Given my age, I can well remember the political controversies that used to prevail in Malta regarding the issue of foreign interference in our internal affairs. They erupted under the Labour administration of the 1980s, when German and Italian Christian Democrats began supporting the Opposition Nationalist Party. They did this probably in financial but mostly in political mode, basically by raising adversarial issues at international fora and by contributing inputs to public meetings in Malta.
The government then passed a law against foreign interference which raised further controversies and condemnations from European quarters. Years later the law was dismantled.
More recently, so-called “authoritarian” governments began introducing laws that sought to regulate and even prohibit the activities of foreign organizations in their country which they considered to be interference in their internal affaris. About this too, a sense of scandal did not fail to materialise.
Now it is the EU itself, with the European Parliament leading the charge, which is seeking to introduce legal curbs against foreign interference in European politics. This matter is now not being seen as controversial but as necessary. Declarations are made about how the interference which is being mounted by powers like Russia and Chima is malicious, deceitful and intended to undermine European democracy and values.
***
QUALIFIED MAJORITY
In a speech given to the European Parliament plenary but also at a meeting of the socialist and democrats’ group in the Parliament, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz made repeated references to the need for reform in how the EU is run. In his view, this is necessary if the Union is to face the management challenges arising across a range of vital and very complex issues.
It will also be necessary, he believes, if the Union will be expanding to accomodate the wish of non-member countries to join it. Among these, there are Balkan candidate states which cannot be left waiting for too long on the Union’s door step.
The first reform in this direction, according to Sholz, would be the adoption of the principle that certain EU decisions are to be taken on the basis of a qualified majority instead of by unanimous agreement. Meaning that where there’s a majority of let’s say over 70 percent both of the number of states taking part and of the population they represent as a percentage of the Union’s overall population, what this majority decides should be adopted..
Among the areas which Scholz considers as priorities for such an approach are taxation and foreign (and security) policies.
That development would be problematic for Malta.
***
HAVE WE FORGOTTEN THE MED?
It was always to be expected that with Malta’s entry in the EU our interest in Mediterranean affairs would fade. Which is what happened.
It is true that at times, the old style rhetoric about the importance of the Mediterranenan for this country and for Europe as a whole is revived. But this is expressed mainly as a ritual, with the exception of when irregular migration from Libya is being discussed.
More “constructive” political and economic engagement with North African and other Mediterranean countries seem to be disjointed and hardly close, defined by a “European” logic. Ironically for Israel, this seems to be least the case.
One doubts whether the present state of affairs is of benefit to the long term interests of Malta.