Cite chapter and verse, Mr Prime Minister
Dr Gonzi should have the common decency to point out to people that thanks to the brave efforts of the coalition forces, Malta has been protected from attacks by Libya. It is not his 'wise decisions' which are protecting us, but their brave ones.
The prime minister felt obliged this morning on Radio 101, no doubt under an onslaught of criticism from his electors about Malta’s pusillanimous stance on the matter of giving support to the coalition forces, to say:
“Malta has condemned the Gaddafi regime for killing and shooting civilians, from the beginning of the uprising, and its condemnation has been clear” – timesofmalta.com
I’m afraid, Mr Prime Minister, that this is not the case at all, which is why you are not able to cite chapter and verse and which is why, too, I was not able to find reference to any such clear condemnation while checking my facts before writing this post.
I knew I wouldn’t, because I have followed the Libyan crisis minutely since it broke out – since before it broke out (and was mocked for my suggestion that it would break out at all) – and I have been appalled by my government’s equivocating and apparent inability to mention Muammar Gaddafi by name, call his crimes by their name, or even link him to those crimes.
If Dr Gonzi’s public statements on the matter are weak and equivocating, then those of his foreign minister are worse. They opened Malta up to the suspicion of showing solidarity with Gaddafi and his regime, of almost hoping that the regime would survive so that we could get back to business with our nice little network of contacts and our special relationship.
After EU commissioner Dalli made such a hash of things with his ‘private’ views expressed at a business breakfast in Malta, which were then relayed all over the world – how’s that for public affairs savvy in one of our supposedly most senior politicians – the prime minister and foreign minister should have been working overtime to combat that impression.
Instead, they have done the opposite.
The prime minister’s claim this morning that he has been clear as to where he and Malta stand on the matter of Muammar Gaddafi could not possibly be more insulting to people who weren’t born with a low IQ, who were raised with the appropriate level of education, who are attentive to what is said and done, and who are able to analyse words and behaviour and see them for what they are.
Perception is 100% of the game in these situations, and whatever the prime minister might think about Muammar Gaddafi in the privacy of his home and his mind, or even that of his cabinet meetings, the fact remains that if you were to ask me what he thinks at this point, I would have to say that I still don’t know.
What is worse, I can’t even hazard a guess. I can say, though, that when called upon to speak about the situation at a press conference on Friday, in the aftermath of the UN Security Council resolution, the prime minister was not himself and he looked as though he had a gun to his head.
Now lots of people are asking what that gun might possibly be, whether there is in fact a gun. Instead of serving to reassure us, encourage our spirits, give us that gung-ho feeling of ‘we’re all together against Evil’ which is so necessary at times like this, making us happy that Malta is on the side of what is right, his performance on Friday served only to deflate our spirits, to make us feel small and cowardly and mean. To make us feel that we are on the wrong side of history, that we have lost the opportunity to stand out, get 40 years of hatred of Muammar Gaddafi off our chests, and be involved in getting shot of him for good.
The prime minister has let us down. He has let Malta down. He could have taken exactly the same decisions, presented them differently by speaking differently and behaving differently, and ensuring that Tonio Borg did so too, and the result would not have been the unfortunate one that it is today.
Whatever the reality might be, the government’s presentation has been completely ineffectual. No, that’s wrong. It is not ineffectual, it is downright damaging.
If the government of Malta truly had been clear and categorical as to where it stands about Muammar Gaddafi, then there would not be so many questions raised about that stance, which remains dubious even at this very late stage.
References to Germany, which despite abstaining from the UN resolution is not being regarded as suspect, are spurious. Germany is not seen to have suspicious or ulterior motives because it has never had the ‘special relationship’ with Muammar Gaddafi that Malta has bragged about since the early 1970s.
On Sky News yesterday, our foreign minister made the disingenuous claim that it is “unfair to say that Malta has a special relationship (with Gaddafi’s regime – he couldn’t bring himself to spell out the name)”. How can he say something like that in all seriousness?
Malta has boasted about that special relationship for decades. Malta has used it as a selling-point. The EU commissioner for Malta even has a business up and running which specialises in capitalising on the network of contacts which he built up as a cabinet minister in the Maltese government, dealing with Libya for almost two decades.
When the prime minister claims that he has been forthright about the Gaddafi regime, he invariably refers to the one time he mentioned Gaddafi by name (other than in his David Frost/Al Jazeera interview on Friday). This was at the press conference he gave at the outset of the crisis some four weeks ago, when he spoke these precise words:
“The end of Gaddafi’s (rule) is inevitable.”
The government appears to be so proud of this single brave statement made a month ago that the foreign minister referred to it yesterday on Sky News as evidence that Malta is not showing solidarity with Gaddafi.
And this morning on Radio 101, the prime minister referred to it again as proof that he is clear about Gaddafi.
“Speaking during a telephone interview on Radio 101 he said that he had even declared that the end of the Gaddafi regime was inevitable.” – timesofmalta.com, this morning.
Perhaps the prime minister believes that we are all linguistic simpletons. I have said repeatedly that a Labour election victory in 2013 is inevitable. Nobody can or should deduce from this statement that 1. I want that to happen, or 2. I will do what I can to make it happen.
Similarly, nobody can or should deduce from the prime minister’s statement that Gaddafi’s end is inevitable that 1. he wants that to happen, or. 2. he is going to do what he can to make it happen.
