Partnership for Peace

Published: April 23, 2012 at 10:30am

This is part of my column in The Malta Independent on Sunday, yesterday.

Encouraged by Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando’s sudden interest in the supreme power of parliament to do everything but vote against his Mistra project, and tempted by the prospect of Franco Debono being overcome by his all-consuming envy for Richard Cachia Caruana, shadow and former foreign minister George Vella and pointless stooge Luciano Busuttil trotted off to parliament and there brought a motion demanding his resignation.

Within hours, the government had released a statement explaining that Vella and Busuttil had completely misread the situation by failing to put the contents of a Wiki-leaked US cable into the factual historical (for this was four years ago) context.

Quite frankly, the newspapers shouldn’t have waited for the government to tell them this. They could have worked it out for themselves by assembling the facts, which – rather than repeating one official statement after another – is their real job.

It goes without saying that there have been no embarrassed blushes in the Labour camp and that George Vella, the man who was and would yet again be our foreign minister but can’t put a diplomatic telegram into context, did not resign or apologise.

As for Luciano Busuttil, forget it. This is the man who shouted on Facebook that ‘we’ should hold Libyan funds hostage until ‘they’ pay us what they owe. When he was roundly sat upon and rubbished, he told us that he was only making a suggestion to see what people think.

And in all of this, we still don’t know the answer to the most pressing question: what does the Labour Party think now of Malta’s participation in Partnership for Peace, and will it pull Malta out when it gets into government?

I think George Vella’s current motion is a giant clue. He wouldn’t be demanding Cachia Caruana’s resignation for having worked to get Malta back into Partnership for Peace if he didn’t hate the fact that Malta is in.

After all, the first act of Alfred Sant’s government in 1996 was to pull Malta out of Partnership for Peace. George Vella was foreign minister, and he flew out with Sant to do it, making a dramatic statement for the television cameras and press photographers. He was quite determined about it.

I don’t expect he’s changed his mind, and I imagine that he’s still seething at how his Great Act of Neutrality was undone, partly by the efforts of the man for whose resignation he now calls.

‘The personal is political’ was the rallying-cry of feminists in the 1960s. They were so right, though this is not quite what they meant.

Today’s note

Joseph Muscat delivered his usual Sunday sermon to the tea-houses yesterday, possibly after reading this column, and said that Luciano Busuttil and George Vella did not bring their motion before parliament because Labour is against Malta being in Partnership for Peace, but because ‘parliament was bypassed’. Indeed.

George Vella is on very weak ground here, because he bypassed parliament big-time when he flew out to withdraw Malta from the organisation, actually going himself with his prime minister because a simple document sent via our ambassador would not have been enough of a dramatic statement.

Foreign Minister George and PM Fred were correct not to refer the matter to parliament, just as PM Gonzi (and not, for heaven’s sake, the man who carries out his instructions) took Malta back into Partnership for Peace without asking parliament for a vote. These decisions are taken by the government, the executive, not by parliament. If that were not the case, we would have no government at all, and the country would be run by parliament with no executive body.

Muscat said yesterday that Labour will not take Malta out of Partnership for Peace. The explanation he gave was an odd one, but exactly the same one he uses for Malta’s place in the European Union. It’s not because he agrees with Partnership for Peace or Malta’s place in it, but because we need stability in our international relations. In other words, Malta is in Partnership for Peace – tough, and we don’t like it – but pulling Malta out will create instability.

The confused messages Muscat and his party give out to their supporters have them all in a tangle. Labour supporters don’t know 1. what PfP is; 2. whether Labour likes it or not, and hence, whether they are meant to like it or not; 3. whether Malta is in or out; 4. that the first act of the Labour government of 1996 was to pull Malta out; 5. that Sant and Vella were able to pull Malta out because Malta was in, meaning that the Nationalist Party’s intentions and views on PfP were right there all along; and, 6. whether resignatkons are being demanded for putting us in or pulling us out.

But unfortunately, confusion tends to favour the Labour Party.




18 Comments Comment

  1. Jozef says:

    The real message given out, is that regarding foreign policy, Joseph has been reduced to mere spokesman.

    Something similar was reported by US ambassador Bordonaro when, during private talks, she noted discrepancies in what George Vella was saying and what Joseph was trying to say.

    Joseph thinks the likes of George Vella are impressed with his three year stint in Brussels.

    • ciccio says:

      Same with finance and the economy. The self-declared economist has roped in three grey-haired Kartanzjan holder from the era of the Jurassic Park to set out an economic policy which so far we have not seen or understood.

      • Jozef says:

        And social welfare, the ministry for the south thingy could have been another teaser to satisfy Silvio’s cravings. Undoubtedly opposed by Colerio Preca, who also seems to have succeeded in keeping Deborah Schembri in check.

        As with energy policy and environmental matters, which should be his forte, given the importance the European socialists have attached to these.

        Instead there’s Leo Brincat and Marlene Farrugia who’ve been assigned a duplicated role.

        The contradictory statements were evident during the Sargas racket, both wary of stepping on each other’s turf, both distant from Joseph’s statements in favour.

        Another question everyone’s asking, is who’ll bag Mepa.
        I suspect there may be more to Franco’s dislikes and love of the judiciary, Mepa is, after all, a regulatory body.

