INTERVIEW | Sunday, 15 July 2007
Guido de Marco interviewed by James Debono
Photography: Gilbert Calleja
Malta, Europe and the Mediterranean are intermittently linked in President Emeritus Guido de Marco’s vision for Malta’s future. The Maltese statesman preceded French President Nikolas Sarkozy’s proposal for the creation of a Mediterranean Council by a full 17 years.
Guido de Marco
“It was back in 1990 that I first presented the proposal of having a Council for the Mediterranean. I continued with this proposal even in the Barcelona process where I proposed a Council for the Mediterranean alongside the Euro Med process.”
It was this unique ability to see the bigger picture that was recognised by the European People’s Party. It awarded President Emeritus Guido de Marco the Robert Schuman medal, an honour previously bestowed on German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Pope John Paul II.
Three years after joining the European Union, the Maltese government has repeatedly denounced the European Union for not showing enough solidarity with Malta when tackling the immigration problem.
Prof de Marco, who for an entire decade lobbied to persuade reluctant European countries to accept Malta as a full member in the EU, insists that “being relevant is the key to effective lobbying.”
“The role of Malta is to be a relevant nation by putting forward good proposals, by taking a positive stand, by not being an absentee member and by actively participating.”
He acknowledges that persuading 26 other countries is no easy task.
“It takes a long time to persuade 26 other nations. Some have an interest in migration problems while others don’t. The Mediterranean states obviously have an interest but the same cannot apply to a Baltic state, a Scandinavian or an Eastern European country. It will take some time to persuade them but we will eventually succeed,” says an optimistic de Marco.
Mediterranean issues can help Malta take centre stage in the European Union. This is the purpose of Malta’s membership in the European Union; that of being a bridge between the north and the south. “Being Mediterranean is an integral part of our sense of being European. By being Mediterranean we are European.”
However the question of immigration not only involves Malta and the European Union. It involves Libya, where many immigrants begin on their journey towards Europe.
“It is not an easy situation to solve. Libya has no interest in taking back these people back. The country with the largest numbers of unwanted immigrants is Libya itself. So can we blame it on Libya if these people want to leave Libya? They say good riddance.”
Prof. De Marco urges European nations to understand Libya’s situation. But at the same time the former President sees no excuse for any breach of international law by our southern neighbour.
“Libya has a duty to save lives when boats are in distress. They cannot ever renounce that duty. One cannot let a single person drown. This is an inhumane act.”
But how does he explain the reluctance of European countries to help Malta by sharing the burden?
“They are prepared to receive, in quotas, a number of migrants. But this has to be done in a legal way. One cannot allow hundreds of illegal immigrants coming in to your country as if it was theirs’
Apart from these considerations de Marco considers immigration first and foremost a humanitarian problem.
“Some of these migrants are victims of political persecution but many are victims of the worst persecution of all; hunger. They risk their lives because of hunger.”
In Malta, racist sentiments have grown over the past years as the number of immigrants reaching Maltese shores has increased.
“I do not believe that the Maltese are racists. They are a people who love their country and who do not want racial problems in the future.” But obviously these negative instincts come out in these difficult situations. That is why if there is no solidarity from Europe, these negative instincts will thrive. That is why we have to bring pressure within Europe.
Azzjoni Nazzjonali, a new party riding the wave of anti immigration sentiment, proposes that Malta should rescue immigrants in distress but only keep them in Malta for a month.
De Marco has followed this particular proposal and responds, “But how can you let them go after a month? Are they saying that we should let them go illegally? Are they saying that we should transfer them to their state of origin? Let’s remember that sometimes we do not even know from which state they come from.”
The former President reminds everyone of Malta’s international obligations.
“We are bound by UN laws; namely, if some of these migrants apply for refugee status or to stay here for humanitarian reasons we cannot turn them back if not according to the procedures set in the convention.”
According to de Marco people who say that we should turn them away without respecting these obligations are either not fully aware of the legal implications of what they are saying or are trying to solve matters in a simplistic way. Yet the former President believes the Maltese are too wise to fall in this trap.
“I think that better sense in Malta always prevails. We have this advantage-we are an experienced political people in history. So whilst we are tempted by simplistic solutions, in the long term we always find that a simplistic solution is no solution at all.”
Surely the former President is fully aware of the difficulties involved in persuading other countries to accept Malta’s demands. 17 years ago Guido Demarco had the unenviable task of persuading reluctant European countries to accept a small nation in a community of equals.
The former President can boast of having his signature on three historical documents marking Malta’s long march to join the European Union, namely the original application to join the European Union, the reactivation of the membership bid in 1998 after it was frozen for two years and finally on the bill approved by the Maltese parliament making EU membership an act of law.
