Wilton Park is one of the world’s leading institutions for in-depth discussion of policy challenges. It brings together government officials, party spokespersons, parliamentarians and active and retired diplomats, as well as seasoned journalists from various countries, to discuss behind closed doors in the most informal of ways topics of different hues and orientation.

Although it is considered an executive agency of the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Wilton Park obtains financial and other support from both British government departments. These range from the DTI to the Department for International Development and the Ministry of Defence; from a number of other governments – ranging from the Committee for European Integration of Poland to the Ministries of Foreign Affairs of Japan, Turkey, Poland, the Netherlands and Norway, as well as the US embassy in London, the US mission to NATO and the US National Intelligence Council.

On the international front, apart from having business sponsors such as BP, BT and British Airways, among others, it has various corporate members, ranging from Rio Tinto to Shell and multi-lateral organisations as backers that include inter-alia the Asian Development Bank Institute, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the European Parliament, the UN University Tokyo and the World Bank Institute among others.

This year alone it has organised discussions and seminars on highly stimulating topics which included:

• Strengthening transatlantic economic relations

• Globalisation, emerging markets and the role of trade unions

• Building participatory governance and representative institutions in the Arab world

• Arab-west policy dialogue on common security and confidence building.

My invitation to attend a weekend seminar on An agenda for Europe’s common foreign and security policy reached me well ahead of the recent “No” referenda votes in France and the Netherlands.

Nevertheless, the main topic was restructured in such a way that delegates were able to discuss what future lay ahead for CFSP after the French and Dutch rejection of the European Constitutional Treaty. Apart from also discussing what are Europe’s key strategic challenges, we had the opportunity to discuss where should its focus lie as well as what is the current balance of power with the USA and how can the EU achieve effective multi-lateralism and best engage with other international organisations.

Consistent with our party’s position in favour of neutrality, I felt that the organisers were very prudent in asking me to handle such an issue as the Euro Mediterranean Partnership – an issue that unites us locally and that in no way runs counter to our party’s foreign policy.

I felt privileged that, apart from leading the panel discussion group on this issue, I was also invited to steer the working group on the topic: The Euro Mediterranean partnership: making progress ten years on? and to wrap up the hour-and-a-half discussion by reporting back to conference on the main conclusions of the working session.

I felt that it was wise of the organisers to include a specific reference to the Euro Med Partnership at a time of a British Presidency of the EU, because apart from this being the tenth anniversary of the EMP, there are various questions that needed to be addressed.

Primarily :

• Will the EU Med free trade zone materialise as planned or will it be set back as a result of the recent internal strife in the union?

• Will the EU be likely to turn inward as a result of personality clashes, directional contrasts and even ideological orientations that differ between one member state and another?

• Could failure to agree to a long term budget of the EU impact on the Euro-Med process?

• Is the Luxembourg economy minister reflecting EU thinking when he stated that the EU cannot guarantee a timetable for the free trade zone although they still hoped to achieve it by 2010?

• How should one address the claim that transformation and modernisation of the southern neighbours has been dogged by poor human rights records, democratic short-comings, opaque governance and corruption in many of the partner countries?

And perhaps the most crucial and delicate question of all:

• Will there be an overlap between the EU Neighbourhood Policy and the Euro-Med Process, as well as a degree of duplication?

The informality of the conference was also enhanced by the confidentiality with which it was conducted. The organisers made it clear that unless otherwise indicated, both opening statements and discussion are not for attribution since the resulting confidentiality is meant to ensure a frank and free exchange of views.

I would like to thank the British Government for the meetings organised in the UK as well as the British High Commission – particularly High Commissioner Vincent Fean – for having made my participation possible in this highly interesting and stimulating political event.

The Thatcherite Minister Gatt

I have nothing against privatization per se. What I object to is the belief that it automatically guarantees increased efficiency and productivity. When we were in government, I participated in the preparatory process for the privatisation of Maltacom, and had supervised discussions with Texaco regarding the possible privatisation of MOBC.

Nevertheless, I was stunned by the ideological Thatcherite statement by Minister Gatt that the divestiture of Government shareholding in commercial enterprises is expected to be concluded by the end of 2006.

Given that various EU countries, including major players like Germany, still believe in a state role in certain strategic areas of economic activity I was shocked to read the Minister’s recent statement, as reported in another section of the local press, that Malta would probably be the first government within the whole EU not to hold an interest in any commercial enterprise.

Does this mean Gatt is also referring to Air Malta, Enemalta, the Drydocks and Gozo Channel?

e-mail : [email protected]

Leo Brincat is the Main Opposition Spokesman on Foreign Affairs and IT.