The prime minister and Labour MP George Vella had heated exchanges within the parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee this evening as the committee continued to discuss the Opposition motion censuring Ambassador Richard Cachia Caruana over meetings he held in 2004 'behind parliament's back'.

The Opposition's motion says that Mr Cachia Caruana discussed Partnership for Peace (PfP) membership behind Parliament's back. The government denies the claims, saying the talks were only about access for Malta to Nato documents and meetings.

Much of today's arguments centred on the government's argument (in 2004) that Malta tried to argue its way into Nato-EU security meetings and access to security documents by claiming that a 1996 Security Agreement, signed when Malta joined PfP, was still in force, even though Malta had left PfP.

Dr Vella insisted that the agreement was not in force and bringing it to force had needed Parliamentary clearance.

Dr Gonzi said the Security Agreement was only about security of documents and was not akin to the sort of security agreement which a Labour government had signed secretly with North Korea.

At the beginning of today's meeting, Dr Gonzi  tabled documents b to show that the problems for Malta caused by the absence of a Security of Documents Agreement with the EU started in 2003, well before Mr Cachia Caruana was appointed as representative to the EU. 

The documents, he said, showed the problems Malta had as far back as 2003 - even before joining the EU - because it did not have a Security of Agreements Agreement with Nato. Those problems, he said, started before Mr Cachia Caruana was appointed as Malta's representative to the EU.

Another document consisted of minutes of a meeting held in 2003 between (then) Major Martin Xuereb and Nato officers, also in 2003, about the same subject, showing once again how this problem pre-dated Mr Cachia Caruana's appointment.

Another document, Dr Gonzi said, showed a meeting which he himself had on July 23, 2004 with a Nato general where it was said that it was important that Malta should not be excluded from Nato-EU security meetings. At the time he had argued that an arrangement was needed that was  acceptable to the government and the opposition in Malta because he did not wish to create controversy.

These dates, Dr Gonzi said, were important since the Wikileaks document on which the Opposition had based its censure motion took place in November 2004.

Reacting to complaints last week by George Vella (PL) that the government had held its problems under wraps, Dr Gonzi said the issue was public knowledge, and he tabled media cuttings including reports in The Malta Independent, The Times, l-orizzont and The New York Times about the problems which Malta and Cyprus had. Dr Gonzi reiterated that the government's efforts had always been to seek an acceptable solution which did not cause controversy in Malta, just months after Malta joined the EU.

Dr Gonzi pointed out that the Wikileaks document included comments by the American officer who wrote it, rather than quotes.

He also pointed out that rather than awaiting 'guidance' from Washington as had been claimed, Mr Cachia Caruana had complained to US Ambassador Rockwell Schnabel on November 30, 2004 about the Americans sending contradictory messages to Malta. Malta had wanted a clear position from the US in an effort to resolve this issue, but no such hope developed.

Dr Vella said the prime minister was being insulting in his interpretation of the cable. The reference to 'guidance' from Washington, he insisted, referred to Mr Cachia Caruana.

Dr Gonzi said the whole paragraph was a comment and could not be attributed to Mr Cachia Caruana.

Dr Vella replied that he was not saying that Mr Cachia Caruana said those words, but that he was awaiting guidance from Washington. His guidance should have come from Valletta.

Dr Gonzi said he was pleased that both sides were now agreed that this was a comment by a US official, which was entirely different for the purposes of this discussion.

Furthermore, Dr Vella said, the reactivation of Malta's membership of Peace was never subjected to a decision by parliament, and the House was only informed about it (in 2008)

Foreign Minister Tonio Borg said that was irrelevant to the discussion, which was about meetings which took place in 2004.

Dr Vella said the crux of the Opposition's motion was that Mr Cachia Caruana had been acting without parliamentary scrutiny. Dr Gonzi had said he had not wanted confrontation with the opposition. Unfortunately, however, the opposition as not even kept informed. That Dr Gonzi had produced newspaper cuttings did not mean that parliament was informed. The cuttings said nothing about the solutions which were being sought and parliament was kept in the dark.

Dr Gonzi said the cuttings showed that the matter was not kept secret. No reference was made to parliament and the proposed solutions were not made public since there was no breakthrough to push things forward. One did not make public discussions with other countries, while they were in progress.

Dr Vella said the point remained that parliament was kept in the dark.

Dr Gonzi said the opposition motion was based around the meeting of 2004.

Dr Vella said the Wiklileak document about that meeting only revealed what was going on then, and since. It showed actions taking place behind parliament's back, without scrutiny.

Dr Gonzi said the Opposition even spoke on betrayal, but what betrayal was this? What wrong had taken place?

At this time a fierce cross debate developed, with Labour MP Leo Brincat insisting that Dr Gonzi was only there to reply to questions.

Dr Gonzi said he had a right to explain and those who made claims of betrayal should back them up or admit their mistake.

Dr Vella said that at one time last week Dr Gonzi even said that Malta had been seking a way to a situation where PfP membership was still in place, and parliament was not informed. This was, after all, what Mr Cachia Caruana was quoted by Wikileaks to have said.

Dr Gonzi denied having said that Malta still considered PfP membership as still valid.