If he means those things, then he should have said so.
The prime minister appears to have been under great pressure this morning to justify Malta’s stance, but even now, he appears unable to understand the reasons for our anger and disappointment.
We are not necessarily angry because Malta International Airport is not going to be used to launch attacks on Gaddafi, even though very many of us would like it to be a piece of equipment launched from Malta which finally takes him out. We are angry because Malta has not shown willing. We are angry because Malta has not burnt all its bridges, in a very public blaze, with the Gaddafi regime. We are angry because our prime minister is still bragging about the fact that he receives calls from Gaddafi’s ministers, even after the UN Security Council resolution.
We are angry, above all, because the prime minister and foreign minister – the public face of our country on the international stage – have made Malta, with its proud martial history, look wet, yellow and pusillanimous. Worse, their behaviour has given rise to the suspicion – however ill-founded, it is there and must be addressed – that Malta is Gaddafi’s not-so-secret whore.
Surely the Maltese government had the good sense to wake up to the dangers inherent in this very real suspicion when even the National Council in Benghazi – the people we shall have to deal with when Gaddafi goes – were reported by the Financial Times, no less, as saying that they are “afraid of Malta” – yes, those exact words – because of Malta’s long and embroiled relationship with Muammar Gaddafi.
Significantly, their spokesman did not say ‘Libya’, because Libyans distinguish – something many Maltese fail to understand – between Libya and its tyrant, who they do not see as their representative.
The prime minister’s position on the use of Malta’s airport for the deployment of fighter jets is understandable and reasonable. But the way he presented it was not.
First, he used our much-despised and much-mocked ‘neutrality’ as an excuse. Then when the UN Security Council resolution stripped that excuse cleanly away, he was left at a loss. He carried on trying to shelter behind neutrality even at the press conference after the Security Council decision. His foreign minister deceitfully used “military neutrality” as an excuse yesterday on Sky.
Faced with a barrage of contemptuous disagreement – surely some of it must have reached even Dr Gonzi’s resolute ears – this morning he felt he had to explain himself.
“Not making (Malta International Airport) available for the attacks was reasonable and this position did not in any way hinder the implementation of the UN resolution, especially when only a few seconds away there was the Sigonella military airport in Sicily which could be used for the purpose.” – timesofmalta.com
Dr Gonzi is afraid that our sole airport could be attacked, and that this would be catastrophic for Malta.
He is right that it would be catastrophic. He is wrong to keep fostering the impression that Malta is at risk of attack, when any such attack has since Friday been rendered impossible by the deployment of a naval blockade of Libya, the enforcement of a no-fly zone, and the “severe disablement” – the United States’ description – of Gaddafi’s air power by more than 100 Tomahawk missiles and direct attack by fighter jets. And all of it no thanks to use.
The fact remains that the coalition forces have effectively protected us from being attacked by Gaddafi, and we have refused to give them all the help we can to make it easier, when after the Libyans we are the ones who are benefiting most from that protection.
By continuing to suggest – as a means of justifying his government’s decision to stay out of things except for ‘the humanitarian aspect’ – it is the prime minister himself who is causing great harm to the country by whipping up the impression that Malta is somehow at risk when it clearly is not any longer.
Surely the prime minister has enough sense to see how contradictory his stance is. On the one hand his government seeks to reassure tourists, hedge fund managers and the like that Malta is fine. On the other hand, that same government tells its people that it has taken certain decisions because it is afraid of attacks.
So which is it to be?
No doubt, I shall be told that it is thanks to the government’s sensible decisions – and not thanks to the efforts of the coalition forces which we have not helped, and which have destroyed Gaddafi’s air power – that we shall not be attacked.
The prime minister has actually boasted about the fact that we are helping in our own way by giving clearance for fighter jets to pass through our airspace. Hekk imissna, ukoll – nghidulhom le, biex il-vera nohorgu tan-n**k. This is akin to boasting about our role in the evacuation of thousands of people from Tripoli. Could we actually have considered refusing? Of course not. The praise we got was not for doing it, but for doing it so well. It would have been criminally amoral to refuse.
The prime minister said on radio this morning that he has to be “extremely careful” about what he says because the situation is “grievous”. Again, he fails to understand that the context is rather different from a battibek with the Labour Party, and that we are operating in the international scene here. We see other national leaders speak on the world news networks and we wonder why our prime minister will not – perhaps we should say cannot – speak as they do.
It makes us mad.
We in Malta hate Gaddafi with a passion that no Briton or Frenchman or American can ever begin to understand, and our prime minister will not give us the satisfaction of speaking about him the way British, French and American leaders do. There is no fire in his belly when he speaks about Gaddafi. He seems to have scant understanding of the historic nature of these events.
This morning, the prime minister referred once more to his telephone conversation with the Libyan ‘prime minister’ – prime minister of what, exactly? – having apparently not understood either just how disgusted the people who voted for him are because he continues to take his calls.
Perhaps I am wrong, but my perception is that Dr Gonzi is proud to be the one who has been selected for these telephonic and flying-visit appeals by the Libyan ‘prime minister’.
He doesn’t seem to realise that it is a cause for shame, that others – including his own electors – will ask why the Libyan ‘prime minister’ is calling him in particular, though he is also calling Greece.
I couldn’t believe that Dr Gonzi actually said on radio this morning, “(Bagdadi) took note of what I told him”.
Are we operating in some kind of parallel universe here, or what?
