If your concept of a political liberal is limited to the traditional “bleeding heart” philanthropist so often evoked by hardline critics, Graham Watson may well confound your expectations.
Two minutes into a candid discussion on irregular immigration, the leader of the European Liberals makes it clear that, for all his party’s reputation as a human rights watchdog, respect for the rule of law remains a paramount aspect of its philosophy.
“We have to police our borders properly, there is no doubt about that,” he forcefully asserts. “On this issue alone I find myself in full agreement with (German minister) Stoiber… with whom I very rarely see eye to eye. And Frontex is definitely part of this policy. But not as it is today…”
Watson, who was in Malta yesterday on a lightning familiarisation visit, was positively scathing about the European Union’s unaccountable delays in setting up the legislative framework to enable the commencement of border patrols.
“I have all along been critical of how long it has taken to get these policies in place. It’s been eight years since the outlines of a common immigration/asylum policy were laid out in the Amsterdam Treaty…”
Interestingly enough, Watson lays most of the blame for this delay on the Spanish presidency, which, he claims, “made a lot of noise for public consumption”, but failed to take any of the necessary decisions to get things moving.
“It was only in the last two or three years that some flesh has been padded onto the bone,” he adds, although he remains sceptical about the results so far. “Last month, the EU finalised a directive on the return of migrants. We have also finally established Frontex. And look at it: two rusty ships and a helicopter…”
For all his dismissal of Commissioner Franco Frattini’s cherished EU border patrol agency, Watson concedes that it was a step in the right direction. He also praises Maltese MEPs Louis Grech and Simon Busuttil for their efforts in securing an additional EUR 30 million allocated to the project: almost double the original Frontex budget.
But as far as the EU’s immigration policy is concerned, Graham Watson admits that there is a lot of work still to be done.
“My argument – and in our meeting today, Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi appeared to agree – is that it is no good dealing only with the symptoms of the problem. We must also address the root cause.”
The root cause is poverty in Africa, which Watson suggests can be alleviated by a gradual change in mentality towards global trade patterns. Otherwise, Watson warns, the choice facing Europe is stark. “We will either import their goods, or their people,” he says. “We must move towards the gradual abolition of export subsidies and tariffs, to boost African economy in order to make the continent a safer, better place to live.”
Up until this point, Watson – like many European politicians who have come here full of grand proposals regarding immigration – has limited himself to ideas for future reforms. But what has the European Parliament actually done regarding this issue to date?
Watson admits that the answer amounts to less than he would like, but he also cites one or two small successes.
“We have done a good job getting information across to people on the ground, in both the countries of origin and of transit,” he claims, adding that this information is mainly twofold: a warning of the potential consequences of entering EU territory illegally, as well as a campaign to encourage legal, as opposed to illegal, immigration.
But for the European Liberals, there is also a pragmatic dimension to the immigration phenomenon.
“The United Nations tells us we need to import 20 million immigrants over the next 20 years,” Watson points out matter-of-factly. “The demographics of the problem are frightening: by 2050, Italy will have lost a quarter of its population. Therefore, what the Liberals favour is a more intelligent policy on immigration. We need to defeat the people traffickers, by closing the back door to immigration. One way to do this is to open the front door instead…”
Leaving aside immigration and all its woes, I ask Graham Watson to outline the very basics of Liberal Democracy for the benefit of a country in which the political philosophy is all too often misrepresented. Again, his prioritisation of the main issues at stake appears to belie an widespread perception of liberals as somewhat wishy-washy idealists.
“The first issue is respect for the rule of law,” he reiterates. “For instance, I would not favour an organisation like Women On Waves (currently in Malta to address a press conference on abortion) simply docking at the Valletta harbour and defying Maltese law by providing illegal abortions. The abortion issue does need to be discussed, but first and foremost the law must be respected.
“Another issue is belief in government which is free from corruption; which respects the dignity and rights of the individual, without impinging on the dignity and rights of others.
“Also, there is the acknowledgement that the free market economy is a model which works to improve the general standard of living; but we also recognise that markets can fail, and that the State has a role to intervene to guarantee certain environmental and social standards, which the free market alone cannot sustain.”
Turning to the local scenario, Watson immediately singles out the divorce issue as a possible priority for any budding Maltese liberal movement.
“I understand that divorce is unavailable here. This is ultimately discriminatory, particularly to women. In some cases, women in second relationships are denied inheritance rights when their partner passes away. There are other social repercussions which also need to be addressed…”
Watson also proves to be better versed in the issue than one would expect from a foreigner on such a fleeting visit: understanding, among other things, that the real issue concerns the right to remarry (all other divorce-related issues, such as property and custody rights, being already catered for by Maltese law). But this, he claims, is simply a piecemeal approach to the matter.
“Good governance should not consist of finding ways around difficult issues,” he points out, with reference to the 1992 agreement between the Maltese government and the Holy See.
On abortion, Watson also confounds expectation by presenting a viewpoint which is altogether less permissive than the one so often ascribed to the liberals by their rightwing detractors. “I cannot claim to be a strong advocate on this issue. In the country where I live and work (Belgium), some people view abortion simply as another means of contraception. This is not something I can really approve.”
But he is equally sceptical of the opposite extreme, whereby one view simply dominates the agenda to the exclusion of all others.
“You can’t have it both ways,” he argues, describing the Catholic Church’s insistence on a zero-tolerance attitude to both condoms and abortion as “simply wrong.”
Having said that, Watson immediately adds that abortion and divorce – both of which are arguably more controversial in Malta than the rest of the EU – cannot be tackled in isolation.
“These are not issues for minority parties alone. These are issues which have a strong social dimension, affecting every family and every individual.”
One last question before Watson is spirited away to the airport after a hectic eight hours in Malta. What position will the European Liberals take with regard to the recent EU Ombudsman’s decision, which upheld a MaltaToday journalist’s request for access to MEP accounts?
“I have a lot of sympathy for the Ombudsman’s position,” Watson frankly admits. “There is a clear public interest in the way European taxpayers’ money is ultimately administered. My group, under my predecessor Pat Cox, had already succeeded in getting certain reforms through in this regard. For instance, it is no longer possible for MEPs to claim money without producing receipts. We tried enacting further reforms, but the fact of the matter is that there is no majority in the house for this sort of thing. Let’s hope that the Parliament will listen to the Ombudsman….”