CONFERENCE

 

IMPLICATIONS OF EU ENLARGEMENT

 

 

Organised by PEN Club – Paris

 

 

PARIS -  BRUXELLES

 

14 – 17 October 2004

 

 

Submissions by

 

MARIO AZZOPARDI

 

 

at

Théâtre Poème

Bruxelles

 

&

 

Hôtel de Massa

Paris

 

 

 

PRESENTATION TO WRITERS IN PARIS & BRUXELLES

 

 

The entry of Malta in the European Union was an issue which resulted in deep political divisions.

 

 

The controversial matter was settled by a Referendum which turned a 54% vote in favour of Malta’s entry into the European Union.

 

 

In 2004, following the positive result, Mario Azzopardi, who had campaigned for the Yes-Vote, was invited by the PEN Club in Paris to address writers from all over Europe in Paris and Bruxelles.

 

 

The following text synthesizes Azzopardi’s four point exposition.

 

COLLOQUIM IN PARIS – BRUXELLES

 

14 – 17 October 2004

 

 

A.   The Maltese Experience : Fears and Hopes

 

By nature and because of its rigid attachment to religion, Malta is essentially traditional.  The people have largely been indoctrinated to transfer their responsibility of choice to a divine will, to destiny.  A long history of colonial rule continued to endorse this pattern of perception.

 

The choice whether to join the European Union or not thus became an obsessive tool in the hands of politicians.  Sadly, the intellectual class generally preferred to remain silent on the issue, at least initially.  In the final phases of the referendum campaign a group of writers published what they called “an oath”, pledging to remain rooted in a no-go position, opposing Malta’s entry to the EU.  The vast majority of writers, artists, entertainers and intellectuals, however, did not sign the pledge.

 

In the early phases of the European campaign, the Malta Labour Party hoped to cash on sensational fear mongering : the electorate was told to believe that by joining the EU, AIDS would contaminate Maltese shores; foreign workers would take over the labour market and that Sicilian men would cross over to marry local women.

 

More seriously, at the final stages of the campaign, fear of the unknown as well as widespread slogans that Malta would lose its autonomy and become a stooge of Bruxelles, gained popular currency.  The Maltese were being conditioned to believe that most legislation would be handed down directly from the European Parliament, according to this argument, Malta would be losing its neutrality.

 

Contrary to the other 9 candidate countries, where most major political parties were in favour of their respective countries joining the EU, bipolar Malta had one of its two main political forces, the MLP, opposing membership.

 

The party in Government, the Nationalist Party campaigned for European membership.  The prevailing slogan was that it would be highly illogical for Malta to stay out of the Union.  Even from a distinctive historical standpoint, Malta had become the European seat for the Order of the Knights of St. John, a virtual assembly of European nations.

 

On a more pragmatic note, the slogans in favour of EU membership were based on the following hopes:

 

·        Malta in the EU would become a stronger country;

·        The Maltese would be opening their minds towards a society without frontiers;

·        Voting YES was in the best interest of our children and future generations;

·        Malta’s fragile economy would benefit from an expanded market of some 400 million.

 

A positive attitude towards change would evolve into a better future, as opposed to the status quo.

 

The outcome of the referendum election was a turnout of 270,650 voters, or 91% of those eligible to vote.  The YES vote polled 54% against 46% of voters who preferred Malta to stay out of the European Union.

 

B.   The Weight of the Past : Elements of Unity and Elements of Division before and after 2nd World War.  Ideological Divisions.  Realities and Consequences.

 

Having been ruled by the Phoenicians, Romans, Arabs, French and British, Malta became an independent nation in 1964, forty years ago and last year it sealed its future as a neutral island belonging to a strong, political and economic and social bloc.

 

Notwithstanding its instinct for survival, Malta has not been free of internal divisions and strife.  The Maltese electorate is almost equally divided between the two major political parties, the Partit Nazzjonalista (PN) and the Malta Labour Party (MLP).  The political scene for the past 100 years has been dominated by these two entities.

