Qed isir tajjeb li ma titpoġġiex aspettativa kbira dwar li fil-qasam tal-immigrazzjoni, b’Malta fil-presidenza tal-Unjoni Ewropea, jista’ jkun hemm xi titjib qawwi fil-politika Ewropea għall-immigrazzjoni. Niddubita kemm presidenza ta’ pajjiż kbir jew żgħir f’temp ta’ sitt xhur, tista’ tibdel b’mod notevoli l-attitudni tad-diversi pajjiżi. It-tensjonijiet politiċi huma qawwija wisq.
Kif kien mistenni, sakemm jibqa’ jitwettaq il-ftehim bejn l-Unjoni Ewropea u t-Turkija, il-mewġa ta’ immigrazzjoni lejn il-Greċja u l-Balkani battiet bil-qawwi. Minflok, żdiedet il-pressjoni migratorja mill-Afrika permezz tar-rotta perikoluża minn nofs il-Mediterran.
Il-pajjiżi involuti direttament, u dawk li mhumiex, jinsabu attenti biex ma jċedu xejn li jista’ jgħabbihom b’piżijiet soċjali u ekonomiċi ġodda minħabba l-immigrazzjoni. Żewġ kwistjonijiet ewlenin għadhom miftuħa beraħ: kif se tinħoloq politika Ewropea waħda dwar l-immigrazzjoni li tqassam b’ġustizzja l-benefiċċji u l-piżijiet? – kif se jitħarsu l-fruntieri tal-Unjoni mill-immigrazzjoni mhux mixtieqa, mingħajr ma jitwarrbu l-valuri li l-Ewropa tistqarr?
***
Afforestazzjoni
L-ilmenti ma jaqtgħux dwar it-twaqqiegħ ta’ binjiet qodma “storiċi”, u dwar il-bini ta’ blokok ġodda fuq art “verġni” jew minflok binjiet qodma.
Fl-istess ħin, kważi ma nisimgħu xejn dwar proġetti li nimmaġina għadhom jitfasslu u jitħaddmu, biex jitħawlu aktar siġar ma’ Malta u Għawdex. Sa fejn naf jien, hemm qbil ġenerali li ħaġa bħal din tagħmel sens u hi tajba minnha nnifisha.
Veru li daħal apprezzament aħjar matul is-snin, għal dak li fl-imgħoddi konna nqisu bħala art mitluqa u żdingata. Illum, artijiet tal-garrigue qed jingħataw għarfien u valur.
Igħidu li f’imgħoddi mbiegħed, il-gżejjer Maltin kienu miżgħuda b’siġar taż-żebbuġ. Jekk dan minnu, dawn il-gzejjer mhux bilfors għandhom jitqiesu bħala post aridu; anzi kienu joffru kenn, dell u ħdura. Bl-afforestazzjoni l-istess ħaġa tista’ tiġri mill-ġdid fl-imkejjen li għadhom mhux mibnija.
***
Indħil barrani
Interessanti għal ħafna raġunijiet il-kontroversja fl-Istati Uniti dwar jekk ir-Russja pprovatx tindaħal fil-politika Amerikana billi tinfluwenza r-riżultat tal-elezzjoni Presidenzjali favur Donald Trump.
Ġrat jew ma ġratx dil-ħaġa? Fuq hekk l-aktar li qam id-diskors; kif ukoll fuq l-akkuża li saret lid-Demokratiċi, li qed juru kif ma jistgħux iġerrgħu t-telfa elettorali li qalgħu.
Biss, x’aktarx li l-aktar punt interessanti hu dan: minkejja l-kontroversji, in-naħat kollha jaqblu li kieku/jekk ġara, l-intervent Russu ma jkunx aċċettabbli.
Dan fakkarni fil-kontroversji f’Malta, speċjalment fis-snin sebgħin/tmenin tas-seklu l-ieħor, dwar l-indħil barrani fil-politika tal-pajjiż. Hu aċċettabbli li fid-deher jew bil-moħbi, potenzi jew interessi barranin jintervjenu biex jaffettwaw deċiżjonijiet politiċi interni?
Minn superpotenza – kif konna ngħidulha – bħall-Istati Uniti, it-tweġiba ħarġet ċara: le.
English Version – Immigration and Europe
Correctly, no high expectations are being raised that on immigration, there could occur during the Maltese presidency of the EU any significant positive developments in European policy for the sector. I doubt whether any presidency, run for six months by any country big or small, could succeed to alter appreciably the diverse national attitudes. Political tensions have become too rooted.
As had been expected, for as long as the agreement between the EU and Turkey remains in force and is implemented, the waves of immigrants on their way to Greece and the Balkans have subsided almost completely. Instead migratory pressures have increased from Africa through the dangerous route that cuts across the central Mediterranean.
The countries that are directly involved, as well as those which are not, remain strongly on their guard against any measures that might pile on them new social and economic burdens because of immigration.
Two main issues remain wide open: how can a single European policy on immigration be designed that would distribute fairly benefits and burdens? – how can the Union’s frontiers be safeguarded against undesirable migration streams, without flouting the values that Europe proclaims as its own?
***
Afforestation
Complaints never cease about the demolition of old “historical” buildings, and the construction of new complexes on “virgin” land or in replacement of old buildings.
Meanwhile, practically nothing is said about projects that I assume are still being planned and implemented, to plant more trees all over Malta and Gozo. As far as one knows, there is a general consensus that such initiatives make sense and merit full support.
Certainly, a better understanding has gained ground over the years regarding what in the past, used to be considered as waste land. Today, stretches of garrigue are recognised as having value in their own right.
Claims are made that in a distant past, the Maltese islands were packed with olive trees. If this is true, then the islands cannot be considered by definition as arid land; they must formerly have offered shelter, shade and greenery. Given sensible afforestation programmes, the same could again occur at least in those areas which remain unbuilt.
***
Foreign interference
There are many reasons why you could consider as very interesting, the controversy in the US about Russia’s alleged attempt to intervene in American politics and influence the outcome of the recent presidential elections to the advantage of Donald Trump.
Most discussions centre on whether the alleged intervention actually happened – as well as on the charge that Democrats have shown they just cannot get over their disappointment at having lost the election.
Yet, probably the most interesting point that has emerged is the following: despite the controversies, all sides seem to agree that if indeed it happened, or if it could have happened, a Russian intervention in this area would not have been acceptable.
One cannot but be reminded of the controversies in Malta, especially during the seventies and eighties decades of the previous century, concerning foreign interference in the island’s politics. Is it acceptable that, quite openly or under cover, foreign powers or interests intervene to affect internal political decisions within states?
A superpower (as it used to be called) like the US has a clear response to that question: no.
Post a comment