Evarist Bartolo: Labour needs an ‘act of contrition’

Recently, you reacted strongly to a European Parliament’s resolution condemning Malta’s rule-of-law situation. You accused the EP of having been instrumentalized, for partisan ends, by Nationalist MEPs. As Malta’s foreign minister – and therefore directly concerned with issues affecting Malta’s international reputation – don’t you think this approach is counter-productive? 

No, not at all. When I first became Foreign Affairs Minister, I made a very strong statement, saying that I was entrusted with the duty to improve Malta’s reputation. And I also said that this wasn’t the job of a ‘beautician’. You can’t ’improve Malta’s reputation’ by simply covering up all the mess with a superficial, cosmetic touch-up. We need to take serious steps to address the problems of recent years. We need to improve law enforcement, and financial investigations; we need to take measures against corruption, and money-laundering… 

Yet foreign pressure has so far proven instrumental in confronting those problems. If there wasn’t so much pressure coming from the EP – and the Council of Europe, the foreign press, etc. – it is debatable whether we would have ever addressed those issues at all…  

I agree 100%. There are at least two forces influencing societal change: internal, and external pressure. It takes both of those things to work. External pressure, on its own, will not change society.  This is why I was unhappy with that EP resolution: because it will only increase the chance that our society will only close in on itself: become paranoid, and build up a thick outer skin… so instead of addressing our real problems, we will simply keep complaining that ‘the foreigners are picking on us’…  

But isn’t that exactly what you yourself are doing, by complaining about the actions of MEPs like Roberta Metsola and David Casa? 

No, no. Let me explain. What I saw completely wrong with that European Parliamentary resolution, for instance, was the timing. Why? Because it came at a time when the Maltese government had spent 17 months effecting major changes, which had never been done in the 65-year history of Malta as a Constitutionally independent country.  So, of all administrations…. they’re going to attack the one that made the most changes?  

If that resolution came out two years ago, I would not have criticized it in the same way. But today – after all those efforts have been made – it’s a different story. So much effort has gone into changing things, in fact, that we passed the Moneyval test. And we didn’t pass that test, simply because the Foreign Minister smiled a lot, and said that Malta had no problems. We passed because of all the hard work that we have done, and need to continue doing….  

The issue goes beyond corruption, however. In your own testimony to the Daphne Caruana Galizia inquiry, you expressed concern at the disproportionate influence Keith Schembri wielded over Cabinet.  Do you agree that Malta faced the risk of ‘state capture’, by a cabal – not to say ‘mafia’ – with Keith Schembri at its core? 

First of all, we have to be careful how we talk about ongoing inquiries and court cases. Over the years, I have talked about this issue a lot. Not just the occasion you mentioned: even in Parliament, I have argued that – while we do need to work with big business, and all the relevant economic sectors – we need to be careful to ensure that the relationship is an equitable one. We have to be careful not to allow big business to have a disproportionate influence over the decisions taken by government. 

Otherwise, we would end up with only the outer shell of a democracy – the fact that people choose their representatives once every five years – when, in reality, our decisions would be heavily, heavily, heavily influenced by the business sector… 

But under Joseph Muscat, even elements within the police force were compromised. That’s why I asked whether you agree that the Maltese state, at the time, had indeed been ‘captured’… 

The point I have been making all along is that it is dangerous to have a concentration of power that ropes in the financial sector, the political sector, the judicial sector, the police, and all the regulatory authorities. Because the issue goes beyond any one specific individual. You can’t say that, once that individual person is no longer in power, the problem itself will be gone. 

So it is very important to have structures that monitor each other. We need a government that does its job; a Parliament that scrutinizes government effectively; a media that carries out investigative work; a judiciary that acts in full autonomy; and a strong civil society, to keep the people in power on their toes…  

Another form of scrutiny, that the Labour Party might need at the moment, is a form of ‘act of contrition’ – or examination of conscience - to re-evaluate the legacy of the recent past… 

I agree entirely. Allow me to remind you that, for many years, I was the secretary of the party’s Board of Vigilance and Discipline: which was originally founded in order to address the injustices perpetrated by the Labour Party in the 1980s. And steps were taken. For all its shortcomings, that board was effective. It could have worked better, naturally…. but to have a structure within the party, that undertook not just an ‘examination of conscience’, but also delved into questions of whether there were any ethical breaches by MPs… I think that’s important. 

Do you think it should happen again today? 

I think so, yes. I also think it was bad idea to remove that board: because it sent out the message that ‘anything goes’. Don’t forget that we are human beings: in other words, weak, imperfect and fragile people. As a politician, I feel the need to be protected even from myself, at times. It is important to feel there’s always a spotlight on you. Because let’s face it: sometimes, we slip up even where there is that spotlight… let alone, when there isn’t. 

So yes: I do believe we need to undertake a serious, deep examination of conscience. But I am also pleased to add that, under the administration of Robert Abela – and I’m not known as a person who flatters, so I’m saying this in full responsibility – great steps have been taken to safeguard the rule of law in Malta: by changing the way the Police Commissioner is appointed, for instance. Or appointments to the judiciary, and regulatory authorities…  

These are all major advances, which cannot be ignored. Not just because they are, in themselves, a feather in the Prime Minister’s cap; but because having a government that is powerful enough to simply engulf everything, can only bring trouble. History teaches us this: in our own country, and in other countries too… 

Turning to another issue: Labour MEP Alfred Sant abstained on a recent EP resolution condemning Russia for the arrest of dissident Alexei Navalny, arguing that the language was ‘too confrontational’. As foreign minister, do you agree that this is a problem with the way European institutions tend to talk about Russia? 