82 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
I posted this comment on timesofmalta.com, but let’s not waste it – here’s a slightly extended version.
Malta’s stance is precisely that of the EU.
The EU’s official position – which is that of the EU27’s Council (given that the CDSP is still half-way between intergovernmental and Communitarian) – has been a call for state violence to stop, for Gaddafi to step down and for sanctions to be imposed on his regime.
The interventionist, military option (no-fly zone) was rejected by various member states, Malta being one of those espousing non-military means.
Also, keep in mind that the UN mandate does not cover ground troops or a regime change. That means this is just the end of the beginning.
Those yearning to re-establish Malta as a military base should know better. Please suppress your personal passions for the benefit of all. Military intervention will only exacerbate the problem. You wait and see.
Kev,
You’re missing the point – as briliiantly as ever.
It’s the perception, Kevvy, perception. For example, I perceive as an intelligent nitwit. Eh?
Kevvy, I misspoke. ‘I perceive you as an intelligent notwit’.
Daphne,
I saw that on timesofmalta.com and didn’t believe it as I too could not remember him ever clearly and specifically condemning Gaddafi.
I had posted a comment on timesofmalta.com in that regard and it does seem that I was wrong indeed that he did condemn Gaddafi at some point in time. What do you make of it?
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110320/local/maltas-condemnation-of-gaddafi-regime-clear-pm
[Daphne – What I make of it is described in the post above.]
I am referring to this quote from the official transcript:
“14. I also stated …………………. few days. We insist that the legitimate aspirations of the Libyan people should be respected and that under the circumstances at this point in time the leadership of Ghaddafi at this point needs to end and the end indeed is inevitable.”
He seems to be stating that Gaddafi’s regime must end, not just that it is inevitable.
Why this is the only time he seems to have spoken that way is a bit of a mystery and also strange is why in the same transcript in Maltese he doesn’t say that – he only says that Gaddafi’s end is inevitable and not that it ‘needs to end’.
I don’t remember him talking in English in that press conference – perhaps I turned channel because I thought he was just going to give a translation of what he had said in Maltese.
Suddenly this man with the huge personality turned into a coward and Sarkozy into a hero.
Daphne,
see also the comment just above mine by Frank Portelli (I don’t know if it is the Frank Portelli I think or another one).
I had never heard of that treaty. If it really does exist then we really are in a mess.
Probably, he was dozing on his bench in parliament while his Prime Minister did not renew that treaty with Muammar.
Tonio Borg is an embarrassment: to this there is no doubt. But what I cannot understand is the Leader of the Arab league complaining that the strikes on Libya are too severe.Too fucken severe? What the hell do they want?
First they beg the west for help, then they complain that the attacks are too severe! Unbelievable.
Troy, the idea of a no-fly zone as initially presented by Lebanon and backed by the Arab League related to the genuine imposition of order; that Gaddafi’s forces are checked in place. This is how it was sold in the Arab world.
We are told that Gaddafi broke his own ceasefire. Well, I doubt that very much, and in any case, it was only a matter of time before his forces got provoked into retaliation. That’s easy-peasy.
In effect, the Western coalition’s actions surprised many in the Arab world, where public opinion has turned overnight and the Libyan civil strife has now taken a different form. They’re calling it Iraq II.
kev, they knew beforehand that a no-fly zone would start with a heavy military attack on all anti-aircraft and missile sites. This was made very clear before any decision was taken on a no-fly zone. This is how it was sold. If they did not get this right,then I’m afraid they were lost in translation.
We have a wise Prime Minister for not letting Malta to be used as base for launching attacks against Libya.
[Daphne – I think you mean ‘wajs’ not wise.]
Look what was published on today’s Cyprus Mail papers. ( House President Marios Garoyian told reporters yesterday that Cyprus would need to be cautious. Given that the island sees itself as a bridge in international relations, any attacks on Libya launched from Akrotiri, would be risky for Cyprus.) This is being said while Cyprus have a british base and making money from it.
If Malta agrees for it to be used as a base during this conflict we might as well have a permanent foreign base and get paid for it.
Malta’s neutrality is no brave matter of principle, then. It’s all just a question of money.
Thanks for reminding us about that, Edward. Cyprus is actually paid for its risks.
[Daphne – Malta gets a much better: a completely free gift of a Gaddafi-free future, with no effort expended. ]
After showing the world what we are made of, we shall have to spend a lot more, in future, on defence and reduce our health budget accordingly.
Sorry I meant fucken unbelievable. Ghax dawn il-bastards ma niflahghomx.
You never know where you stand with politicians who have not been democratically elected, because of the simple fact that they are not even answerable to their own populations.
Russia and China first abstained and now are criticising the action, and here comes the Arab League, as reported on Sky News, joining in with the criticism after putting pressure for a no-fly zone and agreeing to it, even saying that it would help enforce it.
Commentators on the international press are literally gobsmacked – this is exactly the termed used – at this turnabout stance. They are saying that the Arab League is either not aware of what enforcing a no-fly zone entails or else they are covering their backs.
I firmly believe that Malta should give full support (even militarily) to the coalition forces, but then I am not the prime minister, and after hearing such statements from the Arab League, I question whether there is a wider picture that we are not as yet aware of.
