Defining national interest

One month later, there seems to be no intention of the government backtracking from its anti environmental proposal of building a not-so-American University on 90 tumoli of virgin land. We’ve heard way too much talk on alternative sites, but no proposal has been forthcoming yet from the government. 

Sandro Chetcuti, president of the Malta Developers Association, brought the issue of national interest into the debate during a meeting with Alternattiva Demokratika last Thursday. He would be in favour of the development if it is considered to be in the national interest, and continued to state that the government has already considered it in the national interest. Then that makes him in favour of the “American” University at Zonqor. Chetcuti, however, seems to have a peculiar way of interpreting what constitutes national interest. 

Indeed, the meaning of national interest may have a different meaning to different people. Whilst one would expect a contribution to the economy in the area, developing 90 tumoli of virgin agricultural land will be the price we have to pay. In determining if an initiative is in the national interest, it ought to be considered holistically, in its entirety. 

By classifying the “American” university as a national interest simply by considering the economic gain would be shortsighted, to say the least. Examples of national interest would be hospitals, schools and social housing, being essential services serving the local population. Such basic and elementary services are fundamental to any community. However, even here, a responsible government should not go about developing good agricultural land without having duly analysed current available committed sites. This should be applicable in all cases, both of national interest, but all the more so, when such an interest is not clearly evident. 

Let’s have a look at the “American” university project. It involves an investor, whose background and area of operation is mainly real estate. This in itself raises a number of concerns. I would have been more concerted had the investor been experienced or specialised in the education sector. Had that been the case, one could compare the investor’s universities with others established and be in a position to determine what quality of education we are dealing with.

In this case, the investor does not specialise in education so no comparison can be undertaken. This is one of the reasons why this project is engulfed in mystery. The investor may not be assessed for his competence in the education sector because he has none so far. What he can be assessed on is his ability to provide real estate, but that is not what is being proposed here. This is why the probability of the university becoming a real estate project is legitimate. 

Let’s think of the scenario where MEPA grants the project a development permit. 90 tumoli of agricultural land are destroyed and the university opens. It fails to attract the right kind of students and becomes a failed project, five or ten years down the line. I hope this will not be the case, but I am still to be convinced that rich Arab parents would be choosing the “American” University of Malta run by a nobody in the educational field, to other well-established competitors with an established name. In the event that the university doesn’t make it through, are we truly made to believe that the building will be taken down? Judging by experience, this will hardly ever happen. But even if it were to happen, does anyone truly believe that the 90 tumoli of agricultural land would be reinstated to their original pristine state?

This is exactly why the “American” university project does not constitute national interest. The national interest cannot be served by destroying a substantial natural area, designated as a natural park, for the benefit of some foreign investor. 

We have recently heard that the Prime Minister is considering reducing the Zonqor footprint. What a pity all that talk of finding alternative sites – it seems there will be none.

Six billion dreams – One planet – Consume with care. This is the theme selected by the United Nations for World Environment Day. Indeed, we are all different and we might all have our different aspirations – but we also share one planet. This should motivate us to protect our environment because we are in it together. One’s dreams may be some else’s nightmare. Let’s work so that everybody’s dream is nobody’s nightmare.