategic objectives document is that it is short of any new initiatives while badly lacking a sense of political vision.

It is a technocratic exercise written for technocrats without the sense of purpose and commitment that one would expect in a document that boastfully claims to be the first of its kind since Independence.

One could not have expected better from the demotivated staff of the Foreign Ministry.

The minister is fully aware that there is a communications gap at present between his inner sanctum and the rest of his ministry staff, which explains the lack of real strategic thinking in the formulation of the document.

Way back in the wake of the Foreign Ministry debate when the Budget 2006 was being discussed in Parliament I had written an article entitled Unanswered Questions in The Sunday Times. To date the ministry or minister have failed to address any of the 30 questions I posed on that occasion. The same can be said for his strategic document.

Although the minister claims to have consulted the Foreign and European Affairs Committee on this document it was a rushed job which lasted less than an hour where we were hardly given enough time to scrutinise its draft contents.

To be fair to the minister, the final version marks an improvement on the original draft but most of its inherent flaws have been rolled over into the final document.

What stands out most about the strategic document issued by the Foreign Ministry is the fact that some very important points have been apparently deliberately left out of the document. So much for the "greater focus, and stronger direction" the minister has boasted of in his article last Saturday and in his Foreword to the document proper.

Inspite of the fact that our neutrality is still enshrined in our republican constitution, the minister spitefully chose to refrain from making a single mention of it.

Disarmament issues and the fight against weapons of mass destruction and conventional armaments do not even get a mention.

Although the Millennium Development Goals of the UN are mentioned, we are not given any inkling of Malta's position in their regard. The same can be said for the much needed reform of the UN. Malta's position remains unknown so much so that I have it that the issue was not raised when the Prime Minister met US President George Bush in Washington DC.

Even though the MLP has been criticising the government for months for its low profile approach to the Gulf countries, it seems to be doing so by design. Otherwise how can one best explain the fact that the GCC countries do not even get a single mention in his 27-page document?

While the minister did well to focus on emerging states like India, China, Brazil and South Africa, Japan does not feature at all inspite of the untapped potential it offers in terms of bilateral political and economic exchanges.

Much lip service might be paid in the document to economic diplomacy but the government's achievements so far in this area do not augur well for the future.

We are not given any inkling of the results achieved by the existing mixed commissions and business councils with a number of neighbour and/or friendly states. Neither were we given any hint as to whether the government will continue to pursue this path or not.

In his article on The Times the minister states that "in formulating these objectives we did not ignore what has been achieved in the past, over the years", something borne out by the ministry's recent pronouncement that it will be relying on the framework of the 1984 Maltese treaty of cooperation with Libya. But the document per se carries no sign of the hinted at continuity.

The MLP's appeal that ambassadors serving abroad should be encouraged to give account of their endeavours to the Foreign and European Affairs Committee is completely ignored. As can be confirmed by the apparent reluctance of Malta's permanent representative to the EU to appear in front of such a committee.

While a number of one-off initiatives are mentioned, there is no indication of the thrust and strategy that Malta intends to adopt during the two years of its Presidency of the Commonwealth. Apparently all that it seemed to be interested in was to utilise the CHOGM for domestic consumption in a desperate bid to revive its flagging spirits.

A passing reference to religious fundamentalism was ill-timed without the government elaborating on how it perceives this burgeoning phenomenon. Particularly at this given point in time.

Former Foreign Minister John Dalli last week summarised the present incumbent's approach to foreign affairs in an interview in a local business weekly newspaper. When asked on whether the government is trying hard enough to reap the benefits of its relations with Libya he replied: "What Malta needs to do is be more pro-active in Libya itself on a diplomatic and governmental level. The Foreign Minister, Michael Frendo, is trying but I think we have to do more..."

The same can be said for the minister's approach to the whole broad spectrum of foreign affairs. He means well and is trying to do his best. A pity that his "best" is not good enough!

Mr Brincat is shadow minister for foreign affairs and IT.

leo.brincat@gov.mt