Opposition’s foreign affairs spokesman George Vella, said current circumstances ordained that there was no joy in discussing the significance of the Mediterranean Day, but they could neither be helped nor disregarded.
These circumstances involved the future of relations between Mediterranean and Arab states for future generations. Illegal immigration, extremism and fundamentalism all detracted from the security of Europe, which in 1975 had been declared to be dependent on peace and security in the Mediterranean.
Europe had tried to avoid the current state of affairs with several initiatives, one of which had eventually led to the formation of the PAM. The challenge now was to analyse what was happening, study what could have been avoided, try to foresee the outcomes on a case-by-case basis and see how the developments wished by Europe could be helped along.
Dr Vella said there had been several reports, statements, assessments and programmes, but what had been missed was the great impact that globalisation would have on Arab countries. Instead of confrontation of civilisations, Arab youths especially had realised that Europe’s achievements were fundamental and wanted them for themselves.
The revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya were secular, but no-one could be sure of what would happen if extremists came onto the scene and took advantage of the turmoil. Economic programmes were not the only way to solve problems.
The PAM was committed to seeing that human rights were protected. If individual countries abused them, relations with those countries should be downgraded or broken altogether in order to bring pressure to bear.
Dr Vella said that unfortunately, Western intelligence had failed completely to anticipate what would happen around the Mediterranean, or it had been kept under the carpet because of the fearsome consequences. The least expected to explode had been Tunisia. It was true that MEPs had been arrested there for speaking about freedom, but the West had probably thought it was better to deal with the devil one knew than the angel one did not know. The West had exchanged what it thought was stability with closing its eyes on fundamental human rights.
Previously-unspoken thoughts that were now being put forward were showing a certain amount of hypocrisy on the part of Europe, especially on relations with Libya. Why was Europe ashamed to admit it had sought to uphold the best possible relations, even if it had never approved of the political systems in any of the three countries?
Europe was now realising that its past fears that Muslims in politics would spell disaster had been mistaken. Its reluctance to deal with Muslims had led to years of war and killing in Algeria. Europe had not accepted the Hamas victory in elections supervised by the EU itself; it had stopped all aid and never given them a chance to govern. The rift between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority was now one of the major problems in the Middle East.
Dr Vella asked what Europe had learned from its mistakes. An Islamic party was now back in Tunisia and had promised not to go for fundamentalism or extreme Islam. It must be given a chance to contest for a role in a democratic leadership. The same went for Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood, which was now showing that religious did not necessarily mean extremist.
It was to be admired that the interim ruling council in Egypt had appointed a member of the Muslim Brotherhood to the constitutional reform council and was allowing the brotherhood a chance to show its worth. They should not be pushed under the influence of Iran. By keeping a balance and peace, the army in Eygpt had been the greatest reason for the way the revolution had gone. If the army was not satisfied with the political results Egypt would end up with the Turkish model, with the army supervising executive and Parliament.
Dr Vella said the most disquieting aspect was the extremism appearing where it would never have been expected, under Muammar Gaddafi. The protesters or rebels were already appearing to be too influenced by radicalism and people in mosques.
He criticised the double standards shown when Israel had bombarded the unarmed people of Gaza, killing and injuring thousands, but nobody had said anything in spite of the pitiful humanitarian situation.
It was his opinion that the Prime Minister had been premature when he had publicly said Gaddafi’s end was inevitable. Now Gaddafi was making himself felt again and people in eastern Libya were terrified of his promised retribution.
Now Malta was supporting a UN-ordered no-fly zone and “any other measure”. This approach had already been tried in Iraq and the Balkans, with disastrous results. Gaddafi’s aircraft were no longer flying and his tanks were being bombed from the air; but what did the international community really want – to establish the no-fly zone, to destroy Gaddafi’s infrastructure, or to go for the person himself?
Dr Vella said Malta had a role to fulfil on the international scene, but it also had moral obligations as to how many people were killed in the process. Malta too had the right to know what things were coming to because coalition aircraft were overflying the islands. The fact that Europe had no common foreign policy was worrying, especially if the US pulled out.
Concluding, Dr Vella said these were unhappy circumstances for the Mediterranean, but the greatest wound was in the Middle East. He could almost see the two-state solution vanishing because with the rift among the Palestinians there would no longer be space for two states. Things could yet go from bad to worse.