Actions that define us

TWEET SHARE

That changed when Malta became a EU Member State with a say on European policy. This has increased Malta's profile in international news, but the picture emerging requires some scrutiny.

Amid much talk about the 'common good' when debating local policy, which is often an excuse for the continued repression of deserved freedoms, the country's approach to policy negotiations is dominated by self-interest to the point where it is unethical. Malta consistently prioritises political expediency and economic gain for a selected few, over social justice issues related to human rights' concerns and environmental abuse.

When it comes to European environmental policy, Malta’s representatives at the EU have had a notable negative influence on three major issues of concern: European Commissioner John Dalli made a name for Malta even before he grew accustomed to the weather in Brussels by lifting the 12-year ban on GM crops; Malta's persistent opposition to EU initiatives to protect the Bluefin tuna from extinction has also received a great deal of attention; and Malta's assault on the Birds Directive to allow spring hunting to appease a local army of political bullies has also been noted.

Ironically, most environmentalists were eager for Malta to join the EU because they believed it would raise the standard of environmental management in the country. No one predicted that Maltese politicians could infect EU standards with their mediocrity. So Malta is getting the attention, but the news is not good. And, it is not limited to the environment.

Malta has also been featured negatively in the international press for its handling of civil rights. In her article published in The Guardian, Jennifer O'Mahony questioned why the EU was not doing anything about the suppression of freedoms in Malta. In an article aptly titled 'An obscene attack on Maltese culture', her introduction stated:

"What if there were an EU country where abortion, divorce, and blasphemy in public were all still illegal? Where freedom of expression was limited to saying nothing critical of the Catholic Church, nothing that the government could call 'obscene', and nothing against the few noble families who all but controlled it? Surely, given Turkey's problems, Croatia's lack of membership, and Iceland's still pending application, such a place would be expelled? Welcome to Malta".

Interestingly, she raised the following question: "Perhaps, as an island of 400,000, the people of Malta are too few in number to bother protecting? The EU intervenes in issues such as economic regulation, but not the suffocation of freedom of expression".

On an issue that has been dominating international news headlines, the uprising in Tunisia, Malta has also had some influence on the EU's stand. As democracy protests gripped cities across Tunisia and human rights groups denounced the killing of dozens of demonstrators, Malta was one of the countries blamed for the EU's "delayed" and "weak" response to the killings by foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton. The reason for Malta's stand was seen to be its reliance on "north African autocracies" to prevent immigration, according to the EU Observer.

The Maltese government has proven it has no real problems with repressive regimes. The Prime Minister defends the push back of immigrants to Libya on the grounds that it "saves lives". Libya may be torturing them, but the government's Catholic conscience is clean.

In the same vein, pious Foreign Minister Tonio Borg recently made Malta a partner with fundamentalist Saudi Arabia in an agreement to "combat crime". This is one of the most repressive regimes in the world with an atrocious human rights record, but the government does not seem to consider that as criminal behaviour.

A country's capacity to prioritise social justice should be a measure of its social and political health. Malta's performance in this context needs a serious diagnosis.

Caroline Muscat is a freelance journalist www.carolinemuscat.com

More from Caroline Muscat

•

Caroline you could not have expressed it any better. "As with other small nation states, Malta’s foreign policy has never really mattered much to anyone except the country’s inflated egos." What happens in Malta stays in Malta because the Maltese Government and the opposition are in collusion to operate a theocracy that the larger member states seem to overlook because Malta is irrelevant in European and World's affairs. Only those degenerate politicians who inherit their old family political structures, see fit to sow half truths and outright lies about Malta in order to harvest their due benefits. Truthfully take the visit of the EU President and his speech in Parliament. He reminded the Maltese Parliament about the imbalance of female participation, yet nobody took notice as everyone is more focused on the extra seat in Brussels Can anyone explain how much influence an extra seat can have in a parliamentary setting of over 750 seats when half the states of the EU have not even held elections for their allocations. Censorship through the Curia dictates who get elected to govern and all must bow their heads in obedience for the good of Catholic Church and the well being of their families. Unfortunately the infidels are too pre-occupied with their faith, their churches and their saintly feasts to notice how awkward and demorilizing all this seems to the outsiders.

John Mifsud •

No, I reiterate it is a direct legacy of the Mintoffian era. The new PN government in 1987 followed much in the footsteps of its Labour predecessor in foreign policy, not of the PN of administrations of 1962 - 71. This was especially evident during the tenure of Guido de Marco as Foreign Minister. EU membership was the really major departure, but even so Malta only withdrew from that motley club called the Non-Aligned Movement in 2004, as it is incompatable with EU membership. Regarding the influence Malta has on European policy, well, let us be realistic. Can you name a single instance where Malta swayed an EU foreign policy stance in one way or another? You and Ms O’Mahony are obviously ignorant of EU law and national competences. Since Malta is micro-state, you obviously expect it to have as much say on its own affairs as London borough would have on its own.

Lina Bonnici •

To say Malta's current support for repressive regimes is "a direct legacy of the Mintoffian era" is a wild idea... this government has been in place long enough to forge new relationships. Malta's EU membership is one example, but you also perceive that in neo-colonialist terms (even when I made the point that Malta has a say, and is managing to influence, European policy). Your ideal world seems to be one of isolation, living with our "hypocrisy and faults". You can live in that world - others have moved on.

John Mifsud •

While Ms Muscat does have a very valid point about Malta's support for unsavoury regimes around the world - a direct legacy of the Mintoffian era, when our 'friends' were Kim il Sung, Libya, Yasser Arafat, China, the Soviets, etc, and the western democracies were the 'Europe of Cain' and our enemies, I am appalled by her evident approval of Jennifer O’Mahony's arrogant and paternalistic article. O’Mahony sees Malta in true neo-colonialist terms, as a satrapy of Brussels, on which the 'enlightened' values of the Islington elite should be imposed. For her, the natives must be be dragged, kicking and screaming if necessary, into the promised land of divorce, political correctness, euthenasia and abortion on demand. I do not agree with censorship, but of the two evils, I prefer Malta as it is, with all its hypocricy and faults to the brave new world exposed by Muscat and O’Mahony.