That's not a position. It's an observation.

Published: March 11, 2011 at 4:43pm

At the EU Summit today - photo by Omar Camilleri/DOI

From the report on timesofmalta.com this afternoon:

Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi, who is representing Malta at the summit reiterated this morning the Maltese government’s position that the exit of Colonel Gaddafi from the political scene is ‘inevitable’.

Will the prime minister please stop trying to pass this off as Malta’s position? It is not a position. It is an observation. It is exactly the same thing as my saying that a Labour electoral victory is inevitable.

That does not mean I think there should be a Labour victory or that I will in any way help to bring it about. My position is that there should be another Nationalist government. My observation is that a Labour government is inevitable.

Lawrence Gonzi said that the end of Gaddafi’s rule is inevitable at the Castille press conference about evacuation efforts. He said it after meeting Barroso, and he has been reported as saying it to Gaddafi’s emissary and to the Libyan prime minister a couple of days ago.

Now he has said it again, at today’s EU Summit. But it means absolutely nothing. I imagine that even John Dalli can work out that the end of Gaddafi is inevitable. It doesn’t necessarily follow that he wants him to step down.

People (here in Malta only, though) lauded the prime minister’s words as a strong statement, but that’s because they know little about the use of language. It’s also because Maltese culture does not favour clear and unequivocal language and rarely uses it, which is why people like me stick out like sore thumbs.

It’s also why Maltese people have so much trouble with idiomatic English, a language ‘designed’ for clear speech only. You can prevaricate and duck and dive in Italian and Maltese, but try doing that in English and you’ll invariably sound like you’re speaking your second or third or even fourth language.

Saying that the end of Gaddafi is inevitable is not a strong statement and it is certainly not Malta’s position. It is, in fact, utterly meaningless.

I suspect that sentence was chosen as a ‘clever’ way of having our prime minister avoid saying what Malta BELIEVES GADDAFI MUST DO and what IS WRONG WITH HIS BEHAVIOUR.

Compare these sentences:

‘The end of Gaddafi is inevitable’.
‘Malta urges Gaddafi to step down immediately’

And:

‘The violence must stop’ (also our prime minister’s choice of words)
‘Gaddafi must stop attacking his own people’

The fact remains that the only position Malta has taken is by default: through the votes of its five MEPs on the European Parliament resolution yesterday, which called on Gaddafi to stand down at once and cease attacking his people, and by participating in today’s EU summit, which is expected to declare its condemnation of Gaddafi’s regime and demand his departure, though we don’t know yet as they are still blathering on.

What makes this business more shameful and disappointing is the comparison of the prime minister’s lack of hesistancy in saying what he thinks about divorce and taking a definite stand against it, and his very evident reluctance to be clear and categorical in his condemnation of Muammar Gaddafi.

If divorce is a greater evil in our leaders’ eyes than Colonel Gaddafi and all the evil he has wrought and stands to inflict yet on his people, then I despair.

And while I’m at it, here’s a message to Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando, Jesmond Mugliett and the rest of them: for heaven’s sake stop yapping about divorce and give it a rest. Your priorities are twisted and you’re completely out of synch with the public mood. We’re all worried as hell about what’s happening in Libya and more worried still about what comes next. And you’re in cloud-cuckoo land, promoting Tattinger parties on Facbook called Give Love A Second Chance. As though anybody old enough to be married, separated, in a second relationship and hassling for divorce should be at Tattinger’s in the first place. What a mentality.




20 Comments Comment

  1. willywonka says:

    “If divorce is a greater evil in our leaders’ eyes than Colonel Gaddafi and all the evil he has wrought and stands to inflict yet on his people, then I despair”

    Then despair.

  2. willywonka says:

    “The 27 EU leaders are expected to declare their condemnation to the Libyan regime and ask that Gaddafi stands down ‘immediately’ to make way for a new beginning in Libya.” – The Times.

    Yaaaay! Way to go brother, brother! Way to go.

  3. H.P. Baxxter says:

    Hmm. Give Gaddafi a second chens.

  4. .Angus Black says:

    Well then, Daphne, how come PM Gonzi is one of “The 27 EU leaders (who) are expected to declare their condemnation to the Libyan regime and ask that Gaddafi stands down ‘immediately’ to make way for a new beginning in Libya”.

    [Daphne – It doesn’t take much to act with a group, Angus. In that situation, it would take guts NOT to go with the group. I’m sorry, I know you and I differ in our opinion on this – going by what I have read here – but I really, really cannot stand the Maltese way of thinking: never cut people dead, stay friends with everyone, kullhadd jizbalja, judge not lest thou be judged, and all that total crap. When you are nice to somebody who is beyond the pale, it allows them to think that they and their behaviour are somehow acceptable in a civilised society. This is a country where you can go to a birthday party in so-called smart society and find yourself seated next to somebody who has just served a 15-year prison sentence for cocaine trafficking or a chief justice who was disgraced and jailed (though in a mental hospital) for taking bribes from drug dealers. And everyone will be smiling at them and shaking their hand and asking them how they are. It doesn’t even occur to the hosts that they have insulted and compromised their other guests, and it doesn’t occur to the guests that they have been insulted and compromised. THAT’S what I mean. I would never even have met Gaddafi’s emissaries (“Sorry, I have nothing to say to you that can’t be said on the phone, if at all.”) and if I had, it would have been at the airport to avoid checking them through officially into Maltese territory, which is a statement in itself. I totally disapprove.]