I think it’s a global problem: not just limited to European institutions. And it worries me a lot. In fact, one of the things that shocked me most, moving from education to foreign affairs, is the polarized discourse, characterized by deep divisions, that exists in the world today. Not just with regard to Europe and Russia: but also China, Iran, Turkey, etc. 

What I’m seeing, in international relations, is a regression. We have moved backwards, not forwards…  all the way back to the time of World War I, in fact: digging trenches, hiding in those trenches… and every now and again, we raise our heads to shout taunts at the enemy, only to promptly dive for cover again.  

And this worries me. We are far too quick, these days, to resort to insults. We have far too little patience to try and understand each other. So instead, we use hard-hitting words.  

But in the case of a country that has committed many abuses against democracy – including military and political interference in other countries – is that something the EU can afford to ignore? 

I think we need to show a little humility, and acknowledge that shortcomings exist in every country. But the underlying fact is that we cannot afford to risk allowing so much aggression and confrontation on the international stage. If we were concerned, 50 years ago, that the world had already reached a point where it could destroy itself, several times over, with the nuclear weapons that existed at the time… well, that same nuclear threat has only grown, not diminished, ever since. There are more nuclear weapons in the world today, than at the height of the Cold War… 

So this tendency to simply insult and taunt each other, and to team up in blocs against each other, is something that definitely, definitely does not suit the interests of a small country like Malta... at all. And not just because of the beautiful ideals of ‘peace’ and reconciliation’, either… 

There is an African proverb that goes: ‘when the lion fights against the elephant, it is the grass that gets hurt.’ We are not elephants; and we’re not lions, either. When there is this type of aggression, between different world powers, sooner or later we will be asked: ‘Whose side are you one? Are you with us, or against us?’ 

How can that be in our country’s interest? Even in our own internal political disagreements, we all now agree that the worst attitude you can possible take is: ‘He who is not with me, is against me’. So how can it be the right attitude to take in international relations? 

Another part of your portfolio concerns External Migration. Last year, you complained that Malta does not have enough carrying capacity to cope with more arrivals. And yet, from 2008 to today, the number of foreign workers has grown by 5,000 a year. Asylum claims, on the other hand, have only increased by 1,500 a year. Doesn’t this discrepancy statistics bely your argument that Malta is ‘full up’? 

It’s a question of how you interpret statistics. Let me put it this way: every 1,000 migrants to reach Malta, are the equivalent of roughly a million entering another country. And yet, when a million refugees poured into Europe from Syria some six years ago…that was considered a ‘serious crisis’ which challenged the EU’s logistical capabilities to the utmost.  

So every 1,000 immigrants to reach Malta should also be recognized as a ‘serious crisis’… only this time, faced by Malta on its own, and not the EU as a whole…. 

It’s a false equivalence, however. There are many more than ‘1,000’ legal foreign workers in Malta – whom nobody really complains about – but you do not talk about those as a ‘serious crisis’… 

But we have to make a distinction between legal, and illegal immigration.  Our position is that every person entering the country, has to do so according to established legal procedures. Now: if someone does enter the country without the necessary documentation... but that person also qualifies for asylum: because they come from a war-torn country, or are victims of persecution… we will naturally help that person.  

Yet Malta is often accused of ignoring distress calls from precisely that sort of migrant. Don’t you think that your government’s policies – and even the language of your own statements – only serves to further criminalise and denigrate those people? 

No, it has nothing to do with ‘denigration’. And I’ll tell you why: right now, the most vulnerable and fragile place in the Mediterranean is precisely where we are ourselves. Because if you look to the East… Turkey, Cyprus, Greece, Egypt… those countries all have arrangements of their own. Likewise to the West: Morocco, Algeria and Spain. 

Then, in the centre, there’s Libya and Tunisia… which is where almost all the immigrants who end up in Malta would have departed from. So to the east and west, the rate of immigration has gone down. The only area where it has increased is the Central Mediterranean route… in other words, Malta, and Lampedusa.  

Meanwhile, the only thing acting as a buffer between Malta and Libya, right now, is the Libyan coastguard. And we have been warning the EU, for some time now, to pay more attention to what is actually happening there. If we want to avoid the tragedies that still occur from time to time…  the EU has to do more to help.  

What do you mean by ‘help’, though? That the EU gives more financial assistance to the Libyan coastguard, to take migrants back to Libya? Because if so, that would open us up to accusations of ‘refoulement’… 

First of all, the situation in Libya has improved a lot recently. Even the UNHCR acknowledges that the rate of human rights abuses – which was intolerably high, until a few years ago – has decreased. Even the numbers themselves have gone down: from around 20,000 in Libyan detention centres five years ago, to just over 1,000 today. 

But the long-term plan – and we are working towards this with both the EU, and also the UNHCR – is for Libya to eventually become a ‘safe country’: both for immigrants, and also for the Libyans themselves. But for this to happen, there has to be peace and stability. And this, in turn, can only occur if there is a little solidarity from all sides… 

Do you still feel there is no solidarity from Europe on immigration? 

Yes, I do. Let me give you just one example: when, last year, there was the case of around 27 migrants rescued off Tunisia by a Danish vessel… the Danish foreign minister told me: ’27 are a lot for us to take in all at once’. So I replied: ‘If 27 are a lot for Denmark… how much more are they for a small country like Malta’? But to no avail. His answer was to simply recommend sending them back to Tunisia, from whence they came… 

So no, there is no solidarity at European level. None whatsoever.