Well prepared, prudent and far-reaching?

And not even a phone call to KMB?

Lorna, we actually hedged our bets right. Now, let’s see. The West winning contracts over ‘others’ is highly unlikely after having been bombed and having encouraged the rebels to fight the Gaddafi regime. Don’t get me wrong, I am as anti-Gaddafi as they come, but you don’t simply kiss and make up with someone who just bloodied your nose.

But the point is not ‘Malta’s gains’ – heaven forbid I even go there! The point is that if Malta invited the coalition to use our airport or Grand Harbour, it would have given but a miniscule hand. You don’t throw caution to the wind when the consequences of your actions cannot be quantified. The government’s decision to say ‘no’ to using Malta as some sort of a base was taken in the early days of the conflict and not after most of Gaddafi’s air force was made toast.

It was ridiculously suggested that the PM had opportunities to make a U turn and ‘make amends’. Why? Did Angela Merkel do such a thing after she washed her hands of joining the coalition? So, now who are we trying to compare our PM to?

Even the Arab League had a tough time joining in the no-fly initiative and after they consented, they had second thoughts. They didn’t expect ‘so much bombing’ by the coalition! Seems to me that they must have been living in la-la land and not listened to several American generals saying that ‘we will have to take out Libya’s military and radar installations before we even talk about a no-fly zone’.

Politicians know very well that what they say will be subject to speculation, interpretation and that there is no way to please everyone all the time. That’s the nature of the beast.

In the coming weeks (months ?) when Gaddafi is either history or captured and his regime dismantled, we may realize that Malta, after all, did make the right decision.

What many had calculated that by the end of the first week of the no-fly zone being enforced, Gaddafi would flee, disappear or be killed have been awfully wrong and unfortunately, no military might, granting or not of a base located 160 km from Tripoli, seems to matter much with regard to speeding up the process.

Wrong on all counts.

1. Qatar recognised the INC.

2. Citizens of most – if not all – countries in the coalition had investments and well paid jobs in Libya.

3. Citizens are protected by getting rid of Gaddafi, not by sitting back and trying to ride out the conflict.

Daphne, I will answer the one question you posed:” Angus, answer this. Do you believe in the doctrine of self-reliance?”
The answer is, yes I do as much as you do. That is exactly my point. Self reliance is the ability to act according to ones capability.

Malta’s capability to handle a situation like Libya’s is near zilch. For goodness sakes, even if Gozo had to rebel, we would have difficulty controlling the situation! For heaven’s sakes did we not (nearly) face similar situations in Malta when government backed thugs fired on their brethren who, by the way, were not rioting, but merely exercising their rights with police permit in hand, to hold a political meeting?

Did the British or Americans drop in to calm things down? Of course not, it was not their problem and Malta, here or not, would not have mattered much to them. In other words, it was ‘not in their interest’ to take matters inn their own hands.

So, by the same token why, for goodness sake, would Malta go beyond a humanitarian effort in transferring escapees from Gaddafi’s atrocities? Are we morally bound to send our troops in harm’s way or to offer our only link to the outside world (MIA is privately owned, if I recall) jeopardising our daily bread and butter? It’s OK now to say ‘but Gaddafi’s capability has been reduced to nothing’, but when the decision was taken, neither you nor I, nor anyone else could predict how things would turn out especially if the powers-to-be took their sweet time deciding if and what to do.

And, do you think for a moment that living in North America is influencing my thinking which, I can assure you, is identical in the minds of the majority?

I think that this subject has outlived its relevance and it is about time we start hearing about other topics. Of course, this is not my blog and I am grateful that my diverging opinions are even printed here. Two interesting topics would be the nuclear disaster (in the making?) in Japan and the arrival (in the hundreds this time) of Somalian ‘illegal immigrants’ now that there are no Libyan controls at their ports and that the Italians have renegged on the ‘Friendship Treaty’ with Gaddafi.

Daphne, I have been reading your blog long enough to understand that Caruana Galizia is your married name. Your biography and family tree explanations are repetitions of similar versions given several times to different people over the last several years, but in this instance had nothing to do with my points raised and which you, quite frankly did not address.

