Parliament was not sought out when the suggestion that Malta had never formally withdrawn from the Partnership for Peace was made in 2004 was because that suggestion was ultimately not accepted, Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi revealed yesterday.

Dr Gonzi was the first witness called to testify by the Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee over the motion of censure against Malta’s EU ambassador, Richard Cachia Caruana.

The motion argues that a US diplomatic cable leaked by Wikileaks showed that Mr Cachia Caruana had argued that if Malta was considered to have never formally withdrawn from the PfP – but simply stopped active participation – a divisive parliamentary debate could be avoided.

But Dr Gonzi insisted that this argument was not accepted by all the relevant parties, and that parliament would have been informed if it was accepted.

On Tuesday, the opposition wanted Mr Cachia Caruana to testify first, but government insisted that the prime minister should be the first of the 21 witnesses called to testify. Opposition whip Joe Mizzi ended up eeking a ruling from Speaker Michael Frendo, arguing that the committee had not been empowered to vote on any matter.

Dr Frendo postponed his decision to yesterday evening, ruling that while the committee did not have the right to vote on the motion, it still had the right to regulate its own procedure, including the order of witnesses. However, he added, this did not mean that the majority should simply impose its will without first trying to reach a compromise, and demanded further efforts to reach an agreement.

Following informal contacts, committee chairman Francis Zammit Dimech announced the agreement reached at the start of yesterday’s sitting. He noted that while Dr Gonzi would be heard first, Mr Cachia Caruana would follow. He also remarked that he believed – or hoped – that the order in which the remaining witnesses would be heard should be easier to agree on.

Leo Brincat noted that Dr Frendo would be called to testify as he was Foreign Minister from 2004 to 2008, and questioned why his predecessor – John Dalli – was not. But Dr Zammit Dimech simply said that Mr Dalli could be added right away, adding that the committee could be more flexible than the law courts and adjust its list of witnesses as required.

The opposition’s foreign affairs spokesman George Vella – who presented the motion in the first place – was granted permission to explain it.

The MP noted that the reason for Mr Cachia Caruana’s actions was irrelevant – his original assertion that they led to Malta rejoining the Partnership for Peace was strongly denied by government. However, he added, the ambassador was ultimately seeking to avoid a parliamentary debate on the issue being debated,

He said that Mr Cachia Caruana never informed parliament about his actions, adding that as an MP he was insulted.

After a brief rebuttal by Foreign Minister Tonio Borg, Dr Gonzi began his testimony, using a prepared statement to do so, although he did go out of script a number of times.

The prime minister said that at the time, the government had no intention to actively participate in the PfP, and that Mr Cachia Caruana never went against this. However, since they were neither members of NATO nor PfP, Malta and Cyprus were not being allowed to participate in EU-NATO strategic discussions, even though they were EU members.

This participation was deemed crucial, he argued, as security matters were very much in Malta’s interest. Malta had objected forcefully when its representatives were kicked out of meetings, having even argued that certain items should be left out of the agenda to allow them to remain, the prime minister pointed out.

He said that the Wikileaks document itself confirmed Malta’s intentions in its preface, which notes that Mr Cachia Caruana’s suggestion that Malta’s PfP agreement for 1994 remained in force, Malta would argue that it satisfies “the requirements for participation in EU-NATO strategic discussions”.

Dr Gonzi repeatedly asserted that any actions taken by anyone concerned were made in good faith, and in Malta’s interest.

He stressed that the government disagreed with rejoining the PfP during that legislature, and had sought to resolve the issue while avoid that option. However, he added, PfP membership was now not controversial and had proven to be worthwhile.

The prime minister observed that Malta had its own notes about these meetings, adding that certain misunderstandings could have been avoided if these were requested.

He went on to produce the notes written by Malta’s defence attaché in Brussels at the time – current AFM commander Martin Xuereb – on a meeting which is mentioned in the US cable. Brig. Xuereb refers to Mr Cachia Caruana in his notes, and points out that the decision ultimately “rests with ministers in Malta” – a point Dr Gonzi emphasised for effect.

Dr Gonzi criticised the motion as one drawn up on hearsay, stating that one could at least expect the opposition to seek the government’s explanation before making such serious accusations. He insisted that the motion effectively accused his government and Mr Cachia Caruana of treasonous behaviour, an accusation he deemed unacceptable.

Dr Gonzi also noted that in the US diplomatic cable, the argument that the PfP agreement remained in force was originally made by a US officer, and not by Mr Cachia Caruana, although Malta ultimately decided to look into the suggestion.

The cable, he said, reported on the efforts of Maltese officials who – on his own instructions – sought to resolve a matter which was damaging to the national interest, and Mr Cachia Caruana was among them.

The EU ambassador, the prime minister asserted, always worked according to government’s instructions, and had refused any attempt to rejoin PfP when the government objected to it.

Two other options to achieve the same aim had also been explored, Dr Gonzi said: a possible revision of the EU-NATO security agreement or the signing of an ad hoc security of documents agreement with NATO. Both also failed, he revealed.

The situation only changed after the 2008 election, the prime minister said. He said that Malta had a brief window of opportunity to rejoin the PfP during a meeting of NATO heads of government in Bucharest in April 2008. Since other options were explored and found wanting, he argued, the cabinet decided to rejoin the PfP at this time, before parliament had convened.

He concluded that given the circumstances, he expected the opposition to review its stance, although he had no objection to the continuation of the proceedings.

Dr Vella subsequently asked why such an explanation had not been made until now, especially since the cable was leaked last August. But Dr Gonzi replied that the government did not feel the need to explain itself because it had done nothing wrong. It was not disputing the US cable’s contents, but the opposition’s interpretation.

The MP also pointed out that Dr Gonzi’s lengthy explanation still failed to account for Malta’s decision to rejoin the PfP behind parliament’s back.

The prime minister argued that things had to be taken in context, and that ultimately, the motion concerned Mr Cachia Caruana’s actions in 2004, and not what happened in 2008.

He noted that the US cable clearly showed that Malta was trying to find ways to solve a problem it was facing, ways which ultimately proved to be fruitless as the situation persisted for four more years.

If there was any indication of a viable solution, he said, government would obviously refer to parliament, he said, prompting Dr Vella to refer back to 2008.

Dr Gonzi continued to deem what happened in 2008 irrelevant to the matter at hand, however, while Dr Vella insisted that it shed doubt on his insisted that parliament would have been consulted if the suggestion mentioned in the cable worked out.

He also said that Mr Cachia Caruana’s assertion – as mentioned in the cable – that the arrangement would avoid a divisive parliamentary vote was his own interpretation, and not government’s.

What was meant to be a question-and-answer round devolved into more of a shouting match at the end, as MPs from both sides in the house sought to get a word in. Dr Zammit Dimech, however, ultimately stepped in to adjourn the meeting for next Monday.