 

Before the 2nd World War, the Partit Nazzjonalista lobbied strongly for Malta’s annexation to Italy as a strategy to liberate the island from British colonial rule.  The nationalist movement in Malta was clearly influenced by the Risorgimento in Italy, represented by Mazzini, Garibaldi and Cavour.  Mazzini’s nationalistic aspirations to a free, republican Italy, as well as Garibaldi’ visit to Malta and the flow of Italian refugees escaping the civil war clearly struck the imagination of the literati in Malta.

 

On the other hand, the Malta Labour  Party was more orientated towards anglo, liberal politics, a position that often ended up in stark contrast to the Vatican-dominated Catholic Church in Malta.

 

Before the war, the pro-Italian movement in Malta had lobbied strongly for the Italian language to be recognized as Malta’s official tongue.  Sensing the danger, the British administration threw its weight behind a number of authors and intellectuals who fought for the official recognition of the Maltese Vernacular.  The language question was settled in 1934, when Maltese was given official status.

 

The 2nd War settled the political score as Italy declared hostilities in 1940, the year when the first bombs from the Italian air force rained over Malta.  As a British colony, Malta found itself on the side of the coalition against Fascism.

 

Soon after the end of the 2nd World War, the Malta Labour Party demanded full integration with Britain and declared itself a Socialist Party.  The two issues provoked deep divisions between Labour and the Catholic church, which condemned the Executive of the labour Party and declared it a “mortal sin” for the electorate to vote Labour.  A referendum to integrate Malta with Britain failed, but the politico-religious struggle continued to be a matter of profound division.

 

Meanwhile, the Partit Nazzjonalista launched a campaign for political independence and the issue was settled in 1964, when Britain granted Malta freedom.  In 1974, Malta was declared a Republic.  Excluding a few years of political and democratic turmoil during the eighties under a Labour government, when Malta was in danger of becoming a police-state, the small country has always enjoyed a strong, democratic system.  This notwithstanding, political divisiveness still dominates the local scenario on practically all issues of importance, making the arena very colourful indeed.

 

Again intellectuals and artists are, by and large, absent from the political debate, preferring instead, to survive in their self-constructed, safe cocoons.

 

C. Obstacles and Differences : Opposition of New Member States against the Old (Especially France). How to Overcome them.

 

Malta is made up of an archipelago of tiny islands in the middle of the Mediterranean.  It has a population of 391,000 and a GDP of 4 million Euro.  The GDP per person is 10,300 Euro and the unemployment rate is 6.7%.  Agriculture represents 2.2% of the economy and the largest sector is tourism, accounting for 27/5 of the overall economy.

 

Reality dictates that size does matter and Malta’s situation does provoke a sense of vulnerability when confronted with much larger countries.  For instance, Malta is still lobbying to a sixth seat in the European Parliament, arguing that Luxemburg, with only 30,000 more citizens, was allowed six places.  Hungary and the Czech Republic are also indicated by Malta as precedents : they asked for 22 seats instead of the original 20 assigned to them.

 

The campaign for the referendum in Malta did raise much concern about national cultural identity, and both globalization and European Unification elicited resistance and concern among a large percentage of the population.  To a large extent, such cultural apprehensions were mitigated when the European Commission declared the Maltese language as one of the official tongues of the Union.  But in terms of cultural resources, so vital for Malta’s cultural tourism, the country is aware that even after expansion, the cultural funds of the European Commission remain at only 33 million Euros per year.

 

Even the EU structure funds can only provide 10% to each of the ten new members when compared to what was available for Greece, Spain, Portugal and Ireland.

 

In other words, Malta is in dire need of financial support to upgrade its cultural tourism policy but in practice, the enlargement does not result in automatic advantage.  Moreover, it is clear that countries like the Netherlands and Germany will favour their East European neighbours.

