Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi this evening hit out against the Opposition's motion to censure Richard Cachia Caruana and said it was tragic that the Opposition appeared to be believing what some US government official allegedly wrote about November 2004 meetings without having sought the Maltese government's minutes of the same meetings.

Reading from a prepared statement before the parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee, Dr Gonzi tabled the notes of the meetings taken by Major (now Brigadier) Martin Xuereb and said they showed that Opposition's claims that Mr Cachia Carauna had been working to take Malta back in Partnership for Peace, that he had worked behind parliament's back, and that he had betrayed Malta's interests, were manifestly not true.

Dr Gonzi repeatedly insisted that he expected the Opposition to consider and believe the official Maltese version, rather than the notes allegedly written and never confirmed by an American official, which were partly reproduced by Wikileaks.

The Opposition's motion, Dr Gonzi said, was based on a wrong analysis of the facts and a scandalous misinterpretation of meetings as reported by a foreign third party officer.

It was insulting to any Maltese that the version of a foreigner, written in the interests of his own country was being considered as Gospel truth while the view of the Maltese government was being ignored.

Giving a timeline of the facts as they evolved in 2004, Dr Gonzi recalled that this was the time when Malta was taking its first steps as a member of the EU. This was the time when Malta was finally starting to agree on EU membership.

He said that the charges made in the Opposition's motion were three: that the government, through Mr Cachia Carauana 'held talks with other governments about ways how important decisions on foreign affairs could be taken behind parliament's back';  that Mr Cachia Caruana 'advised the government to act in this way and sought a way to avoid parliamentary accountability' and, thirdly, that the government and its representatives 'sought the interests of other countries more than Malta's'.

All these charges, in effect, amounted to a claim of treason.

These accusations were all totally false, Dr Gonzi insisted.

It was absolutely crucial for the committee and the people to understand the root of the issue.

As early as 2003, Malta had a problem in that since it was not in PfP and did not have a Security of Documents Agreement with Nato, it could not receive Nato documents circulated in the EU. Neither could it receive EU documents related to Nato.  Malta's representatives (and those of Cyprus) could not attend EU meetings where Nato was involved. They were often asked to withdraw, amid Malta's protests.

Dr Gonzi said that it was essential that Malta was able to attend and be party to information involving security in its region.  The government, therefore had been seeking effective solutions which were also acceptable to the EU and Nato.

The Cabinet had issued a directive aimed at seeking a solution. However the first official reaction given to Malta was that to solve this issue, Malta should rejoin Partnership for Peace. This was not acceptable for Malta since during that legislature, Dr Gonzi said, he had personally decided that Malta should not join Partnership for Peace. Dr Gonzi said he did not wish the budding consensus on EU membership to be dented by division on PfP.

Therefore there was no issue about going before parliament since PfP membership was not being discussed.

Dr Gonzi pointed out how the Wikileaks document said that 'in the course of an introductory meeting with Major Martin Xuereb, Malta's military attache', US and EU officers discussed the current Cyprus/Malta blockage in EU-Nato collaboration.

This confirmed the impasse that existed - even before Mr Cachia Caruana was  involved.

The document then said that "Given the stalemate over the Nato security agreement and the political situation in Malta, questions arose over whether Malta had withdrawn (from PfP) in 1996 or ended its active participation. In seeking a way forward it was suggested that if Malta ceased active participation but had not formally withdrawn it might be possible for Malta to confirm that prior PfP agreements remained in force."

Dr Gonzi stressed that at this stage the meetings were held solely with (then) Major Martin Xuereb. The document so far showed that the suggestions for some form of solution had come solely from the US side, not Mr Cachia Caruana.

The US official's document then said with regard to another meeting that "Malta's ambassador to the EU will propose to Valletta that Malta should declare its Partnership for Peace agreement of 1993 should remain in force although the country had withdrawn from active participation. In this way it would argue that Malta could meet the requirement to participate in EU-Nato strategic discussions."

This suggestion, Dr Gonzi said, had not been made by Mr Cachia Caruana, but it was a suggestion made by somebody else, which Malta was being asked to consider.

A US official had proposed a solution which respected the 1996 decision to withdraw from PfP but that it could be interpreted that the Security of Documents Agreement had not been abrogated.

It was inconceivable and scandalous, Dr Gonzi said, that remarks by a foreign government official were attributed to Mr Cachia Caruana by the Opposition.

Malta, Dr Gonzi continued, considered the proposals but was adamant against rejoining PfP. Later in the document, one read about the situation regarding Turkey and its opposition to Cyprus being given special arrangements, an opposition which therefore also extended to Malta.

