Even if you always should expect the unexpected, Prime Minister Joseph Muscat’s forays into foreign affairs came as a big surprise. He sought and found understanding with two countries that are key to the Mediterranean and global economy – Libya and China – never out of the headlines in these changing times.
One should give credit where credit is due. The Prime Minister’s agreement with his Libyan counterpart on oil supplies at advantageous prices covers a substantial part the goodwill built by Lawrence Gonzi in the turbulent days of the Libyan revolution two years ago.
It was in the offing that Libya should come to a friendly deal with Malta. Yet it took Muscat a relatively short time to deliver concretely; how concretely will not depend on Malta.
Libya is a country still very much in a state of flux. Muammar Gaddafi and his obnoxious regime were ousted. They have not been replaced with an infant democracy and a steady move towards stability. That is always expected after revolutions, which take years to bring about the desired objectives of freedom and all that flows from it.
Libya, with its tribal set-up, and in the wake of the democratic vacuum deliberately emphasised by Gaddafi, was never going to be an exception. The hope, however, was that it would do better than it has done so far, with tensions increasing by the day rather than diminishing. But calmer days will come, and then we shall see what becomes of the bilateral agreement sealed by the Prime Minister.
The memorandum of understanding regarding Enemalta with Chinese interests was, in contrast with that with Libya, not at all expected. Its very conclusion raised Muscat’s stature by several notches. That he is being savagely attacked by the Nationalists and fellow travellers comes as no surprise.
It was predictable that the Nationalists would offer the most negative of oppositions. Perhaps some expected them to have learned the lesson of how they dealt with Labour in the run-up to the March general election. A policy of absolute negativism brought them no joy. Yet that is what they are implementing in opposition.
Make no mistake about it, the duty of oppositions is to oppose. The question is the extent, and how.
Clearly, the Nationalist Party has decided to oppose to the full extent and at times blindly so. The criticism of the Chinese memorandum of misunderstanding confirms that.
It is based on the premise that, if things go through as set out in the memorandum, Malta would lose sovereignty. That because it will be partly dependent on foreign interests for its energy supply.
Chinese investments are taking place all over the globe, with economic targets as the main interest
The attack, aside from the dependency on Sicily sought by the defunct Nationalist government, deliberately forgets that the government will still have majority control in the restructured Enemalta. Beyond that, the Nationalists clearly want to make the electorate forget that the mess at Enemalta is solely their own doing over 21 years of misjudged policies that have nothing to do with the shameful way the corporation was run into the ground.
The Nationalists did not plan a tariff structure which took into account the capital outlays made by Enemalta, in contrast with its later conversion to the full-cost recovery principle, which came at a time when costs were sky high due to a combination of market forces, mismanagement and, perhaps, corruption of the money kind, aside from a corrupt, defective system of management.
In addition to trying to make people forget their responsibility in the Enemalta mess, the PN, through its former ministers, is also running away from the question how would a Nationalist government begin to resolve the Enemalta catastrophe had the PN won the March election. With a massive debt of €840 million on its balance sheet, Enemalta could not even hope to pay it off by, through some miracle which cancelled out inefficiencies and worse, becoming profitable.
The way forward is a capital injection, and that is what should be built in if the Malta-Sino agreement comes to fruition.
In all this, a question has been raised that should be tackled. What is China’s interest in building this type of bridge with Malta? Straight off, the answer should exclude a political interest. Chinese investments are taking place all over the globe, with economic targets as the main interest, though these are inextricably linked with political stature.
Rather oddly, China is not to be seen in the Mediterranean. Forging a strong link with Malta would give it a useful platform from which to reach out, especially towards Europe. What is wrong with that?
Our Government, this one and future ones of whatever hue, will not allow real sovereignty to slip out of their hands, while recognising the way current and evolving economic interests do impinge on sovereignty.
We should know well enough from our relationship with the European Union. Membership has meant some modification – I wouldn’t call it loss – of sovereignty. So should it be the case if Malta establishes a strong relationship with China.
What lies beyond dispute is the need to diversify our foreign relations and exports. This is a project being embarked upon, among others, by Germany, the EU’s major pillar. It is pathetic to argue that Malta should not follow such a policy itself. There is much more that is pathetic in the ongoing debate on China, Libya and other matters.
• My heartfelt thanks to all the staff at Orthopaedics Ward 2, Mater Dei Hospital, who took care of me so diligently during my recent stay.