“I started it all on 16th July 1990 when I personally delivered Malta’s application to join the European Economic Community to Italian Foreign Minister Gianni De Michelis.”
Italy was the most loyal EU country in its “strong support for Malta from the very first moment I presented the application to join, to the moment I signed the bill making it an act of law that Malta joined the EU.”
Italian support has indeed remained consistent throughout.
“In the very difficult stages at the beginning and during the very difficult stages of reactivating Malta’s application after 1998, Italy was always there supporting us.”
De Marco is grateful. Citing the two financial protocols he signed with Italy:
“We should never forget how much Italy helped Malta. Millions and millions of pounds were given to Malta for diverse purposes.”
But other EU member states did not share Italy’s enthusiasm for Malta.
“We faced very sceptical approaches. Some would say; Malta, which is the size of a medium European city like Catania, cannot expect to have a commissioner and the veto rights enjoyed by larger countries. From the very first day I made it very clear; I was not applying for second class status within the European Union.”
One of the fears expressed by the sceptics was that Malta would wield its veto power as it did in the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe in 1983 when Malta delayed the conference for 50 days.
De Marco used to reply to the sceptics: “Malta had only used the veto once but you have been using the veto in the United Nations throughout. Therefore do not give us lessons on the veto. We are responsible people but if others have the right for a veto, so should we.”
One of the major difficulties he faced was the anti membership stand of the Labour opposition.
“We had all the time to fight on two fronts; the very uphill struggle within Brussels and the internal struggle with the opposition. Even when we used to find difficulties, we could not voice them openly because the moment we voiced them openly we used to have problems internally. So we had to suffer in silence fighting our battles.”
Was there any country in particular which was sceptical on Malta’s membership bid?
“Nobody ever said we do not want Malta. This is the difference between Italy and the rest. Italy was all the time for Malta.” Others were sceptic.
What about Malta’s former colonial patron, Great Britain?
“It took me three years to persuade British Foreign Minister Douglas Hurd.”
He recalls a meeting attended by himself and Prime Minister Eddie Fenech Adami. On that occasion Douglas Hurd acknowledged his scepticism.
He recalls Hurd saying “my friend Guido took 3 years to persuade me but he persuaded me and we are now steadfast in our support for Malta.”
What was the reason for their scepticism?
“There were many reasons. They did not want a small state with all this power.”
What about Tony Blair?
“Tony Blair was at first half hearted but then he was with us.”
It was also difficult to persuade the French.
“It was difficult to persuade the French but once we persuaded Alain Juppe’ then the support which was at times wobbly was there.”
Malta’s European credentials were never openly questioned by sceptical observers, but reservations were expressed at Malta’s reputation of being close to Libyan leader Ghaddafi.
“This was seen by those opposing Malta’s membership bid as a sign of Malta’s lack of Europeanisation. We said to them that we have to have good relationship with all our neighbours and our neighbours happen to include Libya.”
Despite the disappointment of seeing Finland and Sweden jump the queue in 1995, something he could understand because the Nordic countries, unlike Malta, were rich net contributors rather than net receivers, de Marco claims that by 1996 Malta was in pole position among the new applicant states.
“I had put Malta at the pole position before other countries before the Baltic and Eastern European countries.”
Yet the very economic changes brought about by Malta’s membership bid were to momentarily shatter de Marco’s European dream. He attributes the electoral defeat of 1996 to the introduction of value added tax.
“Possibly one of the main causes of losing the election in 1996 was VAT, something which today everybody approves,”
The new Labour government decision to freeze Malta’s application was a shock to de Marco.
“All we had done to put Malta in the right position was lost.”
He claims that the sceptics in Brussels “thanked high heaven for this situation.”
“They said we have got rid of the Maltese, of such a small state which is expecting so much. No longer with De Marco coming here every month knocking at our door, sometimes even shouting at us saying that you have no right to stop us!”
Seeing several eastern European countries and Cyprus overtake Malta was a very difficult time for de Marco.
“Fortunately Labour lost the confidence of the house and in the 1998 election lost the confidence of the people. One of the reasons we were brought back to power was Europe. The Maltese all of a sudden realised that they had lost a dream.”
But was it really Europe or Mintoff who brought the Nationalists to power?
“Through Mintoff the government lost the confidence of the house of parliament. Through the elections the government lost the confidence of the people.”
Yet getting Malta’s EU membership bid reactivated was easier said than done.
“I had the most difficult six months of my life. It was a Via Crucis indeed.”
He recalls the European Union’s External Relations Commissioner Hans Van den Broek blatantly saying:
“Guido joining Europe is not a switch on switch off relationship.”
De Marco replied “you want to punish us for the sins of others and I am not prepared to receive a punishment for something I have rectified.”