[Daphne – I did address them, Angus. You suggested that I speak the way I do because I know nothing. I pointed out that I know rather more than most, and why.]

Your last comment about ‘civilians like me who seem to dispise what journalists do’, is certainly below the belt and totally uncalled for. That I prefer journalists who do their job of reporting news and go as far as expressing their opinion about what’s happening, there is no question. But I think I have the right to hate journalists who manufacture news in order to make themselves appear as if they know what they are talking about and are often quite wrong.

[Daphne – Hate is a strong word, isn’t it? Also, in circumstances like these, it is misdirected.]

Talk about Malta being an ass-hole by your reckoning, I heard and watched Obama’s speech on TV last night. By your estimate of Malta’s behaviour regarding the Libyan affair, then you must grade Obama similarly, if you heard his speech at all.

He couldn’t make up his mind whether to apologize for ordering his armed forces to pour over 200 missiles at Libyan targets, or to claim that the US is a leader and has the right to intervene ‘when the interests of his country are to be protected’ or ‘not to stand by when civilians are being murdered’.

But then he made a mistake of naming Syria and Yemen, stating that those are ‘other situations’ and that the outcome of their troubles may be different! Were those the words of a yo-yo, or the measured response to situations which may be tearing his guts and having arrived at a determination which is ‘damned if he does and damned if he does not?

[Daphne – It was a very good speech which addressed the issues. Barack Obama has to deal with the US version of Angus Black, who thinks that we should stay out of it and let others fight their own battles. Instead of acting as our prime minister did, he acted as a leader should, and then faced his people and told them why.]

Following Obama was a discussion on CNN where three guests, one an expert, one Senator and, Donald Trump, nonetheless had a very lively discussion, with three different opinions and definitely no common conclusion.

[Daphne – I watched it. But I’m not one of those people who changes my opinion according to opinions I hear on the television. I change my opinion when the facts change, or when I notice things that I hadn’t noticed before.]

But the little ass-hole Malta should have risen above all and clearly prostituted herself at the expense of the safety of its citizens, their investments in Libya and the well paying jobs they had and which may still be salvageable given a reasonable outcome of this mess. I want to point out that my opinion has nothing to do with the so called ‘neutrality clause’ in the Constitution.

[Daphne – Angus, answer this. Do you believe in the doctrine of self-reliance? I do. God helps those who help themselves. You can leave God out of it if you will, but the doctrine stays the same. This belief is completely alien to the Maltese mindset. Completely alien. We don’t help ourselves, we don’t do our duty in helping others and over and above that, we expect everyone to help us at their expense. It is to this that I object. What if everyone else were to adopt the attitude of Malta and Germany and sit back thinking ‘Let the others do it’. What you say here is this: Malta shouldn’t pull its weight in the action against Gaddafi, but when it comes to benefitting from the result, it should be right in there with the rest. What is the moral basis for your argument? Please explain, because I am genuinely interested. I find amoral pragmatists fascinating, and not necessarily in a good way.]

Also it is worth noting that the Interim Council in Benghazi is still not officially recognized by any other country, a full three weeks after Sarkozy jumped the gun and who you hailed as a hero!

[Daphne – Yes, he is a hero. And you have the word of the Libyan people on that. They are the ones who count. Not Angus Black of Maltese extraction but living in North America.]

Why does only the Prime Minister know what is happening? He needn’t tell the whole world, but he could certainly tell people back home.

And at a press conference in Brussels with Sarkozy a couple of days ago, with the world abuzz over the war in Libya, an Italian journalist asks the star question….what does Sarkozy think of Berlusconi’s treatment of Lactalis in the Parmalat affair?

Il-veru ghandhom il-prioritajiet f’posthom. Qishom Maltin.

You’re calling for immoral consistency. Here’s an explanation:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-03-28/obamas-libya-speech-why-consistency-in-foreign-policy-is-overrated/?om_rid=NsgR$D&om_mid=_BNkNnqB8Z3-FhU

“North America is SELF SUFFICIENT in everything.”

No it isn’t: Grain and oil. And rare-earth elements.