A bad week for neutrality
In The Times, today:
A bad week for neutrality
Ranier Fsadni
It has not been a good week for Maltese neutrality. For those who believe the government took the right decision in not offering Malta as a base for the international military coalition – and I am one of them – it is difficult to argue that the justifications being given do not sound hollow. How did we get here?
First, the words sound hollow because the case for offering a base is so strong. I don’t have in mind the jingoistic case being made on the comments boards and in sections of the international commentariat. The last time I saw words like “lily-livered” used was when I was still reading the boys’ comics that taught me words like Banzai and Achtung! Englander schweinhund!
But the strong case made by Eddie Fenech Adami and Simon Busuttil is, if anything, understated. They have made the point that the Constitution permits Malta to participate in actions sanctioned by a UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR). But while saying we had obligations as UN members they did not spell out in full why this was so.
Chapter VII of the UN Charter deals with military action taken to restore peace. Its articles make it very clear that, once a resolution is taken, it is incumbent on members to follow it (so much so, that the chapter provides for members who find economic difficulty in doing so).
Therefore, UNSCR 1973, which mandated military action to protect Libyan civilians, does not just make it legal to participate in such action. It places the onus of justification on those who do not wish to offer military facilities. Someone like me, who wants to argue for the government decision, has four options, three of them bad.
First, there is the Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici high road: Challenge the motives of the resolution. Say it’s imperialistic and driven by oil and (though he did not mention this) the Gulf States’ wish to get the US bogged down in Libya so the US cannot turn its glare too strongly at what they are doing to their own civilians.
Whatever the truth of its regional analysis, this argument has a problem. The military wreckage on the road to Benghazi, left in the wake of the allied bombing of Muammar Gaddafi’s forces over the weekend, should leave us in no doubt that a massacre of civilians was averted.
There is no argument against the immediate need to protect Libyan civilians.
Second, one can argue, like the government, that Malta’s security must come first. But if there was a case for that before the establishment of a no-fly zone, it is much weaker now and that condition could have been made clear beforehand.
Third, one can argue that Malta’s neutrality means the country should keep its head down. Fine, but in that case one should square up to the fact that one is effectively saying that our UN membership should be reviewed. Because to say Malta should always keep its head down, even while innocent people are being massacred, is to say that Malta has a permanent opt-out on a fundamental chapter of the UN charter.
Fourth, one could acknowledge the case for military action but somehow argue for a different role for Malta. This is the case being made by the government and Labour, that we are serving a humanitarian role.
This is the position I would like to make in principle. I share the view expressed two weeks ago in this newspaper by Richard Rubenstein that the region has a functional need for Maltese impartiality in the conflicts that are likely to continue to arise, whichever way the “Arab Spring” goes. (Prof. Rubenstein is a director of a centre for the study of conflict resolution in Washington DC.)
The case is that such a differentiated role would be good for Europe, too. But if Malta had to be a military base, even once, even now, the possibility to argue impartiality would be lost in our lifetime.
Note, however, that this is far from a Keep Your Head Down school of neutrality. The name of this school is Stick Your Neck Out For Peace.
Nice-sounding in theory, the argument sounds hollow at this time. And the reason is that Malta, right now, has nothing much to offer by way of investments, record, trained personnel (medical, legal, mediation…), etc. that would support a national identity invested in expertise in humanitarian aid, conflict resolution and post-conflict interventions.
It is clear from our politicians’ waffle that none of them has articulated a vision for a 21st-century neutrality. So any defence of Malta’s position on UNSCR 1973 is bound to sound improvised. It probably usually is.
This is still a defining moment for Maltese neutrality. Let the country’s politicians begin to articulate a vision for neutrality and a strategic plan of institutional investment.
If they do not, then there would have been no justification for their current position in the Libyan case.
26 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Here’s the link:
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110324/opinion/a-bad-week-for-neutrality
The John Dalli saga refuses to go away :
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110324/local/brussels-refuses-to-elaborate-on-dalli-s-house-in-tripoli
Can anyone tell me where in hell Dr Harry Vassallo is? Is it true that he is serving time in Brussels with John Dalli?
[Daphne – Yes, he works for John Dalli.]
