Editorial | Wednesday, 11 February 2009

PRINT THIS ARTICLE

Unbecoming of a foreign minister

US President Barack Obama’s decision to close the Guantánamo prison marks a turning point in his country’s reputation with the rest of the world – in particular, the Middle East.
Guantánamo remains a glaring blot on the USA’s human rights record – associated the world over with illegal arrest and detention, as well as torture and degrading treatment – and as such, Obama’s decision can also be taken as a step towards rehabilitating America as a beacon for freedom in the world.
Europe’s response was therefore crucial, and MEPs from all parliamentary groupings – including Malta’s five representatives – passed a symbolic resolution calling on the Union to potentially accept suspects from the closed-down prison onto their territory.
Granted, a few MEPs also voiced entirely understandable security concerns. But one must bear in mind that European Parliament resolutions are non-binding: as Czech Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Vondra put it, the question of accepting former detainees remains a national decision... although it is desirable to find a common political response.
This complex issue therefore demanded a certain gravitas and decorum from European politicians, and for the same reason it also provided a perfect opportunity to divide the wheat from the chaff.
Tragically, it must be said that Malta’s politicians once again failed to rise to this challenge. Instead of debating the issue with the seriousness it demanded, they simply seized the opportunity to turn the delicate matter into a political football.
Immediately, Government criticised the Opposition as though by approving the resolution in total – including paragraph 4, which called on member states to “be prepared to accept Guantánamo inmates in the EU” – it had already welcomed Al Qaeda militants into Malta with open arms.
Needless to add, Nationalist MEPs Simon Busuttil and David Casa voted against that particular paragraph... but then, they went on to approve the resolution as a whole, rendering entirely ambiguous their own party’s official position on the Guantánamo closure.
On its part, the Labour Party attacked the PN for “not truly believing in the wise step” of Obama to close down the prison, while criticising PN MEPs on their “conservative and right-wing identity.”
Both accusation and counter-accusation are equally facile. The PN has been caught (as usual) with a foot in either boat, trying to please everyone while not actually committing itself either way. As for Labour’s criticism... what else can one expect from a Nationalist MEP, if not to be “conservative and right-wing”?
But this bickering pales into insignificance when compared to the recent outburst of Malta’s foreign minister (and deputy prime minister), Tonio Borg.
Dr Borg has in fact taken the lead in this grotesque political offensive, attacking Labour for urging European countries – Malta included – to “accept terrorists or suspected terrorists” in their midst.
Incredibly, he appears oblivious to the fact that his own words may also compromise Malta’s excellent relations with the USA, whose incoming Ambassador will no doubt be interested in a clarification of our country’s ambivalent position on the issue... as expressed by its highest-placed diplomatic official.
And just last Sunday, Tonio Borg went one step further, somehow managing to bundle together “immigration” and “terrorism” in the same sentence. In an article in The Times he was quoted as saying that Labour had criticised his government “for not doing enough to force the EU to share Malta’s immigrant burden, (when) now it wanted to host people who may be terrorists.”
This is a dangerous and reckless thing for a foreign minister to say, at a time when immigration is a foremost cause for concern in Malta. When the foreign minister is also the former justice minister, and architect of Malta’s notorious immigration policy, the statement borders on the ridiculous.
Dr Borg evidently does not realise the implications of his own words, nor the damage they may cause to our international standing. For by expressing such aggressive opposition to hosting any Guantánamo detainees, Dr Borg also puts into doubt whether he himself agrees with the prison camp closure.
By extension, it follows that he may also have a muddled-up opinion of the human rights breaches there – which, after all, are not entirely dissimilar from his own earlier policy of arbitrary detention of up to 18 months for asylum seekers.
Even if this interpretation is incorrect, it is sad to see the Nationalist Party – once, long ago, also a self-appointed beacon for human rights – fanning the flames of xenophobia and cultural bigotry, simply to consolidate its vote ahead of next June’s European Parliament elections.
All in all, this is not the behaviour one expects from a self-styled Christian Democrat who originally rose to prominence as, of all things, a human rights lawyer. It is certainly not the behaviour one expects from a foreign minister.

PRINT THIS ARTICLE

Any comments?
If you wish your comments to be published in our Letters pages please click button below.
Please write a contact number and a postal address where you may be contacted.