 

Malta can only take refuge in the plea that Jacques Lang, the former French Minister of Culture, had made for a stronger European policy on culture.  Of course, there will be those who argue that cultural policy in France is “from the top down” and that they not want a French cultural policy at European level.  Malta’s cultural concerns are very much related to economical expedience; in other words, it is seeking a cultural policy with added value.

 

Malta cannot rely so much on partnerships with Mediterranean countries.  Infact, countries like Italy, Spain, Greece and Cyprus could be seen as direct competitors, not only in terms of the tourist industry but also when it comes to the region’s strategic setting.  Mediterranean shipping lanes are of vital importance to countries in the region.

 

Continent-oriented rules were not structured to fit Malta’s micro-society living on the very periphery of Europe.  Such problems are compounded by lack of natural resources and a fragile economy, especially since the manufacturing industry, with foreign capital, has been looking at advantages existing in countries from the ex-Soviet bloc.

 

Malta has been and will be trying to use wisdom and adeptness to safeguard operations that will bring in much needed revenue.  New ideas in the areas of tourism, trans-shipment, ship repair, information technology and small and medium enterprise can make a success story out of Malta’s entry into the European Union.  But first and foremost, there should be realistic assessment.

 

D. Points of Agreement and Harmony.  Ways to Promote and Publicize them.

 

What is European enlargement about?  To borrow the words of outgoing European Commission President Romano Prodi, “it is about the unification of the continent, the bridging of divide that split us into two halves, standing eyeball to eyeball for fifty years.”  It is about forgetting the traumas of the past, to extend democracy, peace, stability and cohesion, to include lands hitherto excluded.  European enlargement is about a shared workforce, a shared market and shared prosperity.

 

But Europe is much more than an economic blueprint.  Europe is also an ethos, a moral sensibility.

 

In the summer of 2003, many European newspapers carried an appeal by the two eminent philosophers Jacques Derrida and Jürgen Habermas.  The appeal, entitled The Rebirth of Europe, was introduced by Derrida who insisted it was “necessary and urgent”, in the wake of America’s waging of war in Iraq, “for German and French philosophers to raise their voice together.”  Earlier that year, millions of Europeans had marched simultaneously on the streets of London, Rome, Madrid, Paris, Berlin and Barcelona to oppose the war in Iraq.  It was an affirmation of a common European identity, of multilaterism, of transcontinental law, of post-heroic cultural and political style and anti-unilateralist behaviour as demonstrated by the high-handedness of George W. Bush.

 

Besides the hallowed notions of political and social bridging, the new Europe should be activated to face the threats of terrorism, a new plague that has become habitual.  Lay and religious terrorism has intensified and been reinforced after the intervention in Iraq.

 

What are the origins and the causes of such terror tactics?  Is terrorism a fundamentalist, Islamic ideology?  Is it the rebirth of crusade? Has it to do with an elitist transnational strategy?  Is it looking for legitimization?  Is it a war against the values of the West in the shape of Americanisation?  Is it simply religious fever and delirium?  Is it a war of civilization? A global jihad?

 

Or is it rooted in Palestine as a symbol of an open wound, instrumentalised to instill fear and terror in the West?

 

A unified Europe has to find points of agreement and common action in the face of such menacing strategies.  The scale of the European project has to take unflinching terrorism into account.  There should be an “alternative method” to deal with the phenomenon as otherwise, we would have to fact spectacular tragedy.

 

Equally imperative is the problem of clandestine migration, especially around the Mediterranean basin.  Tackling the ever-growing problem of illegal immigration is becoming a top priority.  As José Manuel Barroso pointed out during his visit to Malta last week, “clandestine immigration is a serious problem, the key to which lies in everyone to work together to try and solve.”

 

As a small Euro-Mediterranean nation, Malt is spending 2.4 million Euro a year to contain the problem and has appealed for EU assistance to build a new “open centre” in Malta where illegal immigrants awaiting refugee status could be accommodated.