Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1300177
11 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 18 OCTOBER 2020 OPINION Plan for the Environment and Devel- opment), which "specifies designated areas to be considered as potentially suitable to accommodate fuel stations without creating adverse incompatibil- ities" (needless to add, 'public gardens' do not qualify as 'suitable') > it also violates the Aarhus Conven- tion, which holds – among many other things – that any project which is likely to have an environmental impact, must involve proper consultation with all stakeholders (in this case, the Gzira lo- cal council wasn't even informed about the decision – still less 'consulted' – and a petition signed by 4,000 residents was completely ignored). There were, of course, numerous other arguments – most of them too technical to be included here – but it doesn't really matter, because the In- ferior Court of Appeal (presided over, if you please, by the Chief Justice) sys- tematically threw out all of them, one by one: each time, on the basis of what can only be described as a blatant dis- tortion of the truth. For instance: with regard to the 'NHRL01' objection, the Chief Justice observed that "the site to which the fuel station relocation has been approved does not fall within the confines of the Gzira and Ta' Xbiex garden. This emerges, in the clearest possible way, when one refers to the GT1 Map of the Local Plans for the North Harbour re- gion…" Huh? What? Is the Chief Justice col- our-blind, by any chance? Reason I ask that, if you do 'refer to the GT1 Map' (as I did, immediately after reading that) you will surely realise that the chosen site – all 900+ square metres of it, in fact – falls entirely within the Gzira garden… and the garden itself is very clearly marked out in dark green. According to the same map's leg- end, 'dark green' means 'Public Open Space'… of the kind that is supposedly protected at law, under both the Local Plans and the SPED regulations. But not only was this incontrovertible fact turned on its head by the ruling… but the same falsehood was used to similarly overturn the SPED objection, too. Likewise, the Chief Justice side- stepped the objection based on prox- imity to other petrol stations, by argu- ing that "no studies for an alternative site were needed in this case due to the fact that the site is ideal for relocation, and this is because it is only 100m away from the current site and therefore its current function to serve the same community will be retained". Apart from being a perfect non-sequi- tur, in the sense that it fails utterly to address the core reasoning of the ob- jection… this argument also overlooks the fact that the 'community service' aspect – if we can even accept that as being applicable to a petrol station – is already amply served by no fewer than three other stations, all located less than 500 metres away. And if there is still any doubt about that, may I personally invite the Chief Justice to accompany me on a walk from the proposed relocation site, to the nearest other petrol station in the vicinity: Paul & Rocco, at the bottom of Testaferrata Street… literally around 200 metres away (as can very easily be attested, by simply counting the paces as we walk). Besides: what about the 'community service' provided by the garden itself… which the same GT1 Map also reveals to be – as I said at the very beginning – the only public open space of its kind, for literally miles around, in a densely populated region inhabited by over 50,000 people? On what legal basis can the Inferior Court of Appeal possibly justify the loss of such a vitally essential service… essential to the entire community's sanity, and its ability to lead a normal, decent quality of life - merely to ac- commodate what is ultimately a private commercial enterprise: from which ab- solutely no one else will benefit, other than the owner/applicant himself? Not to mention, of course, the sheer injustice of it all, even from a strictly commercial perspective. How many other private entrepreneurs get to be gifted public land – first by the Plan- ning Authority, then by the law-courts - for their own exclusive personal use and profit? Can we all start taking slices of public gardens, and turn them into our own private petrol stations, private restaurants, private lidos, private apart- ment blocks, private zoos, private ga- rages, etc.? Or does it only apply to a se- lect few: i.e., the well-connected ones… the ones with 'friends in high places'? No, no, make no mistake. As Boromir would no doubt have put it: "not with 10,000 legal arguments can you pos- sibly justify a criminal injustice of this magnitude. This is folly…" Lying about others can only damage the US' own credibility ON 11th October, the US Chargé d'Affaires published an article in MaltaToday about the recent vis- it to Malta by the US Secretary of Defense. Regrettably, however, the author used the article to attack China and, like her predecessor, she did so based not on facts, but sheer lies. The author accused China of "debt trap diplomacy and opaque financing practices". The truth is, Chinese assistance to other coun- tries never has any political strings attached. China's cooperation with other countries is designed to seek win-win results. China has provided substantial support to and engaged in close co- operation with African and other developing countries. Not a single country has been hit by a debt cri- sis because of Chinese investment. China's Belt and Road initiative is widely welcomed in the world, with 138 countries and 30 international organizations having signed Belt and Road cooperation documents with China. While China is providing more public goods to the world, the Unit- ed States is putting itself first. It has resorted to protectionism and eco- nomic bullying against other coun- tries, using tariffs as a weapon and abusing state power to crack down on foreign companies. The author accused China of "poor governance". The truth is, as the governing party, the Commu- nist Party of China is committed to seeking happiness for the people, realizing rejuvenation for the na- tion, and contributing to the com- mon good of the world. The Chinese government re- sponded to COVID-19 by adopting a people-first, life-first approach and taking decisive and sci- ence-based measures. It has quick- ly brought the virus under control. Economic and social development is now getting back on track. According to a survey by the Ash Center for Democratic Govern- ance and Innovation of Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, over 93% of the Chi- nese people are satisfied with the central government. While China is calling for joint effort to fight the virus and doing its best to be part of the global re- sponse, some American politicians are busy engaging themselves in political posturing and deflecting the blame, by politicizing COV- ID-19 and scapegoating China. For a country that possesses the best medical resources in the world, the US's handling of COV- ID-19 is astonishing. Is this the good governance of a government "of the people, by the people, for the people"? The author accused China of "disregarding internationally-ac- cepted norms and standards". The truth is, China is firmly committed to preserving the international sys- tem centered around the United Nations, the international order underpinned by international law, and the multilateral trading regime with the WTO as its cornerstone. China has joined almost all inter- national treaties and agreements, and has faithfully fulfilled its due international responsibilities and obligations. What the world needs most right now is solidarity and cooperation as it deals with a myriad of com- mon challenges. Yet the United States has chosen unilateralism and pulled out of international or- ganizations such as the UNESCO, the UN Human Rights Council and the WHO as well as international treaties and agreements such as the Paris Agreement and the Iranian nuclear deal. Is this how the United States shows its respect for international- ly-accepted norms and standards? The United States is the sole su- perpower in the world, yet it seems that lying about others has become its major diplomacy tool. How un- fortunate. Zhaofeng Wang Zhaofeng Wang is Political Counsellor at the Chinese Embassy