Hiding behind Miss Neutrality's skirt
Liam Fox: told Malta where to get off on burden-sharing
On timesofmalta.com:
Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi this morning underlined that the Gaddafi government had lost its legitimacy because it was shooting at its own people.
Welcoming British Defence Secretary Liam Fox at the Auberge de Castille, Dr Gonzi said the Libyan people were only calling for their fundamental freedoms and they should have been heeded. Change, he said, could not be stopped.
Dr Gonzi said the international community could help in various ways to bring about change. Malta was backing a call for a summit meeting involving the EU, the Arab League and the African Union, whose importance was to bring about pressure on the Libyan authorities.
Asked about military action, such as a no-fly zone, Dr Gonzi said that while those options were under consideration by various quarters, Malta would remain neutral in as far as military action was involved, in line with its Constitutional obligations.
Dr Fox thanked Malta for its assistance in the evacuation of British and other nationals from Libya and said that Britain respected Malta’s constitutional obligations.
Asked whether Britain would support burden-sharing of migrants, he said that Britain’s position was to prevent an influx of migrants in the first place.
————
1. The Gaddafi ‘government’ never had legitimacy to start with because it was imposed on people and not chosen by them.
2. Even if one assumes, for the sake of retaining credibility in terms of one’s past actions, that the Gaddafi ‘government’ was legitimate, then the point at which it lost its legitimacy was when the Libyan people rose up en masse against it, and not when it began shooting at them.
3. The Libyan people are not ‘only’ calling for their fundamental freedoms. Fundamental freedoms are just that: fundamental. In the face of such terror which has only now become apparent to the government of Malta, a fight for fundamental freedoms is a huge and extremely dangerous undertaking. It is not ‘only’.
4.’They should have been heeded’. Well yes, but the point is that they are not living in a democracy. That’s why all this is happening. Because they are never heeded.
5. ‘Change cannot be stopped’. No, but the bloodshed, torture, kidnappings and murders which are the only way to make change possible in Libya with Gaddafi and his family of robber-barons and dissolute ‘princes’ around can be stopped if those people are blasted straight to hell. Tonio Borg – and he couldn’t possibly have taken that position without the go-ahead of his boss – thinks removing him is not the priority. A bit of basic human psychology should tell the foreign minister (and the prime minister) that a ceasefire will make it possible for Gaddafi to stay on . It will not bring about ‘regime change’. If the fighting stops while he’s still there, then it’s obvious that nothing will dislodge him.
6. A summit meeting, eh? Yet another talking shop. This time, they had better make sure the press photographs don’t show them laughing and smiling. That really came across well, I must say.
7. Neutrality means that we expect others to solve problems which affect us directly while we lie around and play dead. Does Malta need to get rid of Gaddafi? Yes. Is Malta prepared to help get rid of him? No. So what would Malta do if it couldn’t rely on other countries to do the job? It would have to lump him and his sick family for another two generations at least. Malta wants other people to do the job while it keeps its hands clean and yells ‘Neutrality’.
8. Malta says it will not help get rid of Gaddafi. Then its foreign minister goes one step further and says that getting rid of Gaddafi is not a priority. But then Malta expects – nay, demands – help with the flood of refugees that will be the result of Gaddafi staying on. ‘We’re not in a hurry to see Gaddafi go, but if people start running away from him, come and pick them up and look after them yourself, please.’ I don’t think so, honey.
9. Britain’s defence minister Liam Fox does that thing the English are so good at and puts Malta firmly in its place with a pointed remark. Asked about ‘burden-sharing’ – because you know, people are a burden and not human-beings – of migrants, he responds that Britain’s position is to prevent the problem in the first place. I wish I could have been there to Laugh Out Loud.
41 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
It appears the PM is hiding his balls behind a ‘neutrality jock strap’. (Ice hockey talk). He is embarrassing himself and all that he is supposed to represent. Time for a slap shot.
Amazing how heroes turn to hockey players hiding their balls behind a neutrality jock-strap in a matter of hours.
Saif Gaddafi: “It will be very easy to replace Italy with China or Russia,”
One doesn’t have to wonder too long. He mentioned those two because they are the only two countries which oppose the no-fly zone over Libya.
Can one imagine if this were to materialize? Having China or Russia next door?
Now, who’s for neutrality as in neutralized?