It seems that with politicians of the Arab League, one can never do the right thing. They are not capable of looking after their own affairs, ask for help and when the west gives them the help they ask for, it gets slapped in the face.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Video-Libya-Arab-League-Splits-From-West-Over-Libya-Bombing-Campaign-After-Supporting-No-Fly-Zone/Article/201103315956219?lpos=World_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15956219_Video%2C_Libya%3A_Arab_League_Splits_From_West_Over_Libya_Bombing_Campaign_After_Supporting_No-Fly_Zone
Haven’t you realised yet?
The Arab League mentality is almost identical to the Maltese one.
Have your cake, eat it, tqahhab, go with the flow, change with the wind, be a good fluttering butterfly, try to please everyone and end up pleasing no one.
U aqa’ tan-nejk f’wicc id-dinja and prove to the world that they trust you at their peril.
Well, the last sentence does not apply so much to the Maltese.
But as I said, ALMOST identical.
A spokesperson from Misrata speaking on Al Jazeera (Abdulbaset Abumzyreeg): ‘To those opposed to UN actions please come to Misrata and you will see why it’s needed!’
Under the relevant article on timesofmalta.com, Frank Portelli cited this clause from a treaty signed with Libya in 1984:
Article 2
Malta undertakes not to allow foreign military bases to be established on its territory and undertakes not to allow its territory to be used militarily against the security, territorial integrity of the Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
..so could this explain the PM’s awkwardness on the issue perhaps?
[Daphne – I have asked for more information about this agreement and will post accordingly as soon as I have it.]
Malta’s friendship treaty with Libya covered military training and defence cooperation, among other things.
http://www.nytimes.com/1984/12/01/world/malta-and-libya-sign-military-training-pact.html?scp=45&sq=malta&st=cse
The agreement expired on 19th November 1989. The subsequent pact with Libya did away Malta’s obligation to provide security and defence information to Libya in exchange for military equipment and training.
The previous treaty, signed in 1984, did not allow Malta’s territory to be used for any action that threatened Libya, pace Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici’s phone call to warn Gaddafi that a US air attack was imminent (he warned that ‘unidentified’ planes were on the way to Libya).
The 1989 treaty covered economic and cultural cooperation.
The treaty and its 1990 amendment are available here:
http://www.mjha.gov.mt/DownloadDocument.aspx?app=lom&itemid=8787&l=1
European law takes precedence. Any part of this treaty not conforming to EU law is no longer valid unless specifically allowed for.
There is a Maltese supermarket in Tripoli?
What’s it called – Mintoff’s?
Even Italy had signed a similar treaty – but in fact this was suspended around a week ago.
If there is such a treaty why doesn’t our Prime Minister suspend it, now.
What’s the use of signing treaties when you can suspend them?
[Daphne – Damn stupid question, Michael. You can suspend them, like you can break a contract, when the basis for the pact has been broken.]
Apparently it’s:
CHAPTER 311
MALTA-LIBYA TREATY OF FRIENDSHIP AND
CO-OPERATION (RATIFICATION) ACT
To ratify the Treaty of Friendship and Co-operation between Malta and
Libya.
(7th December, 1984)*
Enacted by ACT XXII of 1984, as amended by Act XXIII of 1990.
http://www.mjha.gov.mt/DownloadDocument.aspx?app=lom&itemid=8787...
Sorry … full address as follows
http://www.mjha.gov.mt/DownloadDocument.aspx?app=lom&itemid=8787&L=1
I suggest we should see also if there is something written in the Green Book about Malta’s neutrality and its position should there be an attack on Libya.
Just before the Libyan uprising, Prime Minister Gonzi was the last EU leader to visit Gaddafi and this week, Malta was meant to host a delegation from Tripoli as a mixed committee – to finalise a ‘Friendship Treaty’. We all seem to be forgetting that Malta was working hard to set an agreement with Gaddafi’s Libya, on the lines of what Berlusconi had signed for, and was widely criticised.
Dear Daphne,
As I was growing up in Malta I always disliked the animosity you showed Labour supporters. I always felt patronised and insulted by the disrespect I felt you showed a pretty sizeable part of the Maltese population – one I considered myself a member of. For a long time this disrespect was reciprocated.
Many years later, and many hundreds of miles away, I find myself in total agreement with you, and feel disgusted by both parties in Malta for disguising cowardice and possibly commercial gain with the veils of neutrality and national security.
Malta fails the Libyan people by not providing a decisive stand in favour of their democratic rights. This is the sort of mentality that the whole country suffers from – ‘ma nindahalx’. It’s the sort of mentality that means domestic violence, child abuse and homophobia are ripe in the country.
Insular indifference above a sense of duty to our neighbours.
It’s ironic that, having taken a personal dislike to your articles over the years, seeing the stance taken by MLPN I now find myself thinking you must be the only sane person left in the country.
[Daphne – That’s probably because you left it (the country, I mean); it’s probably why you now see some things the way I do. Your perspective has changed. You can now see that there is a really serious problem with the way many Maltese people (don’t) think.]
Lots of food for thought, you’re probably spot on.
BBC
“The head of the Arab League has criticised the bombardments.
His comments are significant because the Arab League’s support for the no-fly zone was a key factor in getting UN Security Council backing for the resolution authorising the move.”
Did he expect the coallition to use sweets to get Gaddafi to stop ?
The definition of what establishing a no-fly zone entails, was explained VERY clearly to the Arab League.
Now they complain.
Skuzani – how bloody typical.
They probably expected them to use rubber missiles and water bombs.
