Opposition calls for regular debate on foreign affairs

The opposition yesterday called for more regular debate in the House on foreign affairs.

Speaking during a debate on foreign affairs, Labour Party spokesman for European Affairs, George Vella, said regular debate on foreign affairs took place in other EU countries.

As things stood now, too many opportunities were being missed from discussing EU documents.

The government was continually excusing itself by pleading that it was impossible to do all that needed to be done, but at least there should be more efforts to do the basics.

Foreign relations and the neighbourhood policy were a priority for the EU, and it was important to see how such priorities would affect Malta.

Labour Foreign Affairs spokesman Leo Brincat reiterated Dr Vella's call for more regular debate and also proposed foreign affairs debates on particular topics.

Dr Vella lamented the fact that Parliament seemed to be unable to find the time to discuss and examine EU developments and how they would affect Malta. Two sittings a year were not enough. Foreign Minister Michael Frendo, Dr Vella said, must tell the Nationalists to stop scaremongering about the MLP changing things drastically once it was returned to power.

It was a good thing that Dr Frendo had mentioned the consensus that existed between the two sides on foreign policy, but the political mileage being sought by the PN was not in keeping with the minister's speeches.

The PN made no real effort at bringing to light the relevance of Malta's EU membership in the local context. Although the MLP had initially expressed legitimate doubts about Malta's proposed membership of the EU, it had ultimately bowed to public opinion.

Much had been said about Malta's relevance in international fora once it joined the EU.

But what about the relevance of EU membership for Malta? Most member countries debated this regularly, but not Malta. The government seemed intent on hiding the facts.

Besides the constant mention of EU funds for Malta, there was really a great lack of popular education.

Dr Vella said the EU's great emphasis on the environment had led to procedures being taken against Malta for not having given relevant information contributing to a full report on the progress in cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

He was glad Malta had been one of the first governments to have approved the proposed distribution of funds, but he wanted to see better activation and use of such funds, value for money and no squandering.

The celebrations marking the EU's 50th anniversary had come up with the Berlin document. What had the government done with it? Had the one-and-a-half-page document been translated for public information and to be used as part of school education?

Dr Vella said there was an endless series of points mentioned in a document drawn up by France, Portugal and Slovenia leading up to the European Parliament elections in 2009, but there had been no debate or criticism of such points. Much more must be done to inculcate a European mentality.

There was a fund of €53,000 earmarked for Maltese consumers to be informed of EU membership. Where had they been mentioned?

What was being done about the EU's legislative programme for 2007? It was true that Malta, although a full member, did not have the clout of the other members, but the government must do more to see how the country would be affected by such programmes.

The EU wanted to modernise its collective economy through reform in the agricultural and other sectors. Policies were being drawn up to address the challenges facing European society, particularly on accessibility and consensus on social challenges.

But in Malta it seemed to be more important for certain people to use the media to lambaste the MLP and its leader.

The European economy was very important, not only in its own context but also when compared to the emerging economies of southeast Asia, China and others.

There seemed to have been no Maltese move, political or otherwise, on EU efforts to ensure competitive and sustainable energy. Now Malta faced the prospect of having a single currency controlled by the EU.

Dr Vella said Malta's importance as a player on the international scene was beyond dispute. It must do its full share in further developing the Doha Round and EU projects on relations with neighbouring countries and regions.

Today Malta was part of all these efforts, and stood to face the impact of whatever was done in these areas.

One of the greatest problems facing the EU was its constitutional crisis, the solution of which would allow the Union to either sink or swim.

It was known that the government had received a questionnaire from Germany seeking its thoughts on various aspects of the constitutional treaty, but Parliament had no inkling of how the government had responded.

The upcoming June 22 meeting in Germany must have the tools to formulate its policy towards a consensus on the treaty. This road of secrecy was untenable, more so because it was not only the government that was involved. In the EU, the government meant a country's Parliament, including the opposition, and it was imperative that the latter knew what the government was thinking and saying.

Dr Vella asked what the government was doing regarding the aspirations of other countries wanting to join the EU.

All this could not be debated in a single sitting. There should be a specific debate.

Mr Brincat criticised the media for not covering meetings of the European and Foreign Affairs Committee.

The opposition was in favour of every initiative being taken related to the Mediterranean. He asked a series of questions on the proposal for a Central Mediterranean Economic Forum, including what feedback the government was getting; whether it was just lip service; if there were countries that would only accept the proposal; if others would, and if there were small countries that were waiting for the reactions of bigger states before taking a formal decision.

The opposition, Mr Brincat said, was willing to stand four-square behind government, but it wanted to be given the full picture.

Although it agreed with this concept in principle, it wanted to know what other countries, including the Libyan government, were saying.

On the concept of a Mediterranean Union proposed by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Mr Brincat said it was important that this would include all Mediterranean states without exception, and that all would take part on an equal footing.

Referring to a ship-boarding agreement with the US, he pointed out that no statement on this had yet been made in Parliament. It seemed the US Ambassador knew more on the issue than the opposition because while addressing the EFAC, she had hoped that this would shortly be ratified by the Maltese Parliament.

On the double-taxation and visa-waiver agreements, Mr Brincat said the people were being led to understand that such agreements were close to finalisation but the indications were that these agreements were still far from being concluded.

So much so that there were some in the US who wanted to dissolve such existing agreements. He asked if the lobbying with the US Congress was to be merely on a diplomatic level or if there were also to be private quarters paid to promote Malta's interests.

As an alternative to government, the opposition should be kept up to date on what was going on between the US and Malta.

On the recent trade visit to China, with hope for positive results on trade and two-way investment, he warned one could not offer yesterday's solutions for tomorrow's opportunities. Mr Brincat called for trade and business delegations to other countries and for Malta's embassies to lobby intensively even on economic levels.

It was good to have people with a good business background in embassies and to be more aggressive in searching for new markets.

He called on the minister not to renew the ambassadorship of the former chairman of the Voice of the Mediterranean, Richard Muscat when his term expired. The echo of the VoM scandal, he said, was still strong both in Malta and abroad.

On oil exploration, he said that the minister was now taking a more mature position by admitting that although talks had to be carried out on technical levels, it was also important to give the issue a political push.

One had to bear in mind, he said, that 70 per cent of Malta's continental shelf was contested. Malta should not forget that it had lost part of its area when it took the issue to the International Court of Justice.

Mr Brincat asked about considerations on the external trade division within the Finance Ministry moving to the Foreign Ministry.

This would make sense, but since when was government policy launched only a few months before Parliament was dissolved?

Turning to conditional aid, he said that while he understood non-governmental organisations when they said that the poor should not be penalised for their government's behaviour, he asked what guarantees were there that the poor would benefit in countries where regimes could keep funds for ulterior motives. Value for money had to be ensured even in this sector.

On illegal migration, Mr Brincat said the opposition insisted on the need for a balance between Malta's interests and socio-economic problems, including the new type of racism being created.

A holistic approach should be taken and a distinction continue to be made between political and economic migrants.

On climate change, he said it was important to put Malta's profile on a diplomatic level. This was not just an environmental but also a political and economic issue, and it should be tacked also in the context of strengthening the country's energy supply.

Malta should explore for oil if it could, but it should also take on board alternative forms of energy. It should invest more in renewable forms of energy, thus contributing towards the reduction of toxic gases.