        Herrera for justice minister with Mepa in his portfolio.
        Imagine that.

      • silvio says:

        What is wrong with kartanzjan holders?

        Do you think our country belongs only to the young?

        Maybe that is the reason why the world has never been in such a mess as we are in now.

        Patience, your time will come, but of course first you have to grow up.

      • ciccio says:

        Silvio, I do not know much about the mess the world is in now. I know that Malta is doing relatively well.

        But I do know about the mess Malta was in during the Golden Years (70’s and 80’s). Those Kartanzjan holders were in their heyday at the time, going through “shining achievements in economic construction.”

  2. Jozef says:

    A Labour councillor assaults an elderly woman, a union leader condemns the report.

    A Labour supporter assaults a fellow union leader, Maltastar depicts it as a boxing match, ‘Chetcuti vs Farrugia’.

    Slowly, very slowly, violence is becoming an acceptable way of settling matters.

  3. AJS says:

    I am not certain whether the opinion on Joseph Muscat you write about here corresponds to the one you actually hold in the privacy of your thoughts, Daphne.

    However, I believe that depicting Muscat as being swayed by the conflicting forces within the MLP is mistaken and does not capture one salient dimension of the man (e.g., the fact that he managed to beat so many stalwarts to party leadership at a very young age).

    I think he is calling each and every shot through his various minions to get a pulse on what the people think and “pilot” some ideas for inclusion or exclusion within the manifesto.

    The present inconsistencies emerge only after some delay. The inconsistencies with the past may easily be apologised off. Muscat is not Sant-like and is closer to Mintoff than is probably good for the nation. What we see today, I fear, is ‘Jekyllesque’.

    [Daphne – My considered view of Muscat is that he is completely unlike Mintoff and Sant. He has no policies, ideas or opinions and he is not seeking power so as to implement them. Rather than seeking power to be able to implement his ideas, he is seeking ideas so as to be able to gain power. He is the classic character featured in the 1970 film, The Rise and Rise of Michael Rimmer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPE-vddZ-aA

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_and_Rise_of_Michael_Rimmer ]

    • AJS says:

      Well, first thanks for the film title – never heard of it before; looks rather interesting.

      Second, you may have a point. How rather naive of me to think that people actually try to gain power as an instrument of change and for the greater good of society.

    • ciccio says:

      My considered view of Muscat is that:
      1. He has no policies, ideas or opinion and he is not seeking power so as to implement them. Agreed.
      2. He is being pushed to obtain power by those around him, mostly the dinosours of the Golden Years, who would like to return to the Mintoffian methods.
      3. His only real plan is to be Prime Minister at, what was it, 37 or 39.

      • paddy says:

        Joseph Muscat wants to take all the ideas that Eddie had in the 80s but he has not considered the fact that people would always prefer the original to the copy…..but the blue ties and blue background was too much not to comment on.

        The next Labour slogan will be Xoghol – Gustizzja – Liberta’ or Joseph Mexxej tal-Maltin

      • C Falzon says:

        Ciccio, I agree with all three points but not with AJS’s notion that “he managed to beat so many stalwarts to party leadership at a very young age”

        The way I see it is that the old fossils of the 70s have discovered in him the perfect tool to get Labour elected. Far from beating them he has been put there by them.

        After that is accomplished I do not see him surviving very long as PM, except possibly as a mere puppet.

        If there are any concrete plans that the PL has I think they have more to do with what the PL’s structure will be a few months after the election rather than what to do about the economy or such trivialities.

      • ciccio says:

        “Far from beating them he has been put there by them.”

        That is what I think, too.
        The Kartanzjan holders (sorry, silvio) tried to hide their grey hair behind Joseph’s fair hair. The problem is that his hair is now almost all gone, and we can now see the silver lining behind Joseph’s head.

  4. DICKENS says:

    As has been increasingly evident of late, all the old Mintoffians are busy hijacking the party from under his backside and he has not even noticed it yet. The Labour media are overflowing with voices, surnames and personalities that hark back to the Mintoffian era that Alfred Sant tried so hard to make us all forget.

    IMAGINE WHAT IT WILL BE LIKE WITH HIM ENTHRONED AT CASTILLE AS A FIGUREHEAD LEADER AND PRIME MINISTER.

  5. GALLETTU says:

    We should all have a look at what the socialists are doing in France. It seems that the same campaign is going on over here by the PL – gloom and doom and not real political objectives except getting into power and then who cares.

    And the result of such policy is already showing alarm in other countries.

    • DICKENS says:

      Did you notice how the stock markets reacted to yesterday’s elections in France?

      They got the jitters at the possibility of the socialist contender becoming President.

  6. Francis Saliba MD says:

    On present showing Joseph Muscat thinks that, after a very long stint in power by the Nationalist Party, the time has come for the over-ripe plum of power to fall into his open mouth provided that he does not use his mouth to say anything that means anything.

  7. qwerty says:

    Correction. George Vella and Alfred Sant did not fly out. They sent an emissary who delivered the required papers containing Malta’s withdrawal to the highest level civil servant in NATO, its Secretary General, in Brussels.

    Under PN governments since then, it is worth noting that that emissary has been promoted to senior management level in our civil service and will probably reappear in a higher position in case of a MLP victory.

    Same old faces, different times. Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose.

Leave a Comment