Thursday, 27th March 2008
Editorial
Partnership for peace: A bolt from the blue
The announcement by the government of its decision to rejoin Partnership for Peace (PfP) raises a number of questions. That Malta might wish to form a part of the PfP programme is not the issue. The issue lies in the manner of its announcement to a country only recently emerging from a bruising election campaign in which the government came out victorious by a whisker.
Given that the benefits of rejoining PfP formed no part of the election campaign or, indeed, of the 353 promises made by the government in its electoral manifesto, and given, moreover, that in 1995, PfP had split the country down the middle, it would not be an exaggeration to say that this decision came as a bolt from the blue.
The advantages of Malta rejoining PfP stand on their own merits. What is striking here, however, is how the Prime Minister, who made it the central tenet of his electoral campaign that his would be "a government of all the people", transparent and accountable for all its actions, can, within a few days of being returned to office, make a unilateral decision without in any way consulting the opposition on a subject that divides large sections of our population, irrespective of whether that is justifiable or not.
This is worrying to say the least as it lays the Prime Minister open to the accusations of arrogance to which his first Administration was so prone. While it might be argued that the opposition is in disarray and the need to deal with the issue was timely, it still remains a strategic decision taken opportunistically without broad consultation in an area of politics - foreign affairs - where there has recently been remarkable consensus between the government and the opposition. The impression that the new Minister for Foreign Affairs might have been bounced into this decision does not help the overall perception that it was taken precipitately without the necessary public debate so fundamental to the workings of a healthy and mature democracy. Neither was it communicated effectively to the people.
It cannot be disputed that the decision to withdraw from PfP in 1996 was wrong-headed and did much damage to Malta's standing in Europe at the time. Since then, Malta has made a seismic advance by joining the EU. That pivotal decision has altered the whole landscape against which the government's present wish to reactivate PfP should be viewed. Whereas in 1996 withdrawal from PfP could be seen as being at one with the then Labour government's even more wrong-headed decision to freeze Malta's application to join the EU, today the circumstances are totally reversed. Malta is an intrinsic part of Europe and, within the natural constraints of its size, the country plays a full and committed part in all its counsels.
Among these are the need to be able to participate fully in the ongoing debates on defence-related and foreign affairs matters where, it has been stated, Malta's non-membership of PfP has handicapped its access to documents and information.
Being in PfP would enable the island to participate more fully in discussions of European security and defence policy alongside the other neutral countries in Europe.
The subject of Malta's neutrality should not be allowed to cloud the question of whether or not it should join PfP. It is a non-issue. Austria, Finland, Sweden and Ireland, all prominent members of both the EU and PfP, find no irreconcilable difficulty with this. Why should Malta's neutrality be any different? It is not and it is simply mischievous to pretend otherwise.
While participation in PfP is politically important, the key benefit lies in the training and military exchanges which the Armed Forces of Malta will enjoy as a result of cooperation with 38 PfP and Nato countries, focusing essentially on humanitarian and crisis management activities, which lie at the root of the PfP project.
The initiative to reactivate PfP is commendable but the cack-handed manner of its presentation is disappointing.
RSS
Comments
If Gonzi wanted at least some consultation with the opposition (never mind consulting the voters) about PfP, he could have six months until their new leader has settled in. After a decade of being outside PfP, a few months wouldn't have made much difference anyway.
Freedom of speech and expression is not limitless hence libel laws (as an example) limiting unwarranted written abuse in confrontation of another.
I objected to some parts of the Editorial because of contradictions it contained and the perception that the Editor's tone has changed for little apparent reason. If anyone has any doubts, then the back issues should be visited and comparisons made with editorials since after the election.
The NP does not hide anything - it immediately announced the application to rejoin the PfP and in my books that is not hiding anything. As soon as the Prime Minister received an audit report re Mistra, he did not hesitate to release it. Is that hiding?
Arrogance is interfering with with a police investigation still under way.
It should respect the intelligence of the readership. The withdrawal from PfP in 1996 was "wrong-headed" and the reactivation (if accepted) is "commendable." But the government's method is "open to accusations of arrogance." Yes the government should take a vacation until June 5, and after that embark on consultations with the Opposition for another 5 years sitting pretty and doing nothing.
That is the way to try and increase its majority! Does not the editorial board realize that it is playing into the hands of the Opposition by promoting the perceptions of arrogance and corruption in its opinions? This paper cannot have it both ways. It is good to have balanced reporting, but it needs to decide on which side of the correct decisions it stands. It is very convenient for opinion leaders to spend 5 years talking about arrogance and corruption and then have agencies report on the perceptions created. Let us get serious. Let us allow this government to start doing what is right for the country.
What is even more worring is the apparent change in the Editor's attitude after the March 10 final verdict on the outcome of the election. What was, up to that date a fair to almost bias in favour of the Nationalist Party, for obvious reasons, suddenly flipped to an almost daily criticism of the government. It appears that the Editor's idea of being neutral is doling out, in equal amounts of bashing to either side, whether warranted or not. Neutrality consists of prudent analysis and eventual consequences of actions by both sides of the political spectrum and then proceed with whatever criticism is due. In the PfP case, all caution was thrown out the window just to pick on a promise by the PM that he would co-operate with the Opposition. I ask, would not the same be expected by the Opposition? Is the Opposition helping in any way by continuing to stir the pot regarding the JPO affair, while an official police investigation is still under way?
If the Editor thinks that discussing the PfP issue with the Opposition would have been a better way to go, then it is all right with him to divide the nation again as in 1995! We have enough divisions about everything the government does these days and no one needs one more issue.
Using the same argument, then , when Dr. Sant promised to reopen the EU accession treaty, why did the Editor not advocate a referendum to reconfirm that the majority favoured continued membership in the Union? Was not the nation divided in 2003? Given that the nation has been almost equally divided for almost fifty years, what is so different this time around? Everything in Malta revolves around political lines and that is no secret. Has the government's decision to rejoin PfP made it less of a government to all people?