The Government has, to a considerable extent, adopted a policy of continuity and bipartisanship in the important area of foreign policy and this is to be welcomed.

Malta has been a European Union member for nine years, its foreign policy is firmly integrated within the EU and there are few foreign policy differences between the two major political parties.

Foreign Minister George Vella recently launched Malta’s Foreign Policy Guiding Principles, which are, more or less, an updated (and much less detailed) version of the Strategic Objectives of Malta’s Foreign Policy launched in 2007 by then Foreign Minister Michael Frendo.

There are no policy differences between the two documents and the Strategic Objectives remain as valid today as they were when they were first issued.

The island’s willingness to participate in EU common foreign and security policy operations has also continued and shows the country’s commitment to collective security. The latest example is Malta’s involvement, through 22 soldiers, in a two-month EU naval operation on a Dutch warship off the coast of Somalia.

The recent decision by the EU to list the armed wing of Hizbollah as a terrorist group because of concerns over its activities in Europe also shows that Malta is still committed to reaching a foreign policy consensus within EU circles. Malta had initially expressed reservations over such a move, stressing, rightly, that the EU should continue to maintain contacts with Hizbollah’s political wing, which EU foreign ministers agreed to do.

During the launch of Malta’s Foreign Policy Guiding Principles, Dr Vella said that the country’s guiding policies in its foreign affairs were the pursuit of peace, stability, dialogue and cooperation, with particular attention being given to the Mediterranean dimension.

This is correct and one would expect such a trend – which has been the hallmark of Malta’s foreign policy since 1987 – to continue. However, the recent threat to return a group of irregular migrants to Libya without first processing their asylum requests went contrary to such principles, left us isolated within EU circles and threatened to disrupt an important aspect of our bipartisan foreign policy.

This episode also violated two of the foreign policy principles launched by the Foreign Minister last month, namely Malta’s strong commitment towards the promotion of all human rights and fundamental freedoms and the fight against the continuing gross violations of international humanitarian law.

What Dr Vella should do is launch a diplomatic initiative, with the ministers for Europe and home affairs, aimed at getting support within the EU in dealing with irregular migration.

True, the concept of burden sharing never took off within the EU and Brussels has not spent enough time focusing on this tragedy in the Mediterranean, but the way to get things done in the EU is not by stamping one’s feet but by intense diplomacy and forging a consensus.

Another worrying aspect of our foreign policy is a number of the proposed new ambassadorial appointments. A government can appoint a mix of political appointees and career diplomats as ambassadors, who can all possess excellent qualities and can do a good job. However, some (not all) of the political appointees are clearly not qualified for the post and their only credentials are that they are somehow associated with the Labour Party or helped it in the past.

This contradicts Labour’s pre-electoral promise of meritocracy and adds a partisan tinge to our foreign policy. Maltese diplomacy will suffer as a result.