The decision on Guantanamo detainees lies with the government, not MEPs

I refer to the declaration made by Foreign Affairs Minister Tonio Borg (February 9) and Simon Busuttil's opinion (February 11) both on the Guantanamo issue.

To appease public outcry against the demands that illegal immigration makes on our nation, the Nationalist Party in government pays only lip-service to the principle of European burden-sharing.

For when it comes to putting their money where their mouth is, specifically when it comes to voting in the European Parliament, the true colours of this deceptive administration were shown. Case in point: the recent voting regarding the burden-sharing clause in respect of the Guantanamo detainees.

The tough stance they projected to the local public, however, is completely hollow, for the European states only proposed a voluntary burden-sharing protocol. It would have greatly strengthened our case for decisive relief of the pressure on our resources caused by illegal immigration.

Yet their stand against the very principle of burden-sharing in this recent Guantanamo vote shoots us in the foot and portrays utter hypocrisy. Worse still, the motive behind their negative voting is to paint the Labour Party MEPs in a bad light for purely partisan, vote-catching purposes. For on top of the thousands of illegal immigrants we have to cater for, they sensed that to the Maltese, the arrival of potentially dangerous Guantanamo detainees would be the last straw.

I voted conscientiously in favour of a clause that given that Guantanamo is to be shut down, an outcome desired by many, European member states may choose to assist the American government in this re-allocation of detainees, especially given that several of these detainees are European citizens.

The final decision then as to whether Guantanamo detainees be brought to Malta or not would still lie with the Maltese government, and could not be decided for us by the European Parliament.

This is the devil in the detail that the Nationalist party and their apologists wilfully and craftily hid from the public. It is obvious to all that the security concerns regarding the housing of these detainees would be impracticable in a state with our level of resources in this field, but to vote against the principle in itself is a great faux pas by the Nationalist MEPs.

Why should one vote against European detainees being held in European detention centres? Why should I vote against other European countries, particularly those whose very own nationals are ex-Guantanamo detainees, being detained in their country of origin, or elsewhere in European states willing and able to accept them?

Why should I, as an MEP, restrict the choices, and thus the bargaining power that can be had by my own Prime Minister? Did the great man not stress only last week that at the end of the day he is the Prime Minister, and that in Malta, as in pre-revolutionary France, l-etat c'est moi.

The no-vote of the incumbent Nationalist MEPs against the Guantanamo detainee development was not, as is being falsely portrayed, particularly protective of the Maltese, but rather nothing but a red-herring aimed instead at diverting attention away from the very real and evident impotence of the government regarding the local illegal immigration mess. A greatly worrying situation that is only being aggravated by the recent frequent escapes from the detention centres: further proof of government incompetence, had we needed any more.

The number of those who greatly regret having voted in the Nationalist Party for a further term is also steadily increasing, and at the first next opportunity that the ordinary Maltese will have to vote, that is, at the upcoming election for the European Parliament, they will surely give the Nationalist Party, as they have in the past, a lesson it will never forget.