Dr Vella noted that a memo published by Dr Gonzi referred to proposals made by Cachia Caruana, but would Dr Gonzi publish Mr Cachia's memos? Surely there was something in writing?

Dr Gonzi said he had published the memo by the principal permanent secretary  with all the proposals, and the Cabinet memo was a summary of that, plus the Cabinet's decisions. That showed how instructions had been issued by the Cabinet to Mr Cachia Caruana and he had followed them.

Dr Vella asked if there was any memo from Mr Cachia Caruana directly to the prime minister on this issue.

Dr Gonzi said everything had been published in the PPS's document and the minutes prepared by Maj. Xuereb for which Mr Cachia Caruana was present.

Dr Vella said he found it difficult to believe there were no written documents from Mr Cachia Carauan directly to the prime minister.

Dr Gonzi said he would verify and would have no problem publishing them, if that was the case.

Continuing, Dr Vella said there had been four agreements as part of Pfp, including a Security Agreement, but not a Security of Documents Agreement.

Dr Gonzi said the Security Agreement was the security of documents agreement. He could produce it for Dr Vella to see, but since it was signed in early 1996, Dr Vella himself, surely, should have known about it since he became foreign minister in 1996.

Dr Vella asked how the government had been trying to find ways to keep this agreement in force despite Malta having withdrawn from PfP. If anything, this treaty fell within the Ratification of Treaties Act. Once Malta was out of PfP Malta could not argue that the Security Agreement was still in force, behind Parliament's back.

Dr Gonzi said the Opposition's argument was built on sand (interruptions). The Opposition had claimed that the government was secretly discussing a secret agreement when it had been discussing something which existed when Dr Vella was foreign minister. Perhaps Dr Vella should instead refer to the truly secret agreement between the Labour government and North Korea (uproar and interruptions). The government had not been discussing a security agreement but the security of documents, which was what the agreement was about.

The government, in 2004, wanted to respect the decision that Malta had withdrawn from Partnership for Peace and did not intend to reactivate membership but it wanted Malta to have access to the security documents, as provided by the Security Agreement.

The only point was that when Dr Vella as foreign minister took Malta out of PfP, he said in his note verbal that Malta was no longer a member of the 'individual partnership programme'.

Dr Vella said the note verbal did not say 'individual partnership programme'.

Dr Francis Zammit Dimech said Dr Vella's note verbal spoke of the 'programme'.

Dr Vella insisted the Security Agreement, like all four PfP-related agreements, were abrogated (by the Labour government in 1996) and reactivation, even outside PfP would have needed parliamentary approval. Mr Cachia Caruana had been arguing that something which was abrogated by a former government still existed. This betrayed the people's wishes and ignored parliament, which was not kept informed.

(More interruptions, with Dr Borg insisting that Dr Vella was making a speech not asking questions)

Dr Borg said Dr Vella as foreign minister had not gone to parliament to renounce the PfP membership agreement.

Dr Vella said he had not needed to. The Labour government had an electoral mandate to take Malta out of PfP and he had spoken about it in parliament.

Dr Gonzi too insisted that reference to parliament was needed when a treaty was renounced and no formal reference was made.

He denied that Mr Cachia Caruana had advised what the government should do with the security agreement, but it was the government which issued the instructions. The Security Agreement was about documents, not security as in the case of the N. Korea agreement. There had been no need for the government to go before parliament in 2004 because this was a discussion about access to documents not about security. The Opposition should admit its mistake.

Luciano Busuttil (PL) said the Security Agreement, even if it was only about documents, still affected the relationship between Malta and other organisations and therefore needed to be ratified by Parliament in order to be brought before force.

Dr Gonzi said this agreement was signed in April 1996 and approved by parliament. Therefore that agreement was valid. The Labour government later that year took Malta out of PfP. The subsequent (PN) government, in bona fede sought to use that agreement to ensure that Malta had access to Nato security meetings and documents, without resuming PfP membership. Those efforts failed and Malta eventually reactivated its membership - in 2008.

Dr Borg said the government had argued that the Security Agreement was still in force even though Malta was no longer part of PfP, and the agreement therefore could be used to resolve the problems on security access, without returning to PfP but efforts failed.

Dr Gonzi said efforts continued on that basis for two years, without success. Malta had also tried to reach an ad hoc security of documents agreement, but that also failed. Eventually Malta returned to PfP, at which time it did not need to re-sign the Security Agreement.

Replying to a question by Leo Brincat (PL) on why John Dalli (a former foreign minister) was not being called as a witness, Dr Gonzi said he had no objection to calling Mr Dalli, but he was not foreign minister at the time referred to by the Opposition's motion.

Mr Brincat noted that another Wikileak document showed that in January 2008 Dr Gonzi had told the American ambassador that Malta could rejoin PfP after the re-election. How did this fall within the frame that Dr Gonzi had said Malta was not to join PfP.

Dr Gonzi said Malta between 2004 and the end of 2007 made every effort to have access to Nato-EU security documents and meetings without joining PfP. When those efforts failed, the decision was taken to rejoin the election, after the general election, as in fact happened.

The committee continues its hearing tomorrow.