If it’s true, go. But if not…

In 1998, when embattled US President Bill Clinton was in the spotlight over the celebrated "Lewinskigate" affair, London-based newspaper The Economist ran a cover story entitled: "If it's true, go".

Naturally, the allegations leading to the resignation of EU Commissioner John Dalli last Tuesday are nowhere near as colourful as the ones which stained the last years of Clinton's term in the Oval Office. But the underlying implications are ultimately very similar, if not identical.

Between July and October, John Dalli found himself the subject of a (to date unpublished) report by the EU's anti-fraud office OLAF, which is rumoured to contain (in the words of OLAF's chairperson) "unambiguous, circumstantial" evidence of wrongdoing on the Commissioner's part.

We have an idea of the general allegations at the heart of this report: they involve a Maltese entrepreneur - Silvio Zammit, who happens to have been Dalli's canvasser in the 10th district before the last election - who allegedly either approached, or was approached by, a Scandinavian tobacco company (Swedish Match) with the aim of using his contacts with Dalli to influence EU tobacco legislation to the industry's favour, in exchange for astronomical financial remuneration.  

So far, so good. What we do not know, however, are the full contents of the OLAF report submitted to President Jose Manuel Barroso: contents which seem to have been sufficient for Barroso to summon Dalli to his office, and give the Maltese Commissioner an ultimatum of just half an hour to pack his bags and leave.

Dalli resigned with immediate effect - his second resignation in under 10 years, both having been occasioned by mysterious reports containing allegations... one of which proved false- and since then he has repeatedly insisted that he knew absolutely nothing about any offer or bribe made by Zammit.

Like Clinton's reverberating "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinski", Dalli's "I knew nothing about Silvio Zammit's indecent proposal" presents us with the same overall dilemma: do we simply believe prima facie a man's protestations of innocence? Or do we take on trust a series of allegations and insinuations in the absence of any cast-iron proof?

Without possession of the full facts, what can easily be stated at this stage is very similar to The Economist's front-page headline in 1998. If (and it is important to stress the conditional) it is true that John Dalli was aware that Zammit had exploited his contacts with Dalli to make his indecent proposal - and that, armed with this knowledge, Dalli failed to inform the European anti-fraud office about such a serious case of trading in influence.... then clearly, his resignation would have been fully warranted.

If, on the other hand, it turns out that Dalli really was ignorant of the precise nature of the contacts between Zammit and Swedish Match - then not only would the reasons for the resignation be called into serious question... but one would also have to query why it was even demanded in the first place, and with such apparent aggression.

But to ascertain the facts in either scenario, we need to be in possession of the full facts. This is why it is now absolutely imperative that all cards are placed on the table, and that OLAF (or, for that matter, Commission president Barroso) makes public the contents of the report that led to Dalli's resignation last Tuesday.

On a separate note, it has been commented in the European press that - regardless of whether Dalli's resignation was justified or otherwise - there was no real reason to put the Tobacco Directive on the back burner, as happened in the wake of Dalli's resignation.

It is no secret that Dalli was working on a reform of European tobacco legislation that would have (if implemented) eaten substantially into the profits of an industry known to be employ the most aggressive lobbyists in the world.

Yet at no point has anyone (including OLAF) suggested that the influence exerted on Dalli had successfully changed the proposed legislation. In fact it remains a complete mystery why the Commission appears to have performed a U-turn on its former commitment to reform the Tobacco Directive: instead of merely proceeding under a different Commission, as one would otherwise have expected.

Add to this all the other existing questions surrounding the actual reasons why Dalli resigned, the upshot is fertile ground for conspiracy theories... to the effect that Dalli had in fact been forced out of office by the tobacco lobby itself, which would (in this scenario) clearly have an unhealthy hold over the entire Commission.

To apply the Economist's headline again... if this scenario turns out to be true, then the ballgame will change beyond recognition: and suddenly, it would no longer be Dalli who would "have to go".

Naturally this is pure speculation at this stage, and one need hardly add that such speculation is harmful to the image of the European Union as a whole.

This is yet another very good reason why the OLAF report containing allegations against Dalli should be made public immediately.