Greek 'tango' in Valletta

At the turn of the millennium Argentina was struggling with a protracted recession, a soaring deficit and spiralling debt. The crisis culminated in December 2001 when severe austerity measures requested by the International Monetary Fund led to massive protests, social unrest and looting.
Argentina increasingly found itself unable to pay back the debt incurred during the boom years of the early 1990s when politicians became complacent and adopted a lax attitude in controlling the public deficit. The country's problems were also compounded by the fact that the Argentine Peso was pegged one-on-one with the dollar, which by the end of the 1990s had strengthened and rendered the country uncompetitive.
Lower exports hit the economy bad and the austerity measures government imposed to address the debt problem only worsened an already serious situation.
The Argentine government was caught in a fix: it had to cut expenditure and raise taxes to placate the IMF and secure international financing that made it possible to repay its debt but this stifled economic growth, which meant less government revenue.
The negative cycle was broken when Argentina defaulted on its debt and devalued its currency. The twin decisions transformed Argentina into a pariah state for international investors for some time since the default meant that people and institutions that had invested in government bonds lost millions. Malta was not immune with numerous investors rumoured to have lost something to the tune of Lm300 million.
Argentina's story in many ways sounds similar to Greece's. Years of uncontrolled spending have created a mountain of debt in Greece. Fellow eurozone countries twice have agreed to bailout the country but the billions of euros given to the Greeks were no handouts. They came with conditions.
As a consequence the Greek government has had to resort to severe austerity measures. Spending has been cut, taxes raised, public corporations are to be privatised and all this has created social unrest. The Greek economy has also plummeted.
While eurozone countries may be justified in asking the Greeks to make sacrifices, not least to make the argument for bailing out another country palatable to the domestic electorate, this may only be staving off the final outcome.
Some economists argue that Greece is insolvent and not merely illiquid in which case continued bailouts will not solve the problem. But unlike Argentina, Greece cannot unilaterally decide to default on its debt and devalue its currency by virtue of its eurozone membership.
To do an Argentina, Greece would have to drop out of the eurozone, adopt the Drachma once again and devalue its currency to become competitive and stimulate growth. It is debatable whether this is the ideal scenario since it would signal the eurozone's weakness to manage its own problems but it is one that is now even being talked about in German political circles.
When speaking in Malta recently Former Italian Prime Minister Giuliano Amato argued that eurozone countries, especially Germany, were more interested in protecting their interests rather than putting a stop to the sovereign debt crisis. He argued that a more plausible solution would be eurobonds, guaranteed by all eurozone member states, which would absorb all or part of the individual country debts.
It is an argument that has gained ground. Economist Lino Briguglio in comments he gave me last month also posited eurobonds as a solution to the European sovereign debt crisis.
Eurobonds may sound like a sexy idea but the implications of such a policy decision are more than just economic. There are political implications that merit serious discussion.
Countries like Germany and France - the power houses of the eurozone - are unlikely to agree to take on the debt of problematic countries such as Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Spain and Italy unless such a policy is accompanied by greater economic and fiscal centralisation across the bloc.
In a nutshell this means the eurozone, or indeed the EU will have to transform into a US-style federation where the individual countries give up sovereignty over tax-related decisions and economic policy. Former German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer has argued that for the EU to survive greater centralisation has to occur.
When the euro was created individual member states gave up the right to set interest rates and passed on this important policy tool to the European Central Bank. However, economic and fiscal policy - the other tools in any government's arsenal to manage a country's economy - remained steadfastly in the hands of the member states.
The current crisis in the eurozone may significantly alter that balance as time goes by. Eurozone countries may find that losing sovereignty is a small price to pay to ensure the survival of the euro and the single market. Whether this will benefit Malta is another story altogether since the country has used advantageous corporate taxation to attract foreign investment and no finance minister relishes the idea of income tax being set by a central authority in Brussels or rather Berlin.

In any case, whatever direction the debate takes, Malta will be involved. The Greek 'tango' will have to feature in the parliamentary debates in Valletta and I only hope that it will not be lost in political rhetoric that will only help to fudge the issues at stake.
More importantly our politicians have the duty to be transparent in their dealings with Brussels over the matter. When Malta joined the EU in 2004 it had agreed to share its sovereignty with other member states and people knew what they were voting for.

However, giving up more sovereignty must not be a decision politicians take on their own or behind closed doors. In the long run it may turn out to be more beneficial but nonetheless a European project that seeks greater federalisation must never come about without the consent of its people.

Character assassination

   In 2003 former Labour leader Alfred Sant had filed a libel suit against The Times over a letter that was published in the newspaper soon after the EU referendum result in which a reader had expressed concern on what happened at the counting hall when the result was out.

Dr Sant had claimed the letter was defamatory in his regard and an attempt at character assassination.