I can understand Saif’s wrath at Italy since it decided (and rightly so) to suspend the multi-billion euro agreement with Libya, but now it is clear as day that the Gaddafi clan is not only to be isolated but preferably totally eliminated one way or another.
Malta stands to lose much more than Libya’s friendship but it must also act with some restraint so as not to be included with Italy in any retaliatory actions by the Gaddafis – if, heaven forbid they prevail.
On surface the words of our government seem to lack the sting, but there is a Maltese saying which is somewhat hard to translate and still makes sense: ‘Il-borma min isawwara jkun jaf x’fiha’. We will do more harm to ourselves if we shoot our mouth before we engage our brains especially when lacking the necessary information about what is happening behind the scenes.
My reading is that PM’s intended audience is not EU governments but investors and potential tourists. The message that is being put across is that Malta is a safe place and that, even if the situation in Libya gets worse (which it will) Malta will remain a safe place.
It’s the message that’s at issue, not the audience.
Along with other muddled concepts (like entrenching an anti-abortion clause in the constitution, “no” to divorce as a legitimate civil freedom), “neutrality” is the Maltese posture [placed in the constitution] to skirt the issue of “just war,” while aspiring to believe (falsely) that going to war is always immoral.
What’s the difference between genocide in Rwanda and butchery in Libya, as the West stands on the sidelines observing and debating the massacre, refusing to come to the defense of essentially unarmed citizens attempting to take control of their lives by rising in opposition to their enslavement by Gadaffi and his cohorts [in power in part by the immoral collusion of the West]?
No one is free to beg off the morality or immorality of foreign policy based upon a constitutional neutrality. Correct moral decisions are not easy, simple, or black and white, but they have to be taken along with the all of the obligations and consequences. Failure to act is also immoral.
And yet, not all moral solutions apply equally to all. In reality they apply according to the means at one’s disposal.
It is immoral – if not outright arrogant – to expect all to do the same thing, if not all have the same possibilities.
—-
In the past, we had to fight the Nazi-Fascists. There was absolutely nothing wrong in that. Actually, we did the right thing. We fought against Evil.
Yet, we got more bombardments than the whole of England during the war.
We got no Marshal Aid.
Half our country was demolished by the German airforce.
And what did we get? A George Cross – which in itself is worthless, but on the other hand it is a symbol to our collective courage.
But did we get anything in economic terms? Nothing. Just devastation.
I wouldn’t want my country, my people to go through another war of aggression because the West wants to keep its hegemony.
Look at the Swiss. They were neutral. And wise.
——
As you rightly point out, the West was in collusion with Gaddafi. Why should we now take part in any belligerent action against him, just because the relationship between him and the West has gone sour?
Would military action against Gaddafi be a “just war”?
No. Because of the previous collusion, it would be a war of aggression.
Would humanitarian considerations make it a just war? What moral argument gives the US/West the status of global policeman?
Was NATO morally justified to intervene in the Balkans in the late 90s?
There are crimes which are held to be against humanity, such as genocide. Who is to decide – if the Rule of Law is to be respected – that certain acts amount to crime?
Is there something analogous to reasonable suspicion which would make any incursion legitimate?
Where is the line of demarcation between quelling insurgent terrorists (such as the case of Sri Lanka) and crimes against humanity (such as the case of the Balkans)?
If an International Court decides that there were no crimes against humanity, would the deposed politician be reinstated in his government?
Where lies the boundary between politics and law in international affairs?
In view of all these questions, I would:
(i) be careful before invoking such a controversial notion as “just war”
(ii) be even more careful before offering our minuscle island to foreign military ventures. We get bombarded once, we lose half our national assets.
Big words (such as “just war”) do not apply to micro-States.
I would like to illustrate what I meant by “And yet, not all moral solutions apply equally to all. In reality they apply according to the means at one’s disposal” by the following example:
We are three people in a dark alley: myself, an attractive young lady and a strange guy in a macintosh who takes out a knife and wants the young lady to relief him sexually. With his knife in one hand and the girl’s throat in the other, he looks at me threateningly.
I am not big, I don’t carry a weapon, and I don’t practise martial arts. I only have a mobile phone with me.
What should I do?
Despite my limitations, risk my life to save the damsel’s honour?
Run away?
Stay there and witness the crime?
Call the police, risking that by the time they arrive the maniac has already slit my throat?
Start praying to God that Superman, Batman, Captain America, Daredevil, the Fantastic Four, the Incredible Hulk, and all the other Heroes from the International Comic Hero Federation came to save me and the girl, and hand the psychopath over to the Police of Gotham City?
