Attorney General Peter Grech yesterday stated that Malta’s participation in Nato’s Partnership for Peace (PfP) programme at no stage needed parliamentary ratification, as under the Vienna Convention it was not a treaty between states. Dr Grech made this declaration during the Foreign and European Affairs Parliamentary Committee which met yesterday afternoon for an extra sitting on the Opposition’s motion against Malta’s EU ambassador Richard Cachia Caruana. This debate which has already taken eight committee sittings will now come to an end next Monday in the plenary chamber with a further four-hour debate which starts at 5pm.
The Opposition is claiming that according to a Wiki leaks cable dated 8 November 2004, Mr Cachia Caruana tried to bypass parliamentary scrutiny to reactivate the PfP participation with Nato. He is also being charged of placing the interests of foreign governments before Malta’s.
Yesterday’s sitting was held following a request made on Tuesday by the Opposition which sought some legal clarifications on this issue. In his opening statement, the Attorney General stated that PfP is a Nato cooperation programme but does not have a status of an international organisation. He said that PfP was established in 1994 in Brussels and Malta became officially a member on 26 April 1995 after a parliamentary approval on 5 April. However on 29 October 1996, following a change in government, the Foreign Affairs Ministry sent a note verbale to Nato explaining that participation in PfP was deemed as incompatible with Malta’s neutrality and thus was withdrawn. Dr Grech remarked that back then no reference was made to the security of documents agreement. In his historical overview he recalled how Malta reactivated its participation in PfP on 17 March 2008, following the general election in which the PN was confirmed in power. The Attorney General remarked that none of these agreements fell under the Ratification of Treaties Act. As participation was voluntary, no specific obligations were listed and there were no clauses dealing with ratification and denunciation.
Furthermore he explained that even though the original agreement of 5 April 1995 was sanctioned by parliament, this was not strictly necessary as it did not fall under the Ratification of Treaties Act. In that case the two possible scenarios could have been the following; Malta’s withdrawal from PfP in 1996 was defective as it was done without parliamentary consent; or else it was perfectly legal as this was not a treaty after all. The same interpretation applies for the PfP reactivation in 2008. Since it was already established that PfP was not a treaty, no ratification was necessary and hence successive governments had taken the right legal approach.
Labour MP George Vella asked Dr Grech whether this was the first time that he had received such a request. The Attorney General replied that such cases usually arise when dealing with Council of Europe treaties. He explained that following some historical research about PfP he found no documents demonstrating some kind of advice being given by his office on this particular matter. The only exception dates back to 1999 but it regarded Malta’s neutrality clause.
Dr Grech reiterated that the security of documents agreement was not a treaty between states, with Dr Vella expressing his disapproval. The Labour MP backed his argument citing the official invite for PfP participation which starts “we the heads of states of member countries invite...”.
The sitting dragged on for several minutes with both sides giving contrasting interpretations of Nato’s status whether it is an international organisation or just a number of states which in that case could imply the need for ratification. Dr Grech explained that there is a difference between an agreement among states and an agreement with an international organisation, with Labour MP Luciano Busuttil arguing that Malta’s accession was given the green light by NATO members and so must be considered as an agreement between states. In a heated exchange PN MP Francis Zammit Dimech who presided the committee, ruled that Dr Busuttil was deviating away from the subject and noted that the Attorney General could not be quizzed about international laws and Nato’s statute.