Correctly, no high expectations are being raised that on immigration, there could occur during the Maltese presidency of the EU any significant positive developments in European policy for the sector. I doubt whether any presidency, run for six months by any country big or small, could succeed to alter appreciably the diverse national attitudes. Political tensions have become too rooted.
As had been expected, for as long as the agreement between the EU and Turkey remains in force and is implemented, the waves of immigrants on their way to Greece and the Balkans have subsided almost completely. Instead migratory pressures have increased from Africa through the dangerous route that cuts across the central Mediterranean.
The countries that are directly involved, as well as those which are not, remain strongly on their guard against any measures that might pile on them new social and economic burdens because of immigration.
Two main issues remain wide open: how can a single European policy on immigration be designed that would distribute fairly benefits and burdens? – how can the Union’s frontiers be safeguarded against undesirable migration streams, without flouting the values that Europe proclaims as its own?
***
Afforestation
Complaints never cease about the demolition of old “historical” buildings, and the construction of new complexes on “virgin” land or in replacement of old buildings.
Meanwhile, practically nothing is said about projects that I assume are still being planned and implemented, to plant more trees all over Malta and Gozo. As far as one knows, there is a general consensus that such initiatives make sense and merit full support.
Certainly, a better understanding has gained ground over the years regarding what in the past, used to be considered as waste land. Today, stretches of garrigue are recognised as having value in their own right.
Claims are made that in a distant past, the Maltese islands were packed with olive trees. If this is true, then the islands cannot be considered by definition as arid land; they must formerly have offered shelter, shade and greenery. Given sensible afforestation programmes, the same could again occur at least in those areas which remain unbuilt.
***
Foreign interference
There are many reasons why you could consider as very interesting, the controversy in the US about Russia’s alleged attempt to intervene in American politics and influence the outcome of the recent presidential elections to the advantage of Donald Trump.
Most discussions centre on whether the alleged intervention actually happened – as well as on the charge that Democrats have shown they just cannot get over their disappointment at having lost the election.
Yet, probably the most interesting point that has emerged is the following: despite the controversies, all sides seem to agree that if indeed it happened, or if it could have happened, a Russian intervention in this area would not have been acceptable.
One cannot but be reminded of the controversies in Malta, especially during the seventies and eighties decades of the previous century, concerning foreign interference in the island’s politics. Is it acceptable that, quite openly or under cover, foreign powers or interests intervene to affect internal political decisions within states?
A superpower (as it used to be called) like the US has a clear response to that question: no.