Liam Fox does not get it. He did not know that that was only a test question for us to know what Britain would do in case we requested help.
Liam Fox does not know that our government has a plan firmly in place: the orders are that when boat-loads with refugees are seen on the horizon, specially trained Maltese are to go to Malta’s shores and cliffs armed with copies of the Constitution and they are to brandish it high above their heads while simultaneously shouting that we are neutral.
In this manner, the boat people will skirt Malta and will proceed on to Sicily. Just brilliant.
I think there was a comedy called “No refugees please, we are neutral”.
Never heard of it. But it sure is being played out in Malta. Coming to think of it, then, the Maltese main actors on the stage are comedians at the moment.
On the other hand, the influx of migrants is due – in part – to the colonialist past.
Had the Europeans not undertaken the Scramble for Africa in the 1880s, today we would probably be facing less problems from the “Black Continent”.
Had the Europeans not cut boundaries between territories oblivious to the tribes or peoples inhabiting them, then it could very well be that many of the civil wars and other tensions which plague Africa would not be there to scare people away from their towns and villages making them seek refuge in Europe which they perceive as a safe haven from the blood baths at home.
Had the Europeans refrained from continuing to manage the nascent African States with behind-the-scenes maneouvres and supporting stooge dictatorships which crushed their own peoples, probably we wouldn’t have mass migrations nowadays.
So please Mr Fox, shoulder the responsibility for your ancestors’ actions, and share the burden with us. After all, we Maltese got nothing from the resources of Africa, whereas Britain became filthy rich. (Also after having milked the Indian cow.)
So, please, let us not talk nonsense. Let us support the Prime Minister who cannot couch his political discourse in these (admittedly Mintoffian) terms. Let us admit that this is the subtext of his request. I apologize profusely, but in this case, Mintoff’s cry of Malta l-ewwel u qabel kollox is nothing short of timely.
You have your facts oh so totally wrong, Min Weber. And your logic is even worse.
Britain and France put more into the colonies than they took out. Check the figures. So that argument fails.
[Daphne – Well, if you look at Malta you can see that for a fact. Mur arana, kemm konna se naslu bil-Malti, biss biss. And one of the reasons we are able to succeed even now at the things we do is because all the structures of government and administration were put in place so solidly that they even survived the years of depredation 1971 to 1987.]
Then you equate the Balkans and Libya. They are two different worlds. Even I, war-hungry as I am, think it was wrong to attack Serbia. Morally wrong and politically wrong. Because we did nothing but help out a bunch of Albanian terrorists who carved their own ethnically cleansed territory out of Serbia.
Crimes against humanity are just a palaver. Milosevic never threatened Europe or the world. Gaddafi did, for 42 years. The level of nastiness of the man is incomparable. Not every war is the same, even though the final result is dead individuals.
Then you raise the usual fantasy of being bombarded. This time by Libya. So you’re saying that our only defence against that eventuality these last 42 years has been our fawning servility to Gaddafi. In lieu of NATO membership, presumably.
I don’t cherish our neutrality. I despise it. It has turned a once brave nation into a country of bead-clutching duplicitous cowards.
“Let us support the Prime Minister”? Let us not. He looks incredibly ridiculous right now.
It’s encouraging to see the prime minister abide by the constitution, yet the word ‘neutral’ does not stand here because this is not a case of two warring nations but a revolt.
Citing the neutrality clause in this case can only undermine its aims. Besides, there is not much leeway for neutrality when we form part of the EU, whose foreign, defence and security policies are fast being ‘communitarised’.
In any case, one does not have to be neutral to rule out a military role, let alone a military intervention.
And to those who think civil war should lead to Gaddafi’s end – think again. And think Iraq.
You mean the same way that Saddam Hussein survived the invasion?
No, C Falzon, you are missing the whole point. The end game should be peace, not the ousting of a dictator per se.
Iraq started very much in the same way. Remember the failed Basra uprising? A civil war will not necessarily oust Gaddafi, and further escalation would only entrench the two sides. That would eventually lead to Western military intervention (if it suits them, that is). And that’s Iraq for you.
Do you have any idea of the situation in Iraq under the ‘democratic’ Al Maliki government? Torture and mayhem is what rules there, and their ‘Day of Rage’ involved the killing of protestors, but hardly a word from the frenzied media.