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110324/local/brussels-refuses-to-elaborate-on-dalli-s-house-in-tripoli
Neutrality is one of the bad legacies of the Mintoff era which we still have not got rid of. It is amazing how one man could ruin the fate of a country for generations and generations.
gaddafi, it was not ‘one man’: the neutrality clause was voted into the Constitution of Malta by almost the entire House, bar just five or six PN members then in opposition.
Dictators attain and retain power only when assisted by opportunists, hangers-on, and unprincipled individuals.
Malta’s ongoing and openly declared friendship with Gaddafi over the years, and now the continued inability to directly condemn him personally and his regime, are cases in point.
Bar ONE Josie
Voting for the neutrality clause was the price paid for enshrining the princple of majority rule, a condition made by that “one man”.
Had that not been done, today we would be living in a political enviroment similar to that in Tripoli.
KMB’s recent declarations further demonstrate how he and that “one man” are on the same page as Gaddafi.
Brother Leader Gaddafi: “My people are ready to die for me…my people love me.”
Inspired leadership:
“We cannot stand by and do nothing in the face of mounting evidence of indiscriminate killing and perpetration of atrocities on the Libyan people.”
“Gaddafi must be stopped.”
“Gaddafi must be removed.”
Maltese leadership:
“Violence is not acceptable from any side.”
“I wouldn’t say [we are not against Gaddafi] – we did not hand him back his warplanes.”
“There are Maltese business interests in Libya that need to be considered.”
“We did a great job in speeding evacuees on their way home.”
“The answer to any request for support to military action [being taken to protect defenceless civilians against massacre] is NO – but we would be ready to help stitch together any survivors of such massacres.”
Yes, that is right – not one single person in authority in Malta has been able to mouth anything even approaching a straightfoward condemnation of Gaddafi and his regime.
The clear inference is that if, by some quirk, Gaddafi hangs on to power in Libya, Malta would have no qualms in resuming business as usual. That makes Malta’s stand all the more despicable.
Not for the first time Ranier offers a way forward (vide his article on divorce a few months back). So my question is: why does the PM continue to surround himself with yes-men and people of a very shallow comprehension in all fields when he has people like Ranier to offer him a clear strategy?
I hate to say it because it is oh so non-PC, but I really think its a question of culture and learning, or lack thereof.
A wise leader does not need to be cultured himself, but he needs to be smart enough to surround himself with sharp and competent men and women who can see the complexities in issues and provide advice on a sound way forward.
I have not seen this happening for some time now.
An excellent article by Ranier Fsadni. However, I have one nit to pick. He has assumed that the present crop of political dunderheads can produce a neutrality vision for the 21st century when they are all firmly rooted in the early 20th century, if not earlier.
Chris, Ranier AGREES with the PM. What way forward are you talking about?
This is not a way forward. It’s More Of The Same.
Obviously I will have to disagree with Baxxter.
I think Ranier is trying to explain just what could be Malta’s role in an ever-changing scenario. In such a situation Malta would no longer be seen as the country sitting on its hands but could take the role of a post-Gaddaffi peacemaker.
Just like Norway punches much above its weight when it comes to peacemongering around the world, Ranier quite rightly perceives a similar role for Malta in the Mediterranean.
However, unfortunately, our government has neither the balls, stomach or frankly brainpower to take such an initiative.
That’s why I don’t think Ranier’s suggestion is anything but more of the same.
Fsadni (why “Ranier”?) is deluded. Malta has exactly zero clout with any country on the Mediterranean rim, including Arab countries. The one and only exception is Libya, and only because Maltese businessmen and government officials are up to their sleazy necks in business deals, and in hock to the Gaddafi regime.
For all other Arab countries, we don’t even appear on their radar screen. Fsadni’s seems to belong to that optimistic-cum-post-colonialst school of thought which comes through in some of our policy-makers’ texts.
My generation, which came out into the world when everything went to ratshit – mass unemployment, financial crises, environmental disasters, jihad, the works – rightly considers Fsadni-type suggestions as delusions of grandeur.
Does anyone study history anymore?
Peace is not a natural state – it is antagonistic to both entropy and nature. I am aware that the majority of humans are peaceful. I am also aware that those same humans will transform to Mr Hyde as soon as a charismatic “leader” pops up and promises heaven on earth. The human id is just below that nanoscopic veneer of civilisation we so like to flaunt.
