Opposition foreign affairs spokesman George Vella told Parliament yesterday that Malta needed to continue to respect the principle of neutrality in the Constitution, but there would be nothing wrong in discussing the definition of neutrality in the current scenario.
Speaking during the budget debate, Dr Vella said Malta should not deceive itself into saying that it was respecting neutrality when that could be a falsity. Now that EU membership was the focal element of Maltese policy, one should consider whether the time had come to consider an updating of the definition of neutrality. This was a process which other neutral countries, such as Austria, Finland and Ireland, had also gone through.
The same exercise, he said, could also consider arrangements which Malta could have for suitable defence, if needed.
In his speech, Dr Vella insisted that the Maltese Parliament needed to be more regularly consulted on EU issues, not least the common foreign and security policy. Far too many decisions were being taken without reference to the national Parliament. One did not even know what the Maltese defence attaché was doing in Brussels.
At the beginning of his speech, Dr Vella said that in the present scenario, the government must justify all expenses. He could not understand how the government continues to spend money in things that do not yield any benefits to Malta, like the Chogm meeting, or the purchase of Dar Malta in Brussels. He welcomed the decision by the government to retain a Maltese embassy in Copenhagen. Resident ambassadors should address the House Foreign Affairs Committee. He called for more resources to be allocated to the House of Representatives and MEUSAC to enable them to better consider proposed EU legislation which could impact Malta.
He said Malta's foreign policy is largely dictated by the EU but this does not keep Malta from developing social and cultural relations with countries like the US, Russia, India, China, and the Arab counties.
Dr Vella welcomed the moves with the United States leading to the removal of visa requirements and double taxation but felt that here too, much remained to be done to attract investment and tourism.
He suggested Malta should open an embassy in Canada, where the potential of relations with that country was not being fully exploited.
The traditional good relations which existed with China needed to be better exploited.
On Russia, he asked what led the government to accept a payment of just €6.8 million as final settlement for the building of eight timber carriers by Malta Shipbuilding for the then Soviet Union.
Dr Vella noted the talks between Libya and Russia on arms, oil and gas and a Russian naval base in Benghazi. He said one must respect the two countries' sovereignty and augured that future relations would benefit security in the Mediterranean.
Dr Vella said that given the long friendship with Libya, he would have expected more progress on issues such as oil exploration, illegal immigration, fishing rights and the excessive bureaucracy and delays for the granting of visas to Maltese wishing to visit that country.
He also asked what progress had been made in the settlement of the median line issue with Tunisia for oil exploration in waters between the two countries. In both Libya and Tunisia's case, expectations of a settlement had been raised by the Maltese government , but nothing tangible had resulted.
Australian migrants were still deprived of local news bulletins and the Maltese community in New Zealand was asking what had happened to the agreements on double taxation social welfare, pensions and the exchange of students.
With regards to regional affairs, Dr Vella said the opposition backed calls for direct talks between Israel and the Palestinians and also felt that the EU should take a more effective role in this issue. The opposition was also calling for more financial aid to the Palestinians.
When he spoke on illegal migration, Dr Vella said it appeared that the situation appears to be getting worse. The head of Frontex had also recognised that the mission had not achieved the desired targets. The problem was that Libya was not cooperating in this issue. One hoped that the current EU-Libya talks would bear fruit, although he was not very optimistic. The pilot project for voluntary repatriation was a step in the right direction and he hoped it would gain ground. The opposition reiterated that the opposition was four square with the government on migration, recognising, first and foremost, that migration was a human issue. It would, however, have preferred a stronger burden sharing arrangement with the EU, difficult as it was to achieve.
Dr Vella augured that the new Union of the Mediterranean would gain ground. He argued that it should not be linked with the Barcelona Process, which had not achieved much. It was good that one of the deputy general secretaries would be Maltese and Malta would host a liaison office between the EU and the Arab League.
When he spoke on the EU, Dr Vella said, among other matters, that the government needed to work to ensure that VAT on food and medicines in Malta remained at zero per cent after the current derogation expired in 2010.
He also spoke on the Lisbon Treaty and said it would be wiser to let the Irish take their time to decide the issue rather than to be prematurely rushed into a second referendum.
Dr Vella complained that the Maltese government had never bothered to consult with, or inform, Parliament of any of the decisions taken on a European level. Still, the government was making proposals, and participating in these decisions and activities, without any consultation.
The government had reactivated Malta's membership in the Partnership for Peace, without even informing the people, let alone discussing this matter in Parliament. One could not imagine that they would be bringing other important decisions, such as the setting up of a police force in Palestine, up for discussion.
Noel Farrugia (MLP) said he would like to see the government, together with NGOs, take an even more active role to ensure that the world's wealth would be more meaningfully distributed. Malta was in an ideal position to set up a number of committees with the governments and Parliaments of African countries to make things better in those countries.
This would give Maltese backbenchers a good opportunity to take more active roles in development and help other countries stamp out poverty in their respective populations. This did not necessarily involve the government forking out more money, although Malta's contribution to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association should be reviewed.
On the other hand it was a well-known fact that the vast majority of Maltese contributed regularly to mission funds, setting an example to the peoples of other countries.
Maltese MPs' lobbying in and with African countries in this context of development aid could include pushing for international seminars and fora. Their role in the forming of parliamentary committees would serve to enhance the understanding of how several countries could work to stamp out poverty.
Mr Farrugia appealed to Foreign Minister Borg and Dr Vella, with their foreign affairs acumen, to see how they could push MPs from both sides of the House to become more involved in this foreign aspect, coupled with Malta's culture of helping those in worse circumstances than the Maltese.
It was a pity that foreign NGOs doing their best to help their countries were sometimes misunderstood and wrongly accused of ulterior motives. Instead, their efforts to procure the production and distribution of fresh, nutritive and abundant food products should be applauded, he concluded.