Never thought I’d see that day when I’d say this… I agree with Kev on this one.
For once I fully agree with you, Kev. (Should I be worried?)
Kev,
What is needed now is to ‘take out’ Gaddafi directly by military means. It is far too late now to let the people do it themselves. In that much I agree that at this point ‘levelling the playfield’ (which is what a no fly zone would attempt to do) is no longer sufficient. It would have been if it had been done early enough.
As far as Iraq is concerned I am one of those apparently few people who believe that Iraq, bad as it is today, was far worse off when Saddam Hussein was still running the show there.
Just the same I am quite sure that whatever replaces the Gaddafi regime cannot possibly be worse.
@ anyone
Condemnation, frowning and warmongering aside can anyone explain to me in CONCRETE terms, how Gaddafi is going to be ousted from power?
By supplying arms and embedded training teams to the rebels. That’s the best way. With perhaps some air support.
Daphne, your argument could apply to many other localities – Bangladesh is one – and it is all for want of a dispassionate and objective view, fired up by the frenzy-whipping Anglo-Saxon corporate media, that you fail to realise that Santa Claus is not real.
[Daphne – Kevin, we have been here before. Murder and mayhem on your doorstep is of more concern than murder and mayhem in the next city. The same applies to international affairs. What happens in Libya is of very real relevance to me in Malta. What happens in Bangladesh is not. Yesterday’s tsunami in Japan, for instance: imagine if that had happened round Greece.]
So don’t expect the whole world to share your doorstep – that’s the first point.
[Daphne – Nobody does. That’s why the pressure is on Europe. And the United States, which has a vested interest in stability in the region.]Secondly, it is precisely why
Libya is so close to us that we should reject the idea of any military intervention since that would spell disaster for us.
[Daphne – Gaddafi spelled disaster for us, Kevin.]
As for Japan’s earthquake, there’s something that affects you there too, since the appearance of an aurora borealis just before the quake signifies it could have been triggered by solar activity impacting the earth’s electro-magnetic field (unless it was H.A.A.R.P., of course, which I don’t think is the case).
[Daphne – You need to discuss this with somebody else. It’s not really my thing.]
“Secondly, it is precisely why Libya is so close to us that we should reject the idea of any military intervention since that would spell disaster for us.
[Daphne – Gaddafi spelled disaster for us, Kevin.]”
…………………………………………………………………………
That’s a cop-out, Daphne. Moreover, how sure are you that the rebels, once in power, would not cage and torture their foes in the same Gaddafi manner (other than seizing Maltese business interests, as we were forewarned)?
[Daphne – Simple: because they cannot come to power without foreign military intervention. That much is now clear. And those who intervene will have to lay down the ground rules.]
There is hardly any difference between Gaddafi’s regime and Al Maliki’s ‘democratic’ regime in Iraq. Same despotic social control; same type of cronyism.
There’s not much sense in replacing one despot with another, especially if the latter acts under the guise of a democratic mandate, as was the case with Hosni Mubarak in Egypt.
kev, you’re such an idiot. An earthquake caused by solar flare? What wll it be next, swine flu spread by ETs?
Daphne,
The H.A.A.R.P. is just a US scientific experiment that has become a favourite subject of many a loony conspiracy theorist. Now Kev is not a conspiracy theorist, is he? So surely he is just joking.
Here’s an interesting facet: ‘US Contracting Tech Firms for Revolutions’ http://www.infowars.com/us-contracting-tech-firms-for-revolutions/
It’s written in dissident lingo, but it’s factual.
BTW, the above should read: “Secondly, it is precisely because Libya is so close to us…”
X’int antipatiku, wonka.
Not that you deserve any help, but here, this is one take by one ‘idiot’ – http://www.infowars.com/piers-corbyn-massive-japan-earthquake-tsunami-were-triggered-by-solar-action/
Don’t come back to me. Evaluate the evidence and throw yourself off a cliff if you will.
Murder amd mayhem are murder and mayhem wherever they happen. Your argument would mean that as the United States is not close to Libya the US should not intervene in Libya and only neighbouring countries should intervene. This would mean that murder in Catania is of more concern to us than murder in Tripoli.
[Daphne – Yes, a similar crisis in Catania (unlikely) would be of more concern to us. The United States is geographically distant from Libya but economically close. Murder and mayhem are murder and mayhem wherever they happen, but they are not quite as compelling if they happen in New Zealand.]