"Mr Cachia Caruana always worked in Malta's interest and always followed government instructions,"  the prime minister said.

Dr Gonzi that it was tragic that the Opposition was appearing to believe what was written in the Wikileaks document and had not sought Malta's minutes of the meetings.

He said he was publishing the notes/report prepared by Major Xuereb, who had attended all the meetings.

Major Xuereb in his report of the November 8, 2004 meeting wrote that  proposed solutions (to the impasse on the sharing of documents) were made by the US. "The US representative then referred to a solution which would not include Malta's active participation in PfP activities. He also said that the same proposals had been made to Cyprus and it appeared that if this was acceptable and if Turkey did not veto they would accept the proposal and slip it past their internal opposition (in Cyprus)."

Dr Gonzi said these talks continued up to 2007 and various options were considered, including ad hoc arrangement, but no agreement was reached and Malta continued to be excluded from security meetings. 

It was obvious, Dr Gonzi said, that if there had been some chance of a solution, the government would have appeared before Parliament

Dr Gonzi noted that another part of Maj Xuereb's notes quoted Mr Cachia Caruana saying that: "The decision as to the way forward rests with ministers in Malta but he was prepared to suggest that the proposal by the US that the Security of Documents Agreement  not having been abrogated could be considered." 

Dr Gonzi said the notes showed how Malta never intended to join PfP at the time, that Mr Cachia Caruana was following instructions and he solely sought Malta's interests.

He said he was giving the Opposition the benefit of the doubt since it had not had Major Xuereb's notes in hand. But now that the minutes were being published and Malta's official position was clear, the Opposition should consider its position.

In his long presentation Dr Gonzi also gave extensive details of the exploratory meetings on the various proposals which had been made for Malta to be given access to the security documents and to be able to attend the security meetings. However since no agreement was reached - with Malta rejecting other proposals made to it - no formal proposal was made.

Eventually, once all alternatives were exhausted, in 2008 after the general election, Malta reactivated its membership of Partnership for Peace in the national interest. That decision, and access to the security meetings and documents, yielded dividends during the Libya uprising, when Malta would have otherwise risked losing control over its own airspace, Dr Gonzi said.

He welcomed the fact that the Opposition now also agreed with PfP membership.

Dr Gonzi said that now that all documents had been tabled, the Opposition should do the honourable thing and withdraw the false charges it had made in its motion.

OPPOSITION REACTION

Dr George Vella (PL) noted that Wikileaks had published the US document nine months ago. Why had the government not felt the need to issue its explanation sooner?

Dr Gonzi said the content of the Wikileaks cable had not worried the government since it knew what really took place. The document was the US version of the meeting.  It was the Opposition which was misinterpreting the document.

Dr Vella asked how, over the years, in view of these security problems, the prime minister never felt the need to consult the opposition. Furthermore, once the government had felt that Malta had left PfP, how was membership reactivated in 2008 without Parliamentary debate?

Dr Gonzi said there was nothing in the Wikileaks statement that was untrue, in that it was a US official's version of what had taken place, although Malta had its own version. The Opposition could now compare the Wikileaks document and Maj Xuereb's notes.

Dr Vella asked, why, therefore, the government had allowed this point to be reached.

Dr Gonzi said the situation had developed over several years, without a solution having been reached. No talks were held with the Opposition since Malta had been given a repeated 'no' to the proposed solutions to the impasse. Had a solution been in sight, it was obvious that it would have been discussed with the opposition. Furthermore, once Malta was not considering a return to PfP at the time, there had been nothing controversial which therefore needed to be discussed.

Dr Gonzi said that when Dr Vella took Malta out of PfP in 1996 he wrote that "Maltese participation in Partnership for Peace is hereby being terminated." Malta had tried to argue that related treaties had, effectively not been abrogated. Some headway was made but then everything fell through.

Dr Vella said the government could have held a discussion with the opposition at the time about the issue.

Dr Gonzi said there was nothing to discuss since the proposals had been 'shot down'. However in having sought solutions, there was no betrayal of Malta's interests, as the Opposition had claimed.

Dr Vella said the Opposition had built its arguments on the basis of published documents, which were never denied. He insisted that parliamentary scrutiny was essential in a democracy but the government had kept its cards close to its chest.

Dr Gonzi said he would accept criticism of not having consulted parliament or the opposition, but what was unacceptable was that the government and its representative was accused of betraying Malta's interests.

Hearings continue on Monday.