Malta's successful foreign ventures

The editorial criticising Malta's handling of its foreign policy (December 12) contained erroneous assertions and some unfair criticism, particularly that relating to the seat of the Secretariat of the Union for the Mediterranean.

It failed to underline the achievements made, and at the same time faulted the government for the actions of others. The Libyan foreign minister's last-minute request to postpone the tripartite meeting between Libya, Italy and Malta is even attributed to an apparent lack of tenacity on Malta's part! It was the Libyan foreign minister himself who announced the date of the meeting while in Malta last October. The fact that, owing to the crisis relating to the Libyan ship carrying humanitarian aid to Gaza, the Libyan minister had to suddenly change his schedule should not be blamed on Malta's Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The editorial's criticism was also unfair regarding Malta's bid to host the Union for the Mediterranean Secretariat. First of all it is not true to state that only Cyprus and Italy supported Malta's bid; a good number of states, particularly the Baltic and Scandinavian states, Austria as well as some Arab states were positive about Malta's bid. The general consensus, however, was in favour of Barcelona because most states wanted to maintain the link between the new Union for the Mediterranean and the previous Barcelona process. But what the editorial unfairly failed to mention was that Malta obtained one of the five posts of deputy secretary general out of 43 eligible candidates, and the setting up in Malta of a Euro-Arab Liaison Office jointly sponsored by the European Commission and the League of Arab States. Apart from Spain, Malta was the only candidate for the Union for the Mediterranean Secretariat which did not leave Marseille empty handed. In the weeks leading up to the meeting in Marseilles, Malta held talks with 31 different countries in order to ensure this achievement.

The purpose of this letter is not to demonstrate any obsessive sensitivity to criticism. Criticism is vital in a democratic society. But facts are sacred and the record has to be corrected; lest in face of unfair criticism, we as a nation become inward-looking, afraid to embark on ventures for fear of failing in our quests.