I do not underestimate the fact of neighbourliness as the effects of what happens in neighbouring countries may effect us more as, for example, there would probably be Maltese present in these countries. However I am and I think should be concerned about the earthquake in Japan as I was and should have been about the earthquake in Italy.
The hard-pressed rebels against the Gaddafi regime must swallow their misplaced pride and they must request Europe and the USA, through the UN agencies for the essential and unavoidable military assistance necessary to stop the on-going slaughter of inadequately armed civilians being crushed by the regime’s airforce, artillery and foreign mercenaries.
Malta’s contribution is not essential but it would enable us to hold our head high for playing our small share in the liberation of the Libyan masses from their home-grown oppressors. It would compensate somewhat for our previous pusilanimity in dealing with the Gaddafi regime and our best forgotten old and active support for that regime’s terrorism directed against its own people and against the whole civilized world.
The Arab League and the African Union do not seem to care about their ‘blood brothers’ and have come into the picture only recently. They appear to be leaving matters for others to sort out.
A case in point is also the situation in the Middle East – the Arab League and the African Union are not doing much, if anything, to solve the plight of the Palestinians.
So I suppose one should not really be surprised that Malta is seeking its own interests although it may seem that we do not care of what is happening in Libya. Of course I do not agree with this stance but when one sees larger countries taking an attitude of seemingly ‘wait and see’ what can I deduce from all this ?
Etil….hmmm… Now, the Palestinian plight. I guess not everyone is on the same wave-length about the ‘plight’. I might call the Israeli situation a ‘plight’ because of the daily risk of terrorist attacks on their property and their citizens. Now, was it not the UN voted for the State of Israel in 1947?
Solving the plight of the Palestinians?
It was the Arab countries themselves that were involved in one of the worst massacres of Palestinians i.e. September 1970 – thousands killed by Jordanian troops with the complacent agreement and go-ahead of Nasser.
This is just to illustrate to what extent the World’s politicians can go to try an again political and economical advantage. If there is one thing for certain in world politics is that there is no loyalty.
The ridiculous thing is that while Maltese politiicans keep hiding behind this neutrality clause in the constitution, people seem to forget that it’s pretty obvious the only reason it was inserted into the constitution back in the 80s in the first place was to appease Gaddafi.
And then we get the PM saying Malta will support every effort to help the Libyan people. What a load of bollocks.
Isn’t a law a law, irrespective of the motivations behind it?
I wonder what’s becoming of Rule of Law.
A law which has become irrelevant or wrong should be revised.
True. And the mechanism for that – in this case – is a 2/3 majority of MPs.
Which we do not half, because half the House considers the law to be relevant and/or good.
And therefore the law has to be obeyed – dura lex sed lex.
Don’t be so sure that it is only “half the House (that) considers the (neutrality) law to be relevant and/or good.” There were many Nationalists back in the eighties who had no need of a gun to be put to their head to agree to insert the neutrality clause in the constitution.
It appears that there are still some around who find the clause a useful prop for their spinelessness.
Our parliament that could not manage to secure the necessary majority to deal with a judge who had managed to receive a salary for years whilst doing precisely nothing is not likely ever to secure the required 2/3 majority for sanitisation of our neutrality clause.
I agree to a certain extent with the title. No Maltese government will go to war or be part or support a war coalition irrespective of the neutrality clause. This is also what most Maltese wish, probably as we value our safety. No one wants Maltese soldiers or civilians to die or be injured in conflict. Besides military action will probably have negative effects on Malta economically as in the tourist sector.
[Daphne – Why have soldiers if you want them to avoid conflict? EVERYBODY values their safety. But not all are lucky enough to be able to rely on others to guarantee it. As for tourism: your thinking is short-termist and short-sighted.]
Id-doting parent syndrome. Clifton ara taqa’. Klaydon ara tixraq. Kleavon ilbes beritta ghax tiehu cmajra. U issa Lawrence ara ddahhalna fi gwerra li ma jmurx Jake tieghi imut jew iwegga’.
We take wimpiness to levels never before explored. When a tiny Maltese detachment boarded a Dutch frigate on Operation Atalanta, the articles in the Times, complete with teary kiddies and huggies from the girlfriend, made it look as if they were stepping straight into Helmand.
Oh P.S. I WANT Maltese soldiers to die in a conflict. Because that’s when a nation is born.