The situation was only solved during the funeral of King Hussein of Jordan in which de Marco was representing Malta and Hans Van den Broek was representing the European Union.
“I found Hans and I expressed my concerns in very strong and determined way”
He recalls telling him: “Hans I cannot accept the prolongation of this agony. The people of Malta want to be in Europe. It was just a two year interval in an application dating back to 1990. I hope you are convinced that the Maltese want to join.”
From that morning onwards Van den Broek was on Malta’s side.
The French and Spaniards were also confounded by the electoral vagaries of the Maltese. Speaking to the French under secretary of state for Foreign Affairs in Paris, de Marco was told ‘why should we let Malta in when it is not sure whether to join or not?’
De Marco recalls being very irritated by this question.
“One has to be always diplomatic but sometimes in your diplomacy you must show a strong reaction, always with style, using the right language.”
He also recalls Spanish foreign minister Abel Matutes expressing the same doubts. When Matutes told him; “first settle your internal problems than we’ll settle yours” de Marco immediately replied “we settle our internal problems with an election. We do not need your advise on how to settle our problems.”
De Marco was made President of Malta before his diplomatic work could bear fruit and Malta became an EU member. He insists that he did take up the Presidency before having the full assurance that the negotiations would start and that Malta would start from the same position he had left it, in 1996.
“As President I advocated the issue of democracy, that if the Maltese people decided to join the European parties, the political parties should follow. The sovereignty of the people was a fundamental issue.”
De Marco remains justifiably proud that this aim was achieved.
“Apart from some difficulties after the referendum, following the PN’s electoral victory, the MLP accepted what I had been saying a long time, that once the issue of joining or not joining is determined the MLP will also stand for Malta joining the EU.”
De Marco insists that as a former President he refrains from passing any partisan comment but this does not stop him from talking about “the big picture”.
He expresses satisfaction that Malta has joined the Euro zone.
“To see Malta participate in the Euro zone at such an early time is a big political achievement. This speaks highly of all those responsible for Malta joining the Euro zone.”
But he is very concerned on the lay offs, which saw hundreds of workers lose their livelihood.
“As statistics go we are one of the countries with the least number of unemployed but when hundreds lose their jobs in a single blow I feel great suffering.”
The PN was always a mosaic of different ideologies. Is there a risk of fragmentation after two decades in power?
“I don’t think so. I know all the PN leaders personally. Most have their own character and style. But there is a coagulant, which binds them all together. It is the Greater Issue.”
But has the PN hushed its battle cry after ensuring Malta’s place in the EU?
“If I was in the PN today I would say, thank God we are independent, thank God we are democratic, thank God we are European.” All this has been achieved mainly through the efforts of the PN. But we are not independent, democratic and European just for the fun of it. We should be exploiting these three cardinal pillars of Malta’s achievement.
Is there a risk that liberal elements of ideology do not sit well in the PN because of its confessional character?
“In theory the Nationalist Party always starts with a rather confessional approach, but then starts evolving by the pulse of the people. It is a party which is very close to the people”
The situation in the Middle East is very close to the former President’s heart.
Tony Bair has been appointed envoy from the quartet composed of the United Nations, Russia, the USA and the European Union with the brief of resolving the Palestinian question.
How can the staunchest ally of the US invasion of Iraq stand a chance of winning the hearts and minds of the Arab world?
“I was told that he was handed a poisoned chalice. Certainly Balir’s contribution to the Iraqi war will not help him. But Tony Blair has a particular personality-an openness that will help him in negotiations. I can only wish him all the luck in the world. His success will be our success.”
With Palestinians now split into rival camps, Gaza being ruled by Hamas and the West Bank by Fatah, the former President acknowledges what to many seem insurmountable obstacles.
“This is a difficult situation, contributed to by the Israelis because of their treatment of Arafat.”
According to De Marco this treatment was unfair towards a leader who wanted a democratic secular state that could co-exist with Israel.
“He was a prisoner in his own headquarters, which was bombed room by room. He was not even allowed to move from Ramallah to Bethlehem, the distance from Hamrun to Valletta. They humiliated him.”
De Marco recalls his monthly telephone conversations with Arafat.
“He used to say; ‘tell the Europeans to help, as they can do it.’
De Marco attributes the rise of Hamas, in part, to the way Arafat was treated.
“Some Palestinians said if he cannot defend his own freedom how can he bring freedom to us. When the Israelis had to moved out of Gaza where Hamas was present it gave credence to the idea that Hamas had succeeded in driving the Israelis out.”
De Marco insists that Europe cannot play second fiddle in the Middle Eastern quartet, contributing funds while taking a low-key political approach.
President de Marco believes that Malta’s role as a bridge between the European Union and the Mediterranean can make our country a relevant European partner and a contributor to peace on both sides of the Mediterranean.
|
 |
|
