Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi this evening tabled before the parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee written advice by the Attorney General which, he said, showed that the Security Agreement with Nato - the security of documents agreement - did not fall within the requirements of the Ratifications of Treaties Act.
Dr Gonzi was reacting to Opposition claims, made during the discussion yesterday, that Ambassador Richard Cachia Caruana could not discuss the reactivation of the Security Agreement behind parliament's back because it needed to be ratified by the House.
Dr Gonzi added that there also appeared to be confusion about what the Opposition was actually objecting to in this debate and in its motion. He read reports in various media which quoted Labour's foreign affairs spokesman George Vella as saying that the Opposition was objecting at the fact that according to a document leaked by Wikileaks, Mr Cachia Caruana was working with US government officials to take Malta back in Partnership for Peace behind parliament's back.
It was clear that the Opposition had thought that Mr Cachia Caruana's meetings were about PfP, when that was not the case.
Dr Gonzi also referred to another Opposition question yesterday about whether memos from Mr Cachia Caruana to the prime minister existed and whether he would publish them.
Dr Gonzi said today that his research showed that one such memo existed and he was presenting it to the committee. It was based on the proposals already mentioned in the notes submitted by (then) Major Martin Xuereb. Dr Gonzi said that in his subsequent memo to the Cabinet he had not taken up all the recommendations made by Mr Cachia Caruana.
Leo Brincat (PL) said it was unacceptable that Dr Gonzi had tabled Mr Cachia Caruana's on the third day of his evidence before the House and not before, when so many other documents had been published.
Dr Gonzi said he had been asked whether such a memo existed and whether he would publish it, and he had done so. However, contrary to what Mr Brincat had said, what was pivotal in this issue was the memo he had sent to the Cabinet and not Mr Cachia Caruana's memo, which was based on Major Xuereb's notes. Dr Gonzi said he did not think there was further written communication between him and Mr Cachia Caruana on this issue.
Amid further protest by Mr Brincat that the prime minister should have tabled Mr Cachia Caruana's memo earlier, Dr Gonzi said the Opposition was trying to shift focus after having clearly thought, as evidenced by the media reports, that they thought that Mr Cachia Caruana had been negotiating membership of Partnership for Peace. Dr Gonzi said a major part of his own memo to the Cabinet was copied from Mr Cachia Caruana's memo and therefore did not show anything new.
Had Mr Cachia Caruana not given him his advised, he would have sacked him, because his role was to advise the government in the national interest. The documents clearly and categorically showed that Mr Cachia Caruana and his officials had done their best to achieve a solution to a problem that Malta had been facing (because it had no access to Nato-EU security documents and meetings)
Dr Gonzi said he could not understand or accept the Opposition's fixation about Mr Cachia Caruana.
He also pointed out that at the time of this issue (late 2004) Malta was also discussing the financial perspectives with the EU, and that resulted in a billion euro for Malta, with much of that success achieved thanks to Mr Cachia Caruana. And then he was accused of betraying the country.
Replying to questions by Charlo Bonnici (PN) Dr Gonzi said the Opposition MPs who were speaking so much about parliamentary accountability should know that no statement was ever made on foreign affairs by Prime Minister Sant and no statement was ever made on Partnership for Peace. So much for accountability in the House, Dr Gonzi said, adding that he had made 37 statements to the House on his meetings in the EU.
Luciano Busuttil (PL) said it was not Mr Cachia Caruana's competence which was being questioned but the fact that parliament was not informed about the problems on access to Nato documents.
Dr Gonzi said he was reiterating that the government could not go before the House when solutions were being discussed but they were not heading towards agreement. It was after four years of futile efforts that the decision was taken, in 2008, that Malta should return to PfP. That was why he told the US ambassador (in January 2008) that Malta would rejoin PfP after the election, and now everyone agreed with that decision.
Dr Busuttil said the decision had been taken and communicated to the US ambassador before parliament was told.
Dr Gonzi said his commitment was to the national interest and proved to be fruitful. Had he not acted quickly, Malta would not have been able to benefit from the security exchanges relevant to Malta in 2008.
Dr Busuttil observed that PfP membership was not in the PN electoral programme.
Dr Gonzi asked Dr Busuttil if he agreed with PfP membership.
Dr Busuttil said he did.
Dr Gonzi said it was therefore being registered that the Opposition agreed that PfP was in the national interest. So much for claims of betrayal. The bottom line, he said, was that the Opposition had presented this censure motion against Mr Cachia Caruana only for partisan political reasons.
Owen Bonnici (PL) said Mr Cachia Caruana's memo had warned the prime minister that if Malta was to consider the security of documents agreement as still in force, that would be taken to mean that Malta was still a party of the Partnership for Peace framework document.
Dr Gonzi said that showed that Mr Cachia Caruana had been doing his job in pointing to all implications. However, Dr Gonzi said, the government's position was consistently that Malta was not a participant in PfP.
The discussion ended at 9.25 p.m. Mr Cachia Caruana is expected to give evidence before the committee on Tuesday.