J.M. Pirotta and the polemics of destructive delusion

J.M. Pirotta's article "The MLP and the EU: the politics of creative illusion" (The Sunday Times, December 29) beats all records for the distortions and misconceptions it puts forward regarding the MLP's policy on Malta's relations with the European Union.

It starts by generously accepting that I personally have the right to believe what I believe about such relations. I cannot thank Professor Pirotta enough for his magnanimity, even if it serves to dress up the snide innuendoes that he presents as arguments in order to make them sound reasonable.

His approach forms part of the current blitz to project Labour's polices vis-à-vis Malta's relations with the EU, as hopeless and misguided.

Here is a revealing instance of Pirotta's style:

"Another (Labour) tactic is to target the individual not the argument," Professor Pirotta writes. "The people at the Malta-EU Information Centre (MIC) are a main target. Their fault: they deal in facts that expose the political corner into which Dr Sant has so successfully painted himself. All individuals who publicly disagree with his stand on Europe... are systematically targeted."

And here is some of the language that Pirotta then proceeds to use in my regard: "...he even conned some government members..."; "he concentrated on honing the tactic of instilling fear of the unknown"; "the question was how to conjure (a viable alternative)", and so on.

The partnership option

As I now will be replying in language that is just as robust as Professor Pirotta's, he will no doubt accuse me, in his brand of Orwellian speak, of targeting the individual, not the argument. The implication also is that MIC should remain outside the pale of criticism by the Opposition. How convenient!

Professor Pirotta mentions the KSU seminar I attended recently in Valletta, with Charalambos Xirouchakis from Directorate-General F. He is not, as stated by Professor Pirotta, responsible for the EU's Public Relations Council (?). Well, that was a meeting at which I was astounded by Professor Pirotta's aggressive and incoherent stance.

But if, on that occasion, what Pirotta meant was what he wrote last Sunday, namely that according to (Commission President) Professor Romano Prodi, partnership is intended for countries that cannot become EU members, he (Pirotta) is plainly wrong. The partnership mode being discussed at the European Convention would be applicable to those European countries which for their own reasons, do not wish to, or which cannot, become members of the EU.

This was confirmed by Giuliano Amato, former Italian premier and vice-president of the European Convention. Mr Amato wrote that while under the present diplomatic conditions of Malta being a candidate country for full EU membership, partnership does not apply to Malta, it obviously would were Malta to change its position.

Professor Pirotta writes: "What Dr Sant can't stand, of course, is (the English-language papers') habit of asking inconvenient questions, to which he has no answers. Witness this paper's recent leaders that elicited replies from Dr Sant that were long in the pen, but short in substance."

I invite all interested readers to look back at the editorials of the STOM in question (November 3 and 10), the article by Dr Austin Bencini (November 17), and my point-by-point replies to the questions they raised on November 10 and 24. To date, there has been no concrete point-by-point reply to my rebuttals. Obviously Professor Pirotta believes in the scholarly tactic of ignoring a reply, letting time pass, and then say it never happened or was insubstantial. Again, how convenient.

In those replies, I also stated at length what Labour's partnership proposal consists of. For that reason, I will not repeat its details (vide Cols. 2 and 3, of "Partnership can, should, will be", The Sunday Times, November 10).

The record

However, in telegraphic form, I must address the "arguments" and innuendoes put forward with panache by Professor Pirotta. I will take them under two headings: comments related to Labour's position pre-1998; and developments since then.

Professor Pirotta claims that between 1992 and 1996, Labour simply lifted Mr Mintoff's "Switzerland in the Med" concept of 1959, and ignored geostrategic changes that had taken place since. Untrue.

Between 1992 and 1996 Labour published at least two major documents, which discussed Malta's foreign and security policies. They culminated in the policy statement published in January 1996, in Ic-Cittadin l-Ewwel (pp. 143-149).

Professor Pirotta claims that between 1996 and 1998 Labour proposed to the EU "to enter into a free trade agreement overwhelmingly weighted in the island's favour". Where does he get this from? (Although, to be sure, I fail to see why any government should be pilloried for trying to go for a deal that would be overwhelmingly in favour of its population...)

However, what Labour proposed was a free trade area, concentrated on industry, in which the balance of obligations and benefits would be introduced over a reasonable period of years. There were two obstacles to this approach.

First, with the introduction of VAT in 1995, the Fenech Adami administration unilaterally removed protection across a wide swathe of Maltese production. Naturally the EU wanted to preserve that state of affairs, as of day one.

Labour proposed to go as close as possible to the status quo ante, and then work towards the removal of Maltese protection, over a reasonable calendar that would give Maltese industry a chance to adapt.