Daphne, thank you for keeping us informed. You’re doing an excellent job, madam.
“(The National Council in Benghazi) is taking note of all the positions taken by countries and is giving them great importance in considering future relations,” Jibril said.
http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/news/world/exclusive-libya-s-rebel-leader-urges-malta-to-widen-support-and-cooperation
Would you buy a used car from this man?
It wouldn’t surprise me if Gaddafi asked if Gonzi would be his mate ‘no matter what’ and Gonzi said ‘hey ta mela’ not knowing fully what he was signing up to.
Dapphe stop your viciouss comments against our beloved politicians. They are resposnsible to our Country and must a
act responsibly…. you are merely responsible to your blog and to your irrisponsible bloggers. Britain, France and the US have their own interests and we have ours.
One thing is certain Gaddhafi was known to be a despot since he took over his Country and now we are very most uncertain how the new revolutionary council when they take over will treat the Libyan people and other nations especially
those in the Mediterranean.
What are ‘our’ interests?
@ John Lanzon
All our interests including political, financial, moral, ethical and national security are served by wiping out Gaddafi’s regime as fast and as ruthlessly as possible. Any other outcome is detrimental to Malta in ways I suspect you will not understand.
“we are very most uncertain how the new revolutionary council when they take over will treat the Libyan people and other nations especially those in the Mediterranean.”
Are you implying that the region’s stability should be earned by selling the Libyan nation to a despot like Gaddafi? If yes, this argument makes you an accomplice in the murder of thousands of Libyans. I find our silence and inaction just as guilty of murder as Gaddafi’s hired goons.
As for the new Libyan Council, I would not blame them for despising us after the government’s cowardly stance. I would.
Do you think the PM’s position has been easy? In the circumstances, he is being as reasonable as he could possibly be. You want gung-ho declarations? For what purpose? Biex nidhru sbieh mal-Gwerrieri tal-Punent?
There’s nothing to celebrate about military intervention because it will not oust Gaddafi any time soon, and by the time it does, the situation would have deteriorated much further. The first casualty could be our tourism industry. I hope you understand the gravity of such an event taking place. Our whole economy would collapse and the EU would only burden us with even more euro-debt.
[Daphne – ‘Do you think the PM’s position has been easy?’ Mur arah jekk kien xi Cameron jew Sarkozy, mela. I see that suddenly Malta isn’t a jackshit little island any more to you, our Kev. It’s suddenly Very Important and the prime minister you didn’t vote for has Great Responsibilities. Are the Brussels suburbs particularly boring on a cold March Sunday afternoon?]
Actually it’s a sunny day here in Beersel and a couple of beers at the Castle close by wouldn’t have been a bad idea.
Also, I never belittled Malta – not as much as you do anyway. I did belittle some of your friends, though.
What makes you so sure the tourism sector will be left intact?
Because according to kev, the tourism sector will benefit from Gaddafi being left in control while terrorising the area.
Look at what EFA said:
If allied forces need to use Malta to carry out the UN-mandated military action against Libya, “we should accept”, according to former President Eddie Fenech Adami.
[Daphne – Please post a link. Thank you. If he really did say that, then I am delighted to see that I did not misjudge him in thinking that this is exactly how he would have handled the situation had he been prime minister instead of Lawrence Gonzi. I think he would also have spoken with greater moral conviction and fortitude on the side of what is right, and he would have inspired the country in a way that Dr Gonzi failed to do. Cometh the hour, cometh the man – in this case, sadly not. We should, however, thank our stars that Gordon Brown is not currently in charge of Britain.]
Gordon never was. No one had the heart to tell him though.
Good point, IB. Not even Lord Mandelson.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110320/local/former-presidents-discuss-libya-divorce
[Daphne – Thank you.]
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110320/local/former-presidents-discuss-libya-divorce
He did say it, but he also said
However, he did not criticise the government’s cautious approach so far, where allied forces have been permitted to fly through Malta’s airspace but military support was not being offered.
“Yes, I have no doubt that Malta is doing enough. I don’t think [the allied forces] realistically need their planes to take off from here instead of Italy… But if the request is made with the blessing of the UN, according to our constitution, we should accept.”
“I think that if what is happening is done with the blessing of the Security Council, we are… I would not say obliged…but free to accept that decision. We should not go against the concrete resolutions of the UN.”
The thing is that after what the PM and Deputy PM have said over and over again, no coalition country is now going to ask to use our military facilities.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110320/local/former-presidents-discuss-libya-divorce
Daphne, you give the impression that the PM is not saying/doing what the Maltese people want him to do – ie, a stronger stance, offer Malta as a base, etc.
Constitutional arguments that our neutrality ceases due to a UN Resolution etc, what do you make of this poll on timesofmalta.com ?
Poll
Now that military action against Libya has been authorised by the United Nations, should Malta remain neutral?
Yes 49.6%
No 29.2%
Malta should not be used as a base, but should allow access through its airspace. 21.2%
Constitutional technicality or not, that seems to be an aggregate total of 70% who agree with the PM’s stance.
[Daphne – Of an online poll, which means nothing. The PM should commission a proper survey of the opinion of those who voted to make him prime minister. The results might yet surprise him. Go through the online comments, especially on timesofmalta.com, and you will see that the vast majority of those praising him are the sort of subliterates who usually refer to him as gOnZipn.]
