Define 'humanitarian', Mr Prime Minister
Lawrence Gonzi: Malta's role is to ship out food so that Libyans don't go hungry while they're being shot. And after they're shot, we'll send them some bandages.
Now that the prime minister has failed to live up to his duty and to his constitutional obligations and has refused to face parliament on the matter of Libya, there is greater onus on the press to hold him and his government to account.
Now that the Oppositon has seen fit – because it shares the government’s vested interest in keeping quiet about Muammar Gaddafi – to shirk its constitutional obligations in questioning the government, the press must hold the Opposition severely to account too.
With our mainstream politicians in collusion, and the former chairman of Alternattiva Demokratika working for Tripoli businessman John Dalli in Brussels, the situation is serious.
One question Prime Minister Gonzi is expected to answer is how he defines ‘humanitarian’. Malta will only take part in humanitarian exercises, he said. But how does he define those?
He was happy for Malta to help thousands of non-Libyans leave Libya as long as they had their papers in order, their governments paid for the flights (with the exception of a few Air Malta ‘mercy mission’ flights to Tunisia) and ferries, they stayed here in Malta for less than 24 hours and then sped on back home.
Now that there are no more expatriates to be evacuated because nobody wants to take on responsibility for the Africans stranded at Tripoli airport, where does Dr Gonzi stand on a humanitarian exercise that involves the evacuation of Libyan refugees with nowhere else to go?
He has told Al Jazeera already: Malta doesn’t want to have to deal with that one. Malta has done its bit. Malta wants others to share the burden of dealing with refugees while it refuses to share the burden of getting rid of Gaddafi.
The Maltese prime minister appears not to be aware that his sharp distinction between humanitarian (anything which doesn’t involve guns and bombs) and non-humanitarian (anything which involves guns and bombs) is not shared by others. In the United States, particularly, the coalition’s intervention in Libya is seen as a humanitarian exercise precisely because its sole purpose is the protection of civilians. If they have to be protected by means of guns and bombs rather than flowers and nice music or cosy chats with Gaddafi or his prime minister on the telephone, then so be it. The purpose of the exercise defines the exercise itself, and that purpose is humanitarian.
Lawrence Gonzi’s peculiar approach to humanitarianism is to sit back and do nothing to stop Muammar Gaddafi killing people, but while he is killing them, to ship out supplies so that at least they don’t go hungry while they are being shot at. Or worse, to do nothing to stop them being blown up, but to ship out bandages and anaesthetic so that they can be patched up afterwards.
Our prime minister has clearly confused the role of a state with the role of the Red Cross, the Red Crescent and Doctors Without Borders, and Malta the state cannot even begin to compete with those three on that score.
Here’s Stephen Carter in The Daily Beast:
There is a lesson here for those who support what are known in international law as humanitarian interventions. Unless the intervention is very small or very swift or both, no country in the world but the U.S. can do it. We alone have the money, the technology, and the trained personnel. We alone have shown the willingness and ability to project power over long distances for a sustained period. Many people, both in America and abroad, are uneasy with this preponderance. But it cannot be wished away. If other NATO countries hope ever again to be equal partners, they will have to increase their defense spending significantly. True, they could wait instead for us to reduce ours. But then the world would be left with no one able to prevent a slaughter—even in those rare instances when the world decides to try.
21 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Just for the sake of hearing a bit of a different view:
http://blogs.euobserver.com/irvin/2011/03/21/libya-peace-through-war/
[Daphne – Insufferable. To paraphrase: ‘we have no guarantee that the outcome will be successful, so let’s do nothing.’]
You say further down that “the arguments of those who can write and think should be taken more seriously than the arguments of those who can’t.” I agree with this. So I have brought to your readers’ attention an article, by someone who presumably knows how to read and write, which is a bit contrasting to your general thrust. Just to show that there ARE other opinions on what’s happening.
I disagree with the simple equation that action = war, and that if you don’t agree with the war then you are pro-Gaddafi. I would have thought that so many conflicts since WW2 must have at least taught us a lesson. Seems not.
[Daphne – Yes, they did. World War II in particular taught us the lesson that if you spend several years appeasing a murderous tyrant, you then have to spend many more years paying the price. And that if you don’t act to stop mass murder in its initial stages, then you will find yourself dealing with the deaths of millions, including your own people.]
What ‘other action’ would you take?
Please don’t say ‘sanctions. We can already see where those have led.
@Albert Farrugia
Yesterday, I politely asked your opinion on how to approach and resolve this crisis without military means. I understand that you might have missed my query. Hopefully, Corinne’s comment above will elicit a reply from you.
Allow me to ask another question especially after reading your comment below Ranier Fsadni’s opinion piece on the Times of Malta.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110324/opinion/a-bad-week-for-neutrality
Do you believe that Gaddafi’s regime should be ousted from its position of power in Libya and brought in front of the International Criminal Court?
“One question Prime Minister Gonzi is expected to answer is how he defines ‘humanitarian’”
Maybe something along these lines – Maltese business interests –
http://v3.cache7.c.bigcache.googleapis.com/static.panoramio.com/photos/original/41694644.jpg?redirect_counter=2
Dear Daphne PLEASE stop hitting at our Prime Minister.Your obsession to sell our commercial airport to the Allies (are they really Allies??)has become nausiating.Not even the UN resolution and the Arab League Nations have sanctioned the removal of Gaddafi, that is for the Libyans to decide when hopefully peace,whenever it happens!!!. Remember there are over six million Libyans and we don’t know how many of them support or are against Gaddafi.
Our Prime Minister has shown great ability until now.
If and when Gaddafi is removed can you guarantee that the authority which takes over will treat ALL Libyans as one people??
