Foreign affairs: one regret after another

A very brief notice by the government announcing the postponement of a meeting scheduled to be held between Malta, Libya and Italy on December 5 "because the Libyan Foreign Minister has other diplomatic commitments" has gone largely unnoticed. This may well be due to the fact that very few have come to attach great importance to such meetings, probably preferring to wait until definite results are obtained before taking real interest in the subjects discussed. However, politicians often think differently, and are sometimes prone to jump the gun, as shown by their enthusiastic declarations of "breakthroughs" in talks with Libya over a proposal for joint oil exploration in offshore areas south of the islands.

The meeting planned for December 5 would have brought together Libyan Foreign Minister Abdurrahman Mohamed Shalgam and his Italian and Maltese counterparts, Franco Frattini and Tonio Borg, to discuss illegal immigration and offshore oil exploration. The government notice announcing the postponement did not say when the talks will now be held. What is one to make of the reason given for the postponement? A Foreign Minister of any country usually has a number of diplomatic commitments, but are not these generally planned in advance?

Postponing the Malta meeting for urgent reasons would have made sense but the government notice does not even hint at this. The notice therefore gives rise to speculation as to what could have been the real reason for the postponement. A reader of The Times online thought it was another of Libya's delaying tactics and indicated that Libya was not taking Malta seriously. His feelings are shared by all who have been keenly following Libya's attitude towards matters of vital importance to the islands: illegal immigration and offshore oil exploration. In the talks Malta has had with Libya so far it has made no inroads in either the efforts to stem illegal immigration or in oil exploration. It does seem that Libya is ignoring Malta at will, a most painful assessment that contrasts sharply with the official declarations of friendly relations so often made by politicians from both countries.

The matter inevitably brings into sharp focus the effectiveness, or otherwise, of the Foreign Ministry's work. True, its workload has increased tremendously since Malta joined the European Union but it does seem that the island is having more than its fair share of disappointments. Malta has lost two very important seats, that of the secretariat for the Mediterranean Union and of the EU border agency, Frontex. Barcelona is to host the Mediterranean Union secretariat and Warsaw has won the Frontex seat. Malta was admirably suited to host both but it did not even manage to win one. Why did it fail on both occasions? What part did Malta's representatives in Europe, particularly in Brussels and Madrid, play in the bid to win the seats?

Only Italy and Cyprus supported Malta's bid to host the Mediterranean Union secretariat. The Sunday Times was told at the time that Malta was "almost invisible during the campaign; a country can't gather support in this manner". Sharply criticising Malta's approach, diplomatic observers told the newspaper that "once again, our Foreign Office has failed to mount a coordinated campaign across the EU and the North African countries. Even the material we distributed to other diplomatic missions was far inferior to that of Spain".

The effort made in both cases appears to have been half-hearted; a pity because it has led to Malta losing both seats.