Alan, even if the majority of Maltese were for neutrality (which I doubt), the PM should act according to his principles. I know he has sound democratic principles that put him squarely against Gaddafi. He should stand by them.
I think the PM’s principles are being questioned here. It seems to me that rather than doing and saying what is right, he is doing and saying what is convenient.
I am not disputing or discussing what is right or wrong.
I am only saying that the PM has been elected to represent the majority of the Maltese. It seems he is doing what he was elected to do – represent the view of the majority of the Maltese.
From timesofmalta.com:
If allied forces need to use Malta to carry out the UN-mandated military action against Libya, “we should accept”, according to former President Eddie Fenech Adami.
He said this morning that Malta’s constitution allowed it to take full part in action as long as it was sanctioned by the UN’s Security Council, as happened in the case of Libya.
Here is the link: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110320/local/former-presidents-discuss-libya-divorce
Dr Ugo Mifsud Bonnici seems to be suggesting that if Malta had a neutrality clause during World War II no bombs would have fallen on Malta.
[Daphne – Perhaps he is one of those who think li mietna ghall-barrani. Most people who come from families which were Nationalist in WWII share that same mindset, ghax kienu kontra l-Inglizi. That is why I find it so ironic how support for Malta’s involvement against Libya now comes mainly from Nationalist voters while objections come mainly from Labour – a sort of reversal of the situation.]
“We had bombs falling on us and we were starving. It was a very ugly experience. Although we too disagreed with fascism and nazism, we suffered more than we should have because we were a British base.” – Dr. Ugo Mifsud Bonnici, today.
So now we have it viva voce even from an ex-President. Even Prof. De Marco expressed similar views.
[Daphne – Madonna! I respect Ugo Mifsud Bonnici, but what in god’s name is he thinking here – that we would have suffered less had we not been a British base and been swallowed up by Mussolini and Hitler instead?]
The British, through the unwanted occupation of our islands, considered Malta only as a fortress for their own interests only, nothing else. The British PM recently, in Parliament, ‘thanked Malta again’. Maybe he had plans for us in mind, and tried to sweeten things up. Thank you very much Honourable, but no thank you.
That stain on our flag should be removed ASAP, and once at it, even that hideous statute in front of the National Library.
[Daphne – I really don’t like sharing a passport with people like you. How I wish, really wish, that you would learn the hard way just how wrong-headed your thinking is, possibly by finding yourself in a concentration camp.]
As if Malta would have avoided involvement in WWII if we were not a British base!
The islands would have been taken over swiftly by the Italians or Germans to set up their own base to conduct operations in North Africa. And THEN we would probably have been bombed by the Allies (if they could have reached us).
Malta can’t pretend that it’s not where it is geographically. It’s always been a part of historical events in the region and the only choice now is whether to be on the right side or the wrong side.
This is not a matter of staying out because of our neutrality clause. Malta has no military base, military power or facilities.
[Daphne – Really. So we’re telling the world that we have no facilities for military planes even as we boast how those military planes came and went from Malta and were based here in the evacuation effort. Tad-disperazzjoni. I think you forget that only a month ago the international media were flooded with film footage and photographs of military planes at Malta’s airport. Don’t you think that might have somehow created the impression that we are perfectly equipped to handle them?]
If Sky News or any other British media is referring to the pre-1979 facilities, these have since long gone, handed out to the Labour people willing to live in them. We only have one airport which is for commercial use.
[Daphne – It also serves a military purpose, Xmun. See my note above.]
If this is handed over to the coalition forces then our airspace will no longer be safe for commercial flights because of all the military traffic this entails. All the other countries providing airports are not handing over their commerical ones, so why should we.
[Daphne – Trapani is a commercial airport. RyanAir flies there, for one. Crete’s airport is commercial, too. And so are all the airports which Italy has offered in the south of the country – except for the US base at Sigonella in Sicily.]
For how long is this battle going to last? Can we afford to close our only airport?
I am sure Dr Gonzi would have given permission had there been a real need, but I do not see one. If the missiles pictured above are doing their job, let them continue firing from wherever they are being fired from out at sea.
I believe there is an abandoned aerodrome in the Kalafrana/Hal Far area. In addition, there are tracts of unused land within the airport precints a considerable distance away from the commercial apron.
I stand to be corrected, but had there been the political will, the facilities could be made available within days.
The unused lands you mention are no longer usable as runways. We only have one airport. Daphne mentioned a number of commercial airports but I did not see Fiumicino, Malpensa to name but a few in the list. Closing off our only air route would be irresponsible. With all the military traffic below us, even our seas can be blocked off. And then what, pray for another Santa Maria convoy when we are not under attack. As much as I want Gaddafi out, Malta is not the centre of the conflict and like all other European countries up north, we should continue living our daily lives and let the military experts do their job as they know best. It takes a commercial aircraft 35 minutes to arrive from Malta to Sicily. It probably takes a sneeze for a military jet to fly the same distance. Let’s keep things in their perspective please and not try to appear as hereos. Will our European allies assist if / when the boatloads of refugees (please note not illegal or economic immigrants) start pouring in. Malta will help as usual in those circumstances and I will complain if we don’t in that situation.
I fully support Dr Gonzi for his handling of this situation. Par idejn sodi kull meta jkun hemm bzonn
Daphne you are wrong in Crete there are five airports but only three of them are used for passenger flights: the Heraklion airport, the Chania airport in Akrotiri and the Sitia airport. The airports of Kastelli and Timbaki are MILITARY airports.