The reader had expressed concern at the commotion that erupted at the counting hall when Dr Sant, accompanied by his deputies, had walked in claiming that partnership had won the referendum. The reader said Dr Sant was accompanied by a group of 20 or 30 people, who seemed to avoid the normal security checks when the Labour leader walked into the counting hall proper.

Dr Sant had insisted he arrived at the counting hall alone, accompanied only by his deputies and denied ever breaching security arrangements.

The court, however, decided otherwise and turned down Dr Sant’s two objections. In the first instance the court insisted politicians, like all public figures, should be allowed a greater margin of criticism. Subsequently it also refuted the argument that the letter was an attempt at character assassination. The decision was confirmed on appeal in 2009.

However, more significantly, the basis of the court’s decision was the notion that even if the facts on which the letter writer based his opinion were not wholly correct – Dr Sant did not arrive at the counting hall accompanied by 20 or 30 people – the fact that there was a commotion involving many people could have objectively led him to interpret the situation as being one of concern.

It was this court sentence that came to mind when reading the decision of the Press Ethics Commission that found Illum editor Julia Farrugia guilty in the case instituted by PBS chairman Joseph Mizzi.

Julia is not only a fellow journalist but also a former work colleague. I was her direct superior when editor of Illum until December 2008.

I am only saying this as a matter of record because what interests me more is the implication of the Commission’s judgment for the journalistic profession.

The story revolves around a video shot with two cameras showing Mr Mizzi in an apparent state of drunkenness while he was heading the Maltese delegation at the Eurovision song festival after-party in Dusseldorf this year.

The video shows Mr Mizzi holding on to a railing and falling to the ground before being escorted out.

This video made its way to Julia’s desk and she decided to publish it on the MaltaToday website and carry a story on her newspaper.

Julia’s story made the assumption that Mr Mizzi was drunk and headlined her article with the word ‘patata’. I would have been more cautious in reaching such a clear conclusion but it is unjust not to put Julia’s story in the perspective of the facts she had at hand.

Her assumption was not gratuitous. Any level-headed person seeing the video could easily assume that Mr Mizzi acted as he did because he was drunk. There may be other plausible theories: Mr Mizzi could have been drugged or could have suffered a bout of low blood pressure.

But Julia also had Mr Mizzi’s confirmation that on the night he drank a glass of wine and four shots of Jagermeister, which has an alcohol content of 35%.

To complicate matters Mr Mizzi had also told Julia that he had a stomach bug on the night, which again could have contributed to the apparent state of inebriation even if the level of drinks was on the low side.

The Commission itself noted that reporting Mr Mizzi’s unfortunate behaviour was a matter of public interest given his role as PBS chairman and the fact that his behaviour was conducted in a public place when acting in his official capacity.

However, it still chose to censure the journalist (grave censure) for assuming he was drunk. Funnily enough though, the Commission also noted that the real cause of Mr Mizzi’s behaviour remains unknown and is still subject to a police investigation after the PBS chairman claimed that his drink might have been spiked. And mind you the spiked drink theory only came to light after the story was published.

I wonder what would have happened had the video first appeared on YouTube where Mr Mizzi would not have had the opportunity accorded to him by the journalist to comment on his behaviour.

But it is the Commission’s final assertion that bothers me most, since it found Julia guilty of character assassination for bothering to ask the chairman whether his position was tenable.

Given the video at hand, it was perfectly legitimate for Julia to ask that question. As for character assassination, just like the letter writer in 2003, Julia made an interpretation of the facts at hand, which objectively could have led anyone to the same conclusion she reached. Furthermore, her interpretation was not factually refuted.

The fact that Mr Mizzi later resigned his post as PBS chairman cannot be used to justify the argument that it was the journalist’s intention from the start to force him out of his appointed role. If anything it was not the publication of the story that caused the final outcome – his resignation – but his behaviour, which till today remains unexplained. Somehow, it seems convenient to shoot the messenger rather than the message.

The Commission also posited two arguments: the video was edited to show Mr Mizzi fall twice when in fact he only fell once and he was not shown the video when contacted for a comment before the story was published.

I would have preferred a situation where Mr Mizzi was shown the video. It would have given him a better assessment of what Julia was seeing before commenting, more so when the video was forwarded to the Education Minister by the newspaper.

As for the Commission’s assertion that the video was doctored by Julia to show two falls, I think it was pretty obvious for those who saw the video that Mr Mizzi’s two falls were actually the same one repeated twice.

The fact that the video was shot by two cameras and at least one Maltese individual – who was heard swearing – was involved in its shooting has been used as an argument to substantiate the claim that Mr Mizzi was set up. If he was set up, it was nothing short of a despicable act and should not have found the blessing of any journalist.

But there is no proof – except the fact vouched for by his numerous friends that Mr Mizzi is a very nice person and not a drunkard by nature – that somebody or let alone the actual camera persons who did shoot the video had set him up.

Had this been the case it would be a story in its own right and one, which I am sure Julia would have covered as well.