23 - 29 December 1999

Time-warped Labour

The revelation by The Malta Independent on Sunday that the council of the Malta Drydocks had officially agreed to change its policy regarding the repair of US Navy ships is to be greatly welcomed. As a result of this new policy the Malta Drydocks will be able to tender for repair work on auxiliary and supply ships of the American Navy. No repair work had been carried out over the years on such vessels because the drydocks council had refused to accept such work on constitutional grounds. Malta's constitution forbids ship repair work being carried out on military vessels belonging to the superpowers. With the end of the Cold War, however, the validity of such a clause has often been called into question. However, the Malta Drydocks will only be bidding for repair work on auxiliary support vessels and the Attorney General has advised that such work is not contrary to Malta's constitution.

The Malta Labour Party is, unfortunately, opposing the decision taken by the Drydocks Council and is against repair work being carried out on such auxiliary vessels. Such a stand is difficult to understand and shows once again that the Labour Party's foreign policy is outdated, isolationist and time-warped. Simply from a strictly economic point of view, tendering for repair work on American naval vessels should have been welcomed with open arms by everyone in Malta. The Malta Drydocks has been losing millions of liri every year in taxpayers' money. Surely we shouldn't apply a very narrow interpretation of the constitution and refuse such repair work especially when the financial situation at the drydocks is so bleak? How can anyone refuse such work when one third of the national debt stems from the shipyards losses? Where is the logic in such a policy stand? Does the Malta Labour Party want to help the Malta Drydocks improve its financial situation or not? Should we just stand idle as our shipyards accumulate a debt of Lm250 million?

It is indeed unfortunate that Labour has now pledged to withdraw Malta from the agreement that was signed with the US Navy enabling repair work on certain naval vessels to take place. Both Labour leader Alfred Sant and Labour foreign affairs spokesman George Vella said that despite what the Attorney General had said with regard to the agreement with the US Navy, Labour had been given legal advice that such repair work did go against the constitution. However, surely it is up to the Attorney General to decide such matters? If the Labour Party truly believes in its legal argument it should undertake a constitutional case and let the courts decide on the matter.

However, the Labour Party is not only using a legal argument to back up its stand. Labour leader Alfred Sant has said that such an agreement would over the years erode the confidence and interest shown by Arab and other countries which did not see eye to eye with the United States. Which Arab countries is Dr Sant referring to? Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, the Gulf States? Such countries all follow a pro-American foreign policy so it is certainly not the case that they would object to the Malta Drydocks carrying out repair work on American naval vessels. It is obvious that the country the Labour leader is referring to is Libya. Why must Labour's foreign policy always give excessive importance to Libya? Now that Libya is opening up to the world and is keen to improve its relations with the west it is even doubtful that the Libyan government would take offence to the drydocks repairing American naval vessels, so Labour's claims make even less sense.

The Labour Party is also claiming that a 'yard which embarks on naval work would find it difficult to keep its credibility in commercial ship repair. But why is this? Surely working for the US Navy would add credibility to the Malta Drydocks and would be proof of the 'yard's capabilities? In fact the agreement between the US Navy and the Malta Drydocks would be similar to agreements that the Americans have with countries such as Greece, Portugal and Italy. As far as we know such agreements have not jeopardised these countries' ability to be given work in commercial ship repair.

Labour's policy with regard to repair work on US auxiliary naval ships and its subsequent threat to withdraw from the agreement between the Navy and the drydocks does its credibility no good. It does the country's credibility no good either. Have we not learned anything as a result of Malta's withdrawal from the Partnership for Peace and the past freezing of Malta's EU application? As for Labour's claims to want a "special relationship" with the United States, such a desire now looks increasingly hollow.