During the European Council meeting held this week, we had to hear these dreaded words yet again. Our Prime Minister insisted that “Malta would protect its national interests, should the EU fail to come through by December”. And before the army of PL adherents guns me down for treachery, let me say that I’m as proud to be Maltese as the next person. But when the words “national interest” are uttered in the same phrase of veiled threats and empty promises, I shudder to think what they can lead to.
In the past, on the world scene, national interest led to a multitude of abhorrent deeds. The most extreme one I can think of is Adolf Hitler’s ascent to the top political job in Germany, which occurred on the wave of resuscitating the German national interest following the debacle of the First World War. I’m in no way comparing Hitler and Germany in the 1920s and 1930s to Malta today, but it is crucial to discuss what constitutes national interest, as it is a concept steeped in various notions and varying degrees of political philosophy.
I already had the opportunity to discuss this in one of my recent articles when discussing the issue of the George Cross on our national flag. Yet again, those harping on the need to be bullish with our European partners on the issue of migration are, in my opinion, misguidedly mistaking nationalism for patriotism. With this way of thinking, they are not protecting Malta’s interests but merely segregating it from the civilised world – a world in which where there is a humanitarian crisis, the international community is united in taking a stand and tackling the problem.
It is true that the European Union must do more to assist its southern member states in dealing with the immigration influx from North Africa and the Middle East; but feet stamping and ultimatum threats are surely not the right way to achieve this. It appears to me that this attitude can only lead to further isolation – an isolation that goes beyond our physical state of being an island, and can only harm – and not protect – the national interest.
Moreover, it is a bit rich for a Prime Minister claiming he is all out to safeguard the national interest, only to be the one leading an administration which through its deeds has been less than a paramount example of what a guardian of national identity and reputation should be. Some clear examples come to mind.
How about the prostitution of Malta’s reputation through the so-called “Individual Investor Programme”? For over 20 years, one administration after another worked tirelessly to reform Malta’s name on the international scene, making one of the smallest countries in the world a European Union Member, a respected financial services jurisdiction and an esteemed international political partner. But what type of message are we sending out to the international community now that our government has deemed it fit to sell our citizenship without any proper guarantees and with the adjudication process shrouded in mystery and subterfuge? Is the government protecting the national interest when allowing Malta to be used as a back alley access to the European Union to those who can afford it? Is the government safeguarding the national interest when it will be allowing Malta to become a nation of convenience in the eyes of our European partners?
Surely, government representatives must see the repercussions of going down the path of taking policy decisions just to make a quick buck? What they seem to fail to grasp is that there is no way of making a quick return without consequences.
Another example that questions the government’s real attempts to safeguard the national interest is the debatable way in which various appointments have been made in the past few months. The topmost appointment which takes the biscuit in so far as the utter disregard for Malta’s good name is that of Mr Shiv Nair. Is letting a consultant blacklisted by the World Bank act on behalf of the government – and consequently the people – of Malta a good way of protecting the national interest?
What about the appointment of a Cabinet Minister’s wife as Malta’s investment promotion envoy to Asia? No justification of how good she may be in her job can validate such an appointment. The increasing number of people appointed to government boards and other quangos, whose only claim to fame is their PL affiliation, acts as a constant insult to the concept of good governance that we were promised prior to the general election. Not only failed PL electoral candidates have made it on to this growing list, but even Labour MPs, who have now given themselves the right to sit and chair these boards. Is this not a complete disregard of transparency and an example of how weakening public trust in the institutions is a way to undermine the national interest?
As discussed, I think that when the Prime Minister and those like him refer to the national interest when discussing immigration, they are doing so to play to the populist sentiment. The national interest is more wide-ranging than managing to keep boatloads of desperate people from reaching our shores because some might say “we don’t want them” or “we don’t have space for them”. Trivialising the national interest by going up to Brussels and coercing our European partners into doing something about migration is, undoubtedly, not the best way to put Malta’s interests on the world map.
Malta needs help to deal with what is, first and foremost, a human tragedy. No one doubts that we have neither the physical resources nor the international clout to tackle such an intricate problem which finds its source in the African political and socio-economic scenario. The best way to ensure support is through diplomacy and good will. Bullying tactics and pseudo quick-fixes will not do the trick.
reubensciberras.blogspot.com