Actions that define us

That changed when Malta became a EU Member State with a say on European policy. This has increased Malta's profile in international news, but the picture emerging requires some scrutiny.

Amid much talk about the 'common good' when debating local policy, which is often an excuse for the continued repression of deserved freedoms, the country's approach to policy negotiations is dominated by self-interest to the point where it is unethical. Malta consistently prioritises political expediency and economic gain for a selected few, over social justice issues related to human rights' concerns and environmental abuse.

When it comes to European environmental policy, Malta’s representatives at the EU have had a notable negative influence on three major issues of concern: European Commissioner John Dalli made a name for Malta even before he grew accustomed to the weather in Brussels by lifting the 12-year ban on GM crops; Malta's persistent opposition to EU initiatives to protect the Bluefin tuna from extinction has also received a great deal of attention; and Malta's assault on the Birds Directive to allow spring hunting to appease a local army of political bullies has also been noted.

Ironically, most environmentalists were eager for Malta to join the EU because they believed it would raise the standard of environmental management in the country. No one predicted that Maltese politicians could infect EU standards with their mediocrity. So Malta is getting the attention, but the news is not good. And, it is not limited to the environment.

Malta has also been featured negatively in the international press for its handling of civil rights. In her article published in The Guardian, Jennifer O'Mahony questioned why the EU was not doing anything about the suppression of freedoms in Malta. In an article aptly titled 'An obscene attack on Maltese culture', her introduction stated:

"What if there were an EU country where abortion, divorce, and blasphemy in public were all still illegal? Where freedom of expression was limited to saying nothing critical of the Catholic Church, nothing that the government could call 'obscene', and nothing against the few noble families who all but controlled it? Surely, given Turkey's problems, Croatia's lack of membership, and Iceland's still pending application, such a place would be expelled? Welcome to Malta".

Interestingly, she raised the following question: "Perhaps, as an island of 400,000, the people of Malta are too few in number to bother protecting? The EU intervenes in issues such as economic regulation, but not the suffocation of freedom of expression". 

On an issue that has been dominating international news headlines, the uprising in Tunisia, Malta has also had some influence on the EU's stand. As democracy protests gripped cities across Tunisia and human rights groups denounced the killing of dozens of demonstrators, Malta was one of the countries blamed for the EU's "delayed" and "weak" response to the killings by foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton. The reason for Malta's stand was seen to be its reliance on "north African autocracies" to prevent immigration, according to the EU Observer.

The Maltese government has proven it has no real problems with repressive regimes. The Prime Minister defends the push back of immigrants to Libya on the grounds that it "saves lives". Libya may be torturing them, but the government's Catholic conscience is clean.

In the same vein, pious Foreign Minister Tonio Borg recently made Malta a partner with fundamentalist Saudi Arabia in an agreement to "combat crime". This is one of the most repressive regimes in the world with an atrocious human rights record, but the government does not seem to consider that as criminal behaviour.

A country's capacity to prioritise social justice should be a measure of its social and political health. Malta's performance in this context needs a serious diagnosis.

Caroline Muscat is a freelance journalist www.carolinemuscat.com