The second obstacle was the promise made to the EU by the Fenech Adami administration, without informing the Maltese people, to remove some 300 import levies, prior to the end of 1996. Labour rescinded that promise, and naturally the EU was not delighted.

Professor Pirotta then refers to three excerpts from the Malta-EU Luxembourg proceedings of April 1998 to show how, with Labour's approach, "there was not going to be much gratification involved, short term or long term".

Now I was closely involved in the preparation of those texts, and must conclude that the learned professor, since he teaches international relations, chose to misread them for his own ends.

It was always clear and accepted that, with the completion of the free trade area, over a period of years, the "discriminatory" elements of the customs and excise tax, as introduced by Labour, would have to be equalised over Maltese production. That had been Labour's intention right from the start. The EU actually accepted the point about Malta needing to give breathing space to its industry.

Robin Cook's statement about the progressive liberalisation of agricultural trade, had to be read against the fact that EU agriculture was (still is) highly protected. We discussed this matter with Commission officials, and it had been understood that the formula used, as quoted by Professor Pirotta, would allow both Malta and the EU room for manoeuvre, while remaining in compliance with WTO rules.

The third excerpt quoted by Professor Pirotta covers the hoary chestnut of Malta only having to participate in "third party programmes". Close analysis of the full membership "deal" secured by the Fenech Adami administration shows that under full membership that Malta will in practice be financing its participation in "certain Community programmes".

So much for the scorn heaped upon the phrase "third party programmes", which refers to social, environmental and security arrangements that in and of themselves would have served Malta in good stead, were not the current batch of decision and opinion makers, blinded by glitter and unimpressed by substance.

Beyond the caricatures

Let me turn now to Professor Pirotta's remarks about developments since 1998. Here our good professor lets the spirit of his destructive polemic take over. He caricatures Labour's critiques of the full membership "deal" obtained by the Fenech Adami administration to claim: lo and behold! How Labour's doom and gloom expectations have been turned to ashes!

The truth is that what Labour predicted about the end point of negotiations for full membership has happened. For the sake of brevity, let me give just one instance: EU nationals' right to buy property in Malta.

Labour claimed that under conditions of full EU membership, Malta would lose its autonomous ability to manage the internal real estate market. As a consequence, there would be an increase in demand from EU citizens for Maltese land, houses and apartments. We did not say it would take the force of a tsunami, but certainly it could come close to a double-digit percentage rise in foreign demand.

We also said that given the constraints of our island, a certain rise for a type of property demand leads to a much greater percentage rise in the price levels of property. And this would be to the detriment of our young people and young families. This is no arbitrary scenario. It has happened in such regions like the Balearic Islands.

Here is Professor Pirotta's version of Labour's argument: "Prospective househunters were provided with visions of unattainable house prices because the property market would explode as invading hordes jostled to settle here at any price."

Now what has the outcome of negotiations been?

As of day one of full EU membership, EU nationals would be able to freely buy agricultural land, and to freely set up companies for the purchase and trading of Maltese property. What happens with such property will be their business. Who is fooling whom?

On another tack, Professor Pirotta is not averse to playing the game that Labour's alternative is unknown, as contrasted to what the PN government has obtained. This after quoting amply from the Luxembourg proceedings of the EU-Malta Council of Association!

Yet, as a professor of international relations, he should know that governments and international organisations do not negotiate with Oppositions. They might tell them that they will do so, if they win the next elections. Which is what top representatives of member states have told the Labour Opposition.

It is about time that the pro-membership lobby stopped trying to scaremonger people into the belief that there is no way forward, except joining the EU. In the same way, during the Sixties, Herbert Ganado's Democratic Nationalist Party, among others, tried to scare the Maltese people into the belief that, unless they remained part of the British Empire, they would become isolated and helpless.

When the Norwegian and Swiss people turned down full membership of the EU, they successfully negotiated alternative arrangements with the EU. Ah, the pro-membership-at-all-costs crowd tells us: but look at how bad a deal they got, while not having a say in EU councils!

Really? Is their deal so bad? Over the years, it surely has allowed them to stay ahead in the competitive game, and to maintain rates of economic growth and living standards that surpass those of EU member states.

Which is why I advise people to know the facts. Not just those spun by MIC and the likes of Professor Pirotta. I refer to the concrete facts, sector by sector, that truly determine the livelihood and future of children, parents and grandparents. Destructive one-sided polemics, even if penned by professors of international relations, may provide an amusing or destructive delusion (your choice), but they do not tell the whole story. Far from it.