Peace is only guaranteed when it is backed by the perception of, or actual military force. It has not changed for 10,000 years and I do not see it changing anytime soon.
If Malta wants to be a peacemaker, it is going to need a lot more than village politicians with no influential allies. For God’s sake, our politicians go ballistic when divorce/pyrotechnic legislation is mentioned and catatonic in front of thousands dying 300km off our shores.
Gosh, Daphne ….. you used to read Victor?
Actually I don’t think I should be too surprised. I can’t really imagine you reading Bunty!
[Daphne – Victor? What’s that? No, I used to read Bunty. I was surprised to read that Ranier hasn’t seen the term ‘lily-livered’ since his comic-reading days. It remains contemporary in British English, and is much favoured by those who write for The Telegraph and The Spectator.]
Sorry, my mistake. Thought you wrote the leader. That’s what I get from speed reading when trying to keep up with your posts!
PS: The “Victor” was a boys’ comic in the 60s. Full of war stories. The German characters started each sentance wtih “Achtung”, the Japanese with “Banzai” whilst the Italians said “Mamma Mia” whenever anything happened. Anyone not an ally was of course a lilly-livered coward!
[Daphne – Did the Italians wear a vest and speak about getting a raffreddore, or whatever they call the common cold?]
No, but they were always referred to as Eyties. Golly, just think how politcally incorrect that comic would be today.
http://www.comicsmagazines.com/victor1964.htm
“…not one single person in authority in Malta has been able to mouth anything even approaching a straightfoward condemnation of Gaddafi and his regime”.
That is not so, and you know it, Michael. One does not undertake to offer Malta as an evacuation point for foreign workers in Libya and at the same time going along with Gaddafi’s regime. One does not make statements like, ‘violence must stop” and ‘his position is untenable’, or ‘It’s best if he leaves’ and take such statements as condoning the tyrant. Condemning his actions automatically condemns the man.
[Daphne – Oh for heaven’s sake, Angus, I’m going to have to butt in. The evacuation of non-Libyans from Libya has no bearing on the matter. Giving refuge to Libyans escaping from Gaddafi – now that would be different, but all we have so far are two pilots who we couldn’t conceivably send back without finding the full weight of international law slam down on us. ‘Violence must stop’ is not a condemnation, but an equation of the two sides in this battle. As for the other remarks, at the risk of repeating myself ad nauseam, but there are none so deaf as those who will not hear, they are observations and not opinions. When I say that Joseph Muscat will win the next election, it does not follow that I want him to. On the contrary, the message I picked up from the prime minister’s reluctant words is that he would have much rather the whole thing had not happened. If the prime minister felt about Muammar Gaddafi in what would be considered the appropriate manner, he would not have taken calls and visits from his emissaries. The prime minister has behaved throughout like a man having to cope with the very bad behaviour of a friend, disapproving and telling him off for ‘his own good’ but at the same time reluctant to relinquish friendship.]
You cannot use a hypothetical situation such as Gaddafi succeeding in hanging on and that Malta will ‘have no qualms in resuming business as usual’. We shall see in a few days (weeks) time about that. But even if you are right, the Maltese authorities would still have choices to make.
[Daphne – Yes, Angus, and the point here is that those choices have to be discussed and communicated because that is democracy. These are not hypothetical situations. This is called contingency planning. The prime minister and his government should have had Malta’s stance, and his speech to the nation, mapped out well ahead of the UN Security Council resolution – but it was damned obvious that no such planning took place and that no speech was written. Did you hear David Cameron on the steps of Downing Street (“it is necessary, it is legal and it is right”)? Do you imagine he came up with that on the spur of the moment? It was planned, discussed, written and rehearsed, and he emerged word perfect to speak it to the waiting cameras. That’s the way these things should be done, because when you lead a country, every one of your words has meaning and implications.]
After all, Malta does business with China, for one, and its Communist regime is the successor of the regimes (and not much more benevolent) at the time of WWII. I did not mention Italy or Germany, both had reduced our island into rubble, because their present governments have no connection at all with the regimes of the past.
The impatience and the refusal to read (between the lines) the Maltese government’s stance in this situation takes on a slant usually used by someone with a hidden agenda.