The problem what journalists is that they act as if they know it all.
So again our Prime Minister is doing the right things because he knows the true situation not the jounalists, which includes Skynews,Al Jaseer BBC CNN etc etc.
This is what Italy offered: US air bases at Sigonella, Sicily and Aviano in northern Italy; Italian air bases in Amendola near Foggia, Decimomannu in Sardinia, Gioia del Colle near Bari, base on Sicilian island of Pantelleria, and the military airport of Trapani, Sicily.
[Daphne – Italy cannot offer a US air base. The US air base in Sigonella is offered by the US. That’s an impressive list. And meanwhile Malta offers nothing.]
When Italy offers Fiumicino we offer MIA and we would be doing far more than the Italians.
[Daphne – How childish. What is this, a playground?]
Just a small update on this – Trapani is now closed for civilian traffic – http://af.reuters.com/article/libyaNews/idAFLDE72J0QU20110320
We still have not heard from Joseph Muscat about his party’s finances. Has the PL in its present form, or in its previous incarnation as the MLP, ever received any material or financial assistance, directly or indirectly, from anybody connected to Gaddafi and his regime?
Answers on a lavatory roll, please.
Maybe Joseph Sammut would care to oblige.
The relative two clauses of the treaty were originally (in 1984) as follows:
Article 2
Malta undertakes not to allow foreign military bases to be established on its territory and undertakes not to allow its territory to be used militarily against the security, territorial integrity of the Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.
Article 3
The Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya undertakes to respect and support Malta’s neutrality and will assist Malta whenever the Government of the Republic of Malta explicitly requests so in cases of threats or acts of aggression against Malta’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.
In 1990 these were amended as follows:
Article (2)
The text of the second and third articles of the Treaty are to be amended and joined in one article to be referred to as article “2” and reads as follows:
“The two countries pledge not to allow the establishment of foreign military bases on their territories and not to allow these territories to be used militarily against the security and territorial integrity of the other party.”.
Our politicians need to learn that there comes a time when fence-sitting is actually siding with evil. They don’t even seem to have a sense of history unfolding before their very eyes.
Hi Daphne,
I’m afraid that, for once, I’m going to have to disagree with you on this one. I take all that you are saying regarding Malta being neutral and all that the PM and foreign minister are saying (or not). Indeed I will buttress your argument by mentioning what happened to the Benelux countries at the start of the Second World War. They were all neutral – and made much of the fact at the start of the hostilities – only to end up being invaded when the Germans saw them as an adequate shortcut around the Maginot line into France.
But I think two major considerations override everything else here. Firstly Malta is small and has no military capability to speak of. Additionally our much vaunted strategic importance, at a time when mankind is a few years away from landing a human being on Mars, is nothing but an overblown fantasy. Therefore whatever our input in this story, things will hardly change form a military point of view. If Malta did not exist there would have been little or no impact on the military operation. Just this morning tornados were flying from Norfolk and Lancashire some 3000 miles away.
Secondly, and corollary to point one, there is nothing stopping Kaddafi from attacking us if he chooses to do so and there is nothing we can do to stop him given that we are essentially, unarmed. Condemning him will only expose Malta to additional danger than it is in already. We are after all, dealing with someone who is by all accounts a half crazed megalomaniac and murderer. Admittedly, being an EU member, we are entitled to protection but that protection is more on the frequency of retaliation in case of an attack on Malta rather than stopping the attack in the first place. At seventeen miles by nine, it’s one or two hits we could take before being finished off for good or crippled for years It seems from the air strikes of the last couple of days that the Kaddafi power to punch has been severely undermined but given what we heard about Kaddafi from the West prior to 2004, can we be sure?
It is true that Malta has been seen as too close to Libya’s or rather Kaddafi’s, orbit since 1971 and we should do our best to heal that gash in our international reputation. It is also true that this despot is killing his own people. But I believe that Malta has a more effective role to play in humanitarian aid and in assisting in the reconstruction of Libya once the conflict is over rather than exposing itself to additional jeopardy. Of course it would have been a different matter if we possessed a military might that equals Libya.
You have to be sorry for the Prime Minister sandwiched as he is between a rock and a hard place – thrown in the boxing ring with his hands tied. To borrow from Maltese, you wouldn’t want to be a hair on his body. No doubt he believes Kaddafi is a criminal but there is precious little he can do without exposing Malta to peril. That does not excuse the fact that he could be offering more determined leadership on the matter but that doesn’t necessarily mean he should repeat what most of his electorate are saying, namely that they hope Kaddafi is hung, drawn and quartered. The decisions Gonzi takes now in relation to this affair, could affect Malta’s destiny for many years to come. I suppose that, at the end of the day all our politicians are out of their depth in a situation such as this.
One final thought. I can’t help thinking that, in spite of what the Prime Minister is saying and the official government line, the fact remains that some form of undercover help is or will be provided should it be required by the coalition to enforce the no fly zone, particularly now that with the involvement of the UK France and the US, Kaddafi’s fate is sealed and his end can’t be far away. I fully concur with your view that we are a nation of cowards. But first and foremost we are a nation of cunning, deceitful, two faced Iscariots who, by hook or by crook will always looks after the side or bread is buttered. Indeed I wouldn’t be surprised that the same kind of assistance would be offered to Kaddafi were the tide to turn again. I have to say I thought it very odd that I hear more about what’s going on in Libya here (I live in Ireland) than I did when I was in Malta for a week a fortnight ago. I couldn’t help thinking that more was going on behind the scenes than what was being said. After all The USA was neutral until December 7th 1941, in spite of legislation like the lend lease act being enacted and put into effect. And not all of it was blatantly public. What’s more there is a PN administration in power at the moment and not a Labour one.
