“For oft when on my couch I lie, in vacant or in pensive mood, they flash upon that inward eye, which is the bliss of solitude”
In the present case, “they” are a string of events that have occurred in the past and an attempt to discover a connection or relationship or a common factor among them.
1. The eve of the 1971 General Election: there was a hype among the PN activists (including, then, the undersigned) because it was being rumoured that Borg Olivier was going to announce that oil had been discovered off Malta during his final address to the nation.
Borg Olivier said nothing of the sort and the PN lost the election. Pragmatic question: did the PN lose out because of what Borg Olivier was going to reveal and, at the last minute, did not?
2. 1971, Malta gets a Dom Mintoff administration. Malta and Libya get so close as to “piss in each other’s pockets”, to quote a Maltese from Australia. We get ‘cheap oil’ from Libya, which is heavily taxed by the Mintoff administration, so the Maltese themselves fill the nation’s coffers from their own pockets. Nobody else is interested in helping out. Economic disaster looms on the horizon because the British will leave by 1974. We cannot tighten our belts by even one more hole without splitting ourselves in two. The British have to be made to stay longer – and pay for it – but they were not prepared to. Demo-Christian Italy, of all nations (imagine that: Aldo Moro helping Dom Mintoff!), offers to mediate; not only that, eventually Italy forks out millions in protocols, Italian missions and so on – quite a lifeline from a near to bankrupt neighbour! But still no oil finds, no effective oil-exploration and Malta has to (L)aboriously cope and plod wearily and precariously on.
3. All of a sudden there is the Saipem 2 incident: a Libyan gunboat chases off an Italian rig (Saipem 2) (hence Italian interests) prospecting for oil in Maltese-claimed waters. The 1982 election approaches.
4. The PN is promising, inter alia, to take oil prospecting in Maltese territorial waters more seriously. BOOM! Gerrymandering keeps the PN out. Both Libya and Italy (this is amazing!) recognise the new ‘illegitimate’ Mintoff administration.
5. All of a sudden, Malta and Libya refer their respective claims regarding their territorial waters and the median line to an international court. By now, Malta has already passed a huge chunk of its air control to Libya. A bribe to entice Libya to go to the International Court, perhaps? The rumour in the corridors of the PN stamperija and outside is that there have been secret consultations regarding this issue with the PN, a consensus having been reached. During the hearing of the case, Malta never, ever once contested Libya’s own description and definition of its own coastline as to whether it was a ‘gulf’ or a ‘peripheral bay’. The outcome of the case depended only on this definition. In an otherwise curious twist, Italy (yes: once more the eye-ties; oh, not again!) participated in the case on an ‘interested observer status’. Was that just to make sure that any territorial water extension Libya gained was from Malta’s share? Definitely. Malta lost hands down in the case.
6. Even while all this was going on, and afterwards, an agreement between the PN and the MLP had been reached to entrench a majority-rule clause in the Constitution. This clause was rendered less conspicuous and important by having other articles also entrenched to render it of lesser value, en passant. But: the majority-rule clause, the government for the majority, was guaranteed by both Italy and Libya! Boy, oh boy! Pragmatic questions: Was majority rule, then, not guaranteed by these countries before? No, it was not. Just look at the aftermath of the 1982 election for proof. Secondly, what need was there for Libya and Italy to guarantee backing a democratically elected majority rule? Were the PN and the MLP, which both pose as the epitomes of democracy, not enough to do it on their own and together offer the guarantee? What was a common factor between Libya and Italy vis-à-vis Maltese interests? Only one thing and that is the status quo in oil exploration. The PN had by this time submitted and committed itself to observe the status quo and so it would be permitted to rule if it gained the majority. And, as life went on, one company after another that had oil interests (mostly) in Libyan areas, sporadically came over to drop a third farthing, maybe worth a million or so, in Malta’s own alms-box on the pretext of buying exploration rights in Maltese waters, while no effective marine oil-prospecting really took place.
7. 1996: Alfred Sant and his MLP came to power. It was being mooted that he was secretly a Francophile and that, unlike his predecessors in the MLP, he had close and friendly relations with the USA. Was DM’s candidature and eventual parliamentary seat an insurance for observance of the status quo by AS? Disaster! It seemed that to us the oil status quo regarded only marine oil prospecting. Libya and Italy might be powerful enough to bully puny Malta away from drilling for oil at sea. On land, it was another matter. Try to attack us on our own land if you dare! So we had Madonna taz-Zejt.
Either that or let’s come to better terms regarding marine oil prospecting. Disaster!
Soon after, following a jump-over visit by DM to Libya accompanied, not so secretly, by top brass from the PN, AS is kicked out of office. Common Factor: audacity to challenge the status quo regarding oil exploration and nothing less. Not only that, but he is not trusted any more by either of our neighbours and he loses out time after time. It would seem that, with him at the helm of the MLP, there could never be a guarantee that the results of Madonna taz-Zejt would remain occluded and the status quo maintained. AS has to leave if the MLP is to have any chance of ruling once again. And he has left, the MLP has become the PL and everybody there seems to have submitted anew to the status quo. That is the only chance for a future Pl-ex-MLP government; so, LG be careful.
8. Sunday, 2 May, The Malta Independent on Sunday, pages 3 and 11: a Maltese geologist of the most excellent international repute, working overseas, has his views published.
Thank you, Ms Vella and an even greater thank you to you, Dr Peter Gatt.
Your expertise and your scientifically and academically supported views make the above fantasising exercise seem much less so.
9. One could add more fantasy by quoting Mark Anthony’s speech from Shakespeare. Heavy, consistent and persistent activities to keep 80 per cent of the electorate tightly polarised, though, prevents the people from formulating their own independent judgement. Nevertheless, I formed mine decades ago.
Frank Galea
ZEBBUG