[Daphne – I know that this might come across as even more ‘nausiating’, John, but the arguments of those who can write and think should be taken more seriously than the arguments of those who can’t. Majority rule does not come into play with this one.]
Since you can think and write Daphne, I would be interested to know how you can guarantee that the opposition will bring about freedom and treat all Libyans equally. By all means I hope they topple Ghaddafi but apart from a Ghaddafi free Libya, what else do they want?
Sometimes the good guys also do bad things as we saw in Darfur. While you’re at it, try to familiarise yourself with some of Lebanon’s recent history too.
[Daphne – I see that you belong to the school of thought which decrees that if the outcome cannot be guaranteed, then it’s best to do nothing. This is the way people who ‘think and write’ look at it: Gaddafi is definitely bad; the incomers might well be ‘good’. So let’s take the chance of having somebody good instead of going with the certainty of somebody who is definitely bad. And it’s not as though we have made the choice ourselves: once his own people have risen up against him our hand has been forced. It is only the shortsighted (or the primordially self-centred) who think in terms of sticking with the devil because at least it’s the devil they know and can do business with.]
Let me just ask the unaskable: what are the democratic credentials of the Opposition? Of course I am opening up myself to being accused as pro-Gaddafi with such a question, but since we don’t live in the time of the inquisition any more, I consider such a question to be legitimate.
All of those forming the Transitional Council have made their career under Gaddafi. Now they have second thoughts about him. Fine. But do we just take their word for it that now they have passed through a Damscene experience and are now democrats?
And what will happen to the Libyans who genuinly support Gaddafi. All TV networks seem to agree that Gaddafi does have genuine support. Who will protect them after the take-over by the new government? Or is the equation being worked out that Gaddafi supporters are by definition government thugs to be eliminated?
[Daphne – Oh, everybody’s asking that. You’re not being brave or clever, Albert. But that has been marked down as a secondary consideration for the simple reason that we don’t need to know what Gaddafi’s democratic credentials are. We know already.]
No you got that wrong, don’t try to pigeonhole me. I am simply cynical and cautious by nature and I don’t believe in stories that end with the phrase ‘happily ever after’…
I have never said that action should not be taken or advocated sticking with Gaddafi have I? My previous posts here would show you the contrary. My concern is about events that took place in other countries repeating themselves here. Surely you wouldn’t find objection to that would you now?
[Daphne – Yes, because the way you phrase your argument is defeatist and cynical. It belongs with that class of people who are deningrating current action in Libya on the grounds that we don’t know what comes next. And your solution would be….what, exactly?]
You’re not asking the unaskable, but your questions are not being answered by mealy-mouthed analysts (present company excluded).
So let’s unshackle the vocab and talk straight:
If the rebels capture or kill Gaddafi, and put in place their own regime, a good number of pro-Gaddafis will be killed. That’s the simplest way of putting it. Some will be shot on the spot, and others will suffer for a few days at the business end of electrodes and drill bits, before being killed.
This is a strange little war, in that the real results are far more beneficial to Europe than the stated aims, contrary to, say, Kosovo. Gaddafi operated with impunity for 42 years. That impunity has been destroyed.
It is incredibly disingenuous to state that we go to war over the human rights of some oppressed people. And I believe it is immoral too. War is the guarantor of national interest, and should be waged in the national interest.
Now, to put it plainly and callously, the plight of the average Libyan is of no concern to Europe. But the stranglehold of Gaddafi certainly is.
Seen in that light, any action which destroys Gaddafi’s power is positive, and morally and politically justified.
This is why Europe wouldn’t go to war to “liberate” Syria, for instance, or Bahrain. Their dictatorships have an infinitesimal effect on European interests.
Had I wanted to denigrate the action I would have stated my objections plainly and clearly but I regret our country is not being part of it as a matter of fact.
What I am concerned about is who gets allowed to come and stay here indefinitely after Gaddafi is toppled and the new leaders turn out to be just as bad.
But yes, this is not the most pressing issue at the moment. We should all focus on knocking Gaddafi off his perch and minimising the loss of lives. That can be dealt with later.
If you can read between the lines you should be able to deduce that Gaddafi’s time is up. Nobody is saying it out aloud, but all actions taking place are tightening the noose around his neck and also making it very difficult for him to operate.
Even his ground units at the edge of cities are being hit, and soon they shall be short of food, ammo, fuel, and replacement troops, and that is when his world will implode. All this has been possible because the use of force has been mandated. So it is about time we realise that we have new neighbours who have every right to be where they are. A new dawn heralds a new beginning, bringing what it may.
People who shut their eyes to reality simply invite their own destruction.
This article is nothing short of casting pearls before swine.
I don’t see anything genuinely humanitarian in providing transport and full board and lodging at a price to the evacuees we had to accommodate early on in the crisis and then looking the other way when it comes to actively assisting in ridding the neighbourhood of the rat in Tripoli who is cowering behind a human shield.
The ‘mercy mission’ flights were a means of ensuring that the passengers did not get onto a boat that might have ended up in Malta.
In effect, they pandered – however unintentionally – to the ‘send them back’ brigade. That is probably why there has been a deafening silence on the matter.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/24/us-libya-usa-poll-idUSTRE72N1JN20110324
I never thought that you can write and think. You just repeat and repeat and think and think the same things. Let’s pray that when Gaddafi is toppled the majority will tolerate the minority and won’t massacre them.
In the meantime, the minority (read Gaddafi) has and continues to oppress, torture and kill the majority. Is this acceptable to you?
SPOT ON BAXXTER.
Why is it that when I read Baxxter’s comments my little black chihuahua comes to mind ?
@Stefan Vella
That is precisely what I meant. If the present minority (Gaddafi’s) oppresses and tortures the majority, what will the majority do when they will take over power!!!