P.S. Can you please illustrate in your inimitable way the difference between sink and drown. They are used interchangeably as if they mean the same thing and now even the prime minister on Al Jazeera was talking about boats drowning.
Regards
Jeff Sciberras
[Daphne – Thank you for writing in, Jeff. ‘Sink’ and ‘drown’ – ah yes, indeed. That comes from the same word being used for both in Maltese, and many Maltese never bothering to learn the difference in English. We have the same problem with ‘nephew’. Too many people in Malta don’t seem to know what the word ‘grandchild’ is there for. Another thing that drives me up the wall: the way ‘circumstances’ is pronounced. I’ve noticed that when I say the word, people actually stare at me in perplexity. That’s because everyone here in Malta seems to think it’s sirkummstinsizz rather than sirkimstahnses. I can’t stand the arrogance with which Maltese politicians take to the public stage to speak English without bothering to prepare themselves carefully first. It shows such carelessness of approach. There really is no excuse when you’re Maltese and this is one of our official languages.]
Lancashire is 1500 miles away, not 3000.
It was a 3000 mile round trip.
I too cringed at the Prime Minister’s mispronunciation of the word “circumstances,” where the initial accent was misplaced on the second syllable–instead of where it belongs, on the first syllable. And for the duration for the David Frost interview, the PM’s English was so unnaturally stiff.
It seems always to be so, either from Castille or in Brussels, whenever he is speaking to a “foreign” audience, even if that is an audience of one visiting dignitary.
In front of a Maltese audience, when speaking in English, the modulation of his speech and other oral and temporal characteristics of his speech become more natural and effective. [The temporal performance of language use is my international area of professional expertise]. Otherwise, his overly careful diction and stiffly puppet-like pose becomes terribly offputting.
Daphne and M Ferriggi, spot on. I’m in total agreement with both of you.
I was born and educated in Malta and am proud to be Maltese. But I cringe at our small-mindedness and self-centred approach to life. We seem to have lost any backbone to stand up for what is right.
I left our shores in 1967 and joined the Royal Air Force. I spent the best and most exciting 20 years of my life with a fine professional force. I was, and am, a Maltese Citizen. And here’s the irony – for the majority of my service in the RAF I had a ‘green Gaddafi passport’ (you remember the ones!) and yet none ever questioned my loyalty or commitment to the defence of common ideals and freedom.
The tap dancing going on by our leaders is quite pathetic. How they even begin to think that by mouthing off platitudes we would be spared a Gaddafi moment of madness God only knows. As you so rightly point out the Malta is more secure today than it was yesterday; but only because others have put their lives on the line.
We should unequivocally state that we support the UN Resolution 1973 and that we will do all in our power to aid those that have undertaken to enforce it. We have already ‘blown’ our neutrality by allowing our airspace to be used (not that we have any way of stopping it!) by military forces en route to Libya.
Daphne, you really must be working overtime! Keep it up.
If we are so tied up in legal knots and treaties Gonzi can offer the use of medical facilities, by being a concientous objector who actually DOES DO something to help the injured.
Dr. Gonzi is caught in a prisoner’s dilemma (refer to Game Theory).
I can’t understand how our prime minister doesn’t go on TV and say Muammar Ghaddafi has to go bis-sewwa jew bid-dnewwa.
Maybe he is still thinking that he might still be on when everything is over. I listened to Seif Ghadafi on a BBC interview. He is shi**** in his pants. L-ewwel xeba blaff now that the French and the British called his blaff tmwerwer. In a way thank god hemm Cameron because if there was still Blair or Brown things would have resulted the opposite.
SKY NEWS is now reporting that the Arab League are to meet. It seems they cannot stomach how a no-fly zone is enforced even though the Americans explained it beforehand.
Maltese people like to boast about the country’s military past, but then when shit gets real, we all cower like f**king chickens…it’s shameful.
Perception is very much the issue. This is my personal experience here in the UK – people ask me if Malta is on Gaddafi’s side.
That’s the bottom line.
They’re not surprised about India, China and Russia. And they still think of Germany as the former Nazi-Germany (perception). But they’re surprised about Malta, considering the proximity to this evil regime.
These people think Malta is refusing to participate in upholding UNSC resolution 1973. I KNOW that is not the case and it’s more complex than that. But it didn’t need to be.
This perception exists because none of our public figures went on record, on the international stage, taking a firm stand against Gaddafi’s oppressive regime.
I think it would have been the easiest thing to do. What better time to stand up to a person who’s bullied you for decades than when you’ve got your friends covering your back? Not even that!
Your friends are going to beat him up for you!
So actually, all Malta needed to do was state unequivocally that it supports fully the international community’s move to protect the innocent civilians of Libya and get rid of Gaddafi.
Malta doesn’t actually have to do anything else. What else could it do? Send in a couple of helicopters and a few coastal guard boats?
Just offer our moral support and show that we are a principled country. Instead, the perception here in Britain is that the Maltese are opportunistic cowards.