A high-stakes diplomatic game

This week's official state visit - now postponed - by Ukrainian President Yanukovych was understandably mired in controversy, but also because it was an opportunity for Malta to return to a role to which she is historically accustomed: that of mediator on the international stage.

Previously envisaged as a simply courtesy visit, the event assumed far greater significance following Yanukovych's surprise decision to abruptly abandon plans for a free trade agreement with the European Union in favour of closer ties with Russia: paving the way for diplomatic tensions strongly reminiscent of the distant Cold War era.

Naturally, it is a choice that should rest with the sovereign Ukrainian people without external pressure or interference. But polls indicate that Yanukovych's volte-face does not mirror public opinion in the Ukraine; and even before this situation, the country's democratic credentials - which had shown such promise in the Orange Revolution of 2004 - had already been tarnished by the imprisonment of Opposition leader Yulia Timoshenko on corruption charges.

Timoshenko's release was in fact one of the conditions laid down by the EU for the deal, and it was rejected by parliament shortly before the dramatic U-turn. Since Tuesday, an estimated 100,000 Opposition supporters have turned out to protest at the capital Kiev, and violet clashes erupted  in which Ukrainian riot police are reported to have assaulted and detained several demonstrators, including women and children.

It is primarily the latter issue that has greatly exacerbated the tension surrounding this week's state visit. Regardless of one's own views regarding the political destiny of the Ukraine, violent crackdowns on political protests are clearly an affront to human rights, and run directly counter to the most fundamental principles of democracy.

Prime Minister Joseph Muscat found himself the first European head of state to meet Yanukovych since all this took place... and the EU certainly took a keen interest in anything said or done during this visit.  Some have argued it should have been cancelled in view of the latest developments. One sympathises with the moral outrage involved in all such arguments, but at the same time we must also be realistic. Basing one's international dealings only on matters of human rights has proved politically impossible even for much larger and more prosperous countries than ours - as we saw when Europe (including Malta) feted Libyan dictator Gaddafi right until he was deposed by popular revolt in 2010.

All successive Maltese governments have likewise cultivated ties with dictatorships; and this is inevitable, seeing as Malta is after all just a country with blemishes of its own... and not a force for the democratisation of the planet.

Nonetheless, the excesses in Kiev cannot pass without comment. In view of this, Opposition leader Simon Busuttil took the altogether more sensible and moderate decision to announced that while going ahead with a sceduled meeting with Yanukovych in order to to convey his party's concerns at their situation, he would stop short of attending any of the official ceremonies.

Government, on its part, decided to assume the mantle of interlocutor between Europe and the Ukraine - discussing with Commission President Barroso this week, a common position on relations with the Ukraine. It is not known whether this position included a clear condemnation of the violence in the Ukraine.

But we must also recognise that it is a delicate situation, not least because the Ukraine is understood to play an important role in Muscat's own (and as-yet rather unclear) energy strategy, and much now hinges on Yanukovych's final choice.  A second volte-face would certainly be a dramatic coup, and there are already voices in the international press suggesting that the Ukrainian premier may in fact be bluffing: trying to wrest better conditions out of Europe through a dangerous game of brinkmanship. 

Naturally we will never get to know how large a part - if any at all - our government would have played in any such decision.

Either way, the visit would have provided Joseph Muscat with a unique platform to indulge in international diplomacy at the highest levels: and, rightly or wrongly, the political party he represents prides itself on its past endeavours at much the same game. Dom Mintoff is remembered as a master negotiator on the international stage, even if opinion is hopelessly divided on the results. Muscat may well feel he has his predecessor's formidable reputation to maintain.

The stakes are however high. In fact it would not be an exaggeration to describe such visits, as the real tests of Muscat's mettle outside the narrow confines of local politics.