[Daphne – Yes, Angus, my hidden agenda is to depose the prime minister, install Joseph Muscat, and make myself the Bey of Tripoli. How ridiculous can you be. You do not need to support the prime minister’s every word and move even when he is clearly in the wrong and has mismanaged the situation dreadfully. That is not loyalty. That is idiocy. You do not help people by telling them they are right and doing well when they are not. You help them by pointing out where they are going (frighteningly) wrong. The first warning sign you should have picked up is the collusion with the Opposition.]
A question which I had asked before and for which I have not received an answer to, is: has Malta even been asked to actively participate and offer its (nonexistent) facilities to the coalition? Or, because Sky News stuck a Union flag on Malta automatically gave the impression that either Malta had ‘offered’ its facilities or that the coalition had some right to impose its influence on the Maltese authorities?
[Daphne – Angus, perhaps you should be challenging the prime minister on that, instead of criticising me for challenging him on it myself. I have already pointed out the probable deceit in government answers which suggest that the UK defence secretary flew to Malta for no reason other than to thank Dr Gonzi. You also seem to forget that besides an airport we have a rather magnificent harbour, which saw much action only four weeks ago. And we do have rather a lot of soldiers, who appear to have nothing more to do than hang about eating beetles. But that is not the point in any case. The point is not what we can offer, but our CHURLISHNESS (the only word which suffices) is saying that we shall under no circumstances “allow ourselves to be used”. The choice of words indicates the mindset: this is not our battle. Ah, but it is, and very much so.]
Another question I have is; Why is the USA so anxious to pull out as soon as possible? Is it also ‘spineless’ or is it hedging its bets? Granted, it has armaments and capabilities Malta does not have and it has put them to good use.
[Daphne – The United States is not anxious to pull out. Please follow the news more carefully. The United States does not wish to remain in control of the exercise and wishes to hand over command to another party, while still participating fully. This is to appease electors back home. It is a matter of perception and not of level of involvement. The exercise cannot take place without full US involvement, so the US pulling out would lead to its collapse. That is not going to happen.]
In Malta, if one acts with prudence, he/she is labeled as ‘weak’. If one sticks his/her neck out, even for a just cause, they are labeled as ‘reckless’ Where is the happy medium?
[Daphne – People who act with prudence, Angus, are those who count cents while buying a couple of slices of ham at the grocer’s, instead of blowing their pension on one-armed bandits. The word you’re looking for is circumspection. Let’s call things by their proper name. In any case, I cannot agree with you. I think it is our government that is behaving with extraordinary recklessness in flying in the face of commonsense and foresight, while it is people like me who are properly circumspect (“heedful of circumstances and potential consequences”)].
Liam Fox, UK Defence Secretary came to Malta for the weekend from Friday afternoon to Sunday afternoon; do you think he came to Malta just to say thank you for the “Great Evacuation”?
[Daphne – Some people apparently do. A defence man came all the way from Canada, too, apparently to say thanks as well.]
And they said they came to say “thank you”, too. I can’t, for the life me, understand why they didn’t blow Lawrence Gonzi’s cover once they were out of Castille. Wasn’t Liam Fox told that too few Maltese would get a comment along the lines of “we want to prevent immigration in the first place”?
[Daphne – Diplomatic relations….]
Or rather, the public face of them; they were damaged anyway.
Fsadni bases his whole argument on the impartiality of Malta. That’s where he’s wrong. Malta should not be impartial. We should the EU, and our primary allegiance should be towards Europe. I wonder whether our middle-aged intellectuals have really moved beyond their 1970-80s mould. You see the same pattern everywhere: Kevin Ellul Bonici, Joe Woods, Roderick Pace….
Someone commented on the Yes-men surrounding the PM and asked why Fsadni isn’t in the team. But he is. Very much so. You could even say that he is the brains behind PN policy, and its link to the wider world of European centre-right politics through the European Policy Centre.
So Daphne and her followers are convinced that had Malta been used as a miliotary base Gaddafi by now, would have fled from Tripoli and the Libyan people would have gained their freedom and established democratic rule. Oh! what a shame for Malta!!
Your comment overloaded my logic pathways. I needed a double shot of Balvenie single malt to avoid a meltdown.