‘Cachia Caruana acted on our order’

The Prime Minister yesterday said Malta’s EU ambassador was following a Cabinet decision when he proposed an “innovative” solution for Malta to gain access to EU-Nato discussions withoutjoining the Partnership for Peace programme back in 2004.

All government officials were acting in national interest, a far cry from accusations of treason

Lawrence Gonzi was the first witness to address Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee, which is discussing a Labour motion censuring Malta’s permanent representative to the EU, Richard Cachia Caruana.

The Opposition motion claims he conspired with other countries to take important decisions on foreign policy behind Parliament’s back, looking out more for their interests than Malta.

The claim is based on a US cable released by Wikileaks last August, which says Mr Cachia Caruana recommended that Malta should claim a PfP agreement was still in force – even though Malta was no longer an active member in the Nato programme.

Dr Gonzi was summoned to Parliament after Speaker Michael Frendo ruled the committee could decide on the order of witnesses.

The Opposition then succumbed to the government’s request to have the Prime Minister testify first, as long as Mr Cachia Caruana would be the second witness.

Dr Gonzi said Labour’s claim was extremely serious because it implied that Mr Cachia Caruana betrayed his country, an allegation tantamount to treason.

Since Mr Cachia Caruana was acting on the government’s instructions, this allegation also implicated the Prime Minister and all ministers and officials involved.

‘Wrong conclusion’

Dr Gonzi insisted that all allegations were false and proceeded to read out an 18-page statement explaining the context behind the Wikileaks document.

Slamming the Opposition for jumping to conclusions based on unverified cables written by US officials looking out for their own interests, Dr Gonzi presented a timeline of the actual events.

In 2004, after Malta joined the EU, the island was being blocked from EU-Nato discussions because the Labour government had withdrawn from PfP back in 1996.

The Nationalist government refused to rejoin, not for fear of a vote in Parliament, but because it did not want to bring up a divisive issue when consensus was being reached on Malta’s EU membership.

However, being asked to leave the discussion table whenever Nato matters were discussed within the EU was “degrading” and left Malta unable to be part of important security discussions.

All government officials were acting in the national interest, a far cry from Labour’s unfounded accusation of treason, he said.

Malta was told it had to join PfP but at all stages this suggestion was rejected by the government, as shown “explicitly” in various meeting minutes that Dr Gonzi tabled for Parliament’s scrutiny.

The documents showed there were long negotiations about various proposals made by all stakeholders. But all of Malta’s “innovative” solutions were thrown out.

Dr Gonzi said there was no reason to consult Parliament about this matter because none of the solutions were taken up and Malta still insisted it would not join PfP.

He said it was “tragic” and unethical for the Opposition to base their serious allegations on their interpretation of the Wikileaks cables, which were written by foreigners who had their own interests, before seeking an explanation from the government.

After tabling the documents, Dr Gonzi said he gave Labour the benefit of the doubt regarding the intentions behind the motion and said the Opposition should now do the honourable thing and withdraw the allegations.

Opposition MP George Vella refused to withdraw his claim of treason and repeatedly asked the Prime Minister to say why he did not inform Parliament about the blockages Malta was facing and the solutions being discussed.

He also pressed on a point in the Wikileaks cables where Mr Cachia Caruana was quoted as making recommendations to Castille, not vice versa.

Dr Vella quoted other parts of the Wikileaks cables that say Mr Cachia Caruana was seeking guidance from “Washington” rather than Valletta.

Dr Vella also asked why the government had taken so many months to respond to the Wikileaks documents.

Dr Gonzi kept insisting that the government’s position was clear throughout and the Opposition was basing its arguments on a wrong interpretation of the cables, which never had to be explained before.

He eventually said he would accept criticism for not consulting Parliament, but the motion went a step further and claimed, wrongly, that the government officials were working against the national interest.

The meeting was adjourned to Monday at 6.30 p.m.