For the second time in less than a month, news of another ‘informal agreement’ with our immediate neighbour up north has emerged.

The first time round it was Home Affairs Minister Carmelo Abela who spilled the beans, saying Malta and Italy had an informal agreement under which Italy agreed to take the boat migrants coming from North Africa. He then said it was more a case of “close collaboration” between the two countries. Still, the fact remains that Italy has been taking all the migrants and, while Malta can only be grateful, it points to some sort of arrangement, whatever that may be.

The issue got more complicated when an Italian newspaper said Italy was taking the migrants in exchange for oil exploration rights in areas disputed by Malta and Italy. The Maltese government has vehemently denied that but the Italian government has not. Now, Italy’s Ambassador to Malta, Giovanni de Vito, has said there exists a “gentleman’s agreement” between the two countries under which no licences will be issued in the 18,000-square-kilometre disputed area until a formal deal on possible joint exploration is reached. When asked, the Maltese government was evasive and simply said talks were still ongoing.

Why this secrecy?

Malta’s relationship with Italy is not a matter of political controversy since both the government and the Opposition have always sought the closest of relations with Italy and with good results. Under successive governments, Italy has been especially helpful to Malta with a history of financial protocols that aided Maltese economic development. It was also instrumental in Malta’s accession to the European Union.

The issues of migration and of the continental shelf need not be matters of local political controversy either. In the first sitting of Parliament after the summer recess, the Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition agreed that the two parties’ positions on immigration were converging. It is inconceivable that the Opposition would object to Italy taking the migrants, so, again, why the secrecy?

The same convergence applies to the idea of joint oil explorations with Italy. Back in 2011, then foreign minister Tonio Borg told Parliament Malta had proposed joint oil exploration to Italy (and Libya) in disputed zones.

A year later, he had signed a memorandum of understanding with his Italian counterpart that provided for a modus operandi for both countries on issues such as the continental shelf dispute, oil exploration and migration.

Local political confrontation, even in our passionate Mediterranean style, is healthy for our democracy because it keeps the government on its toes and the Opposition from falling into complacency. There are, however, areas where convergence should be sought and controversy avoided and these include national security and foreign policy.

The way this government is going around handling international relations, even with a country with which we share so many common interests, is uncalled for. Two ‘informal’ agreements is not the way things should be done.

When a government negotiates diplomatically, it does so on behalf of the country and successive administrations are bound by any agreements it reaches. Informal agreements do not work the same way because, more often than not, they result from personal arrangements that can only be of a temporary nature.

A change of government could spell the end to any informal agreement. With Italy well known for its successive changes in its executive, it would be much wiser for the Maltese government to be less secretive and less informal in its international dealings.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.