    Gonzi delayed but not objected to the tightening of sanctions until he obtained some assurances which may protect Maltese business interests but showed no disagreements that Gaddafi should leave. Sometimes we are a bit over analytic or as the Maltese proverb goes ‘insibu x-xahra fl-ghagina’. Let’s face it, Dr. Gonzi could have also ‘delayed’ such a declaration.

    I know you will disagree and that’s OK but again if Gonzi was strong enough to refuse to return two Mirages for the release of three Dutch soldiers (and still they were released), then I think that stating that Gaddafi’s fall is ‘inevitable’ can also be interpreted as ‘sooner or later his reign of terror will be stopped’.

    [Daphne – How can you describe any hypothetical denial of a hypothetical ransom demand as ‘strong’? Is it because gutlessness is the default position in Malta that we have come to see normal behaviour as exceptional? Who would have swapped planes that can be used to kill thousands for three prisoners? Only somebody who thinks that a thousand Libyan civilians are worth one Dutch sailor. Yes, as you say they were still released anyway. The prime minister got cross on Bondi+ a couple of weeks ago because people criticise his behaviour from the comfort of not having to take any decisions themselves – but this is a democracy and he is accountable. He is also obliged to brief the press every day and not regard information as a favour to be bestowed.]

    Malta cannot stop it – remember we are neutral and lack the resources? But the EU, NATO, UN and possibly, though remotely, the US alone can see to it.

    Sometimes prudent diplomacy takes a slight detour and serves particular purposes and maybe this time the PM deemed it right to refrain from being point blank. I am sure that when this is hopefully over soon more details will emerge.

    [Daphne – The prime minister is NOT a diplomat. He is an elected head of government. Unlike diplomats, he and his government are required to take positions and keep the public apprised of them. Diplomats then follow those positions.]

    Our first offer to the new Transitional Council in Benghazi, once overwhelmingly recognized, should be: two Mirages for one helicopter since the latter is of better use for the AFM than the Mirages for which we do not have pilots nor their practical use.

    That would be one hell of an offer the Libyans could not possibly refuse.

    • Leo Said says:

      quote Daphne: [Unlike diplomats, he and his government are required to take positions and keep the public apprised of them. Diplomats then follow those positions]

      Daphne, would you be willing to agree that a primary professional duty of career diplomats is to primarily advise their prime minister and his/her government on what positions the government should take with reference to external/foreign affairs?

      I agree that diplomats are then duty-bound to follow positions taken by their respective government.

      [Daphne – Yes, of course I agree with you, Leo, and that is why I said the prime minister’s and foreign minister’s visit to Libya just five or six days before the rebellion blew up was a signal failure of diplomatic intelligence. Perhaps the advice was given and was not heeded? It was inevitable that Libya would blow up after first Ben Ali and more so Mubarak fell, and there had been rumblings in Benghazi for some time. It is the role of career diplomats to advise the foreign minister (political appointees know little) but ultimately, it is the foreign minister who must then advise the prime minister and the prime minister who must decide. That’s where the buck stops.]

  5. Vanni says:

    The Libyan people have been sold out. The US won’t go it alone, the EU, thanks to Italy and Malta, will not do anything. The Arab countries won’t lift a finger. The UN is blocked thanks to Russia and China.

    Everybody condemns, albeit with a certain degree of vehemence, but nothing tangible will come out of it. An arms embargo is the sop to their conscience.

    Face it, Daphne, Gaddafi will stay on, and this is what makes the Maltese government pussyfoot around and come out with half baked condemnations. It is hedging its bets.

    • La Redoute says:

      There are no bets to hedge. The gloves are off, even if Malta’s aren’t.

    • .Angus Black says:

      Vanni, just tell me what do you expect Malta to do?

      Hey, we are neutral, remember and many are proud that we are, no matter what. Ask KMB for one, but he mouths off and makes us look bad.

      We have no army to speak of, no air force and a few boats for a navy. There are situations which unless one is able to flex his muscles, better stay quiet or if the opportunity presents itself, join with stronger parties and contribute the very little one can.

      However limited our contributions have been, thus far we have done substantially more, by virtue of our geographic position, than most other bigger and more affluent countries in protecting, ferrying, accommodating workers fleeing from the Libyan crisis.

      Italy and Malta are not keeping the EU from making decisions and there has been no single instance when Malta caused the EU or UN to stall.

      Somewhere I read a comment which stated that, “..no doubt a lot is happening behind close doors which we are not privy to…” or words to that effect. For this reason alone it is very unwise to pass judgement at this moment.

      Unfortunately and because we are so anxious to see a conclusion to this dilemma we seem to oversimplyfy things, to go with black on white, while forgetting that in between there are many shades of grey.

      • Vanni says:

        Being neutral may sound fine, untill one realizes that fence-sitting has a price. Those who do nothing, citing neutrality, are no better than those who kill, maim and torture.

        RE KMB, he wasn’t neutral, as his tipping Gaddafi off could be construed as taking sides against the American forces. Giving information to one side in a conflict is to the detriment of the other side.

        The international community is biding its time, and when the dust has settled, will decide which emperor to hail. Doing nothing, as it is doing now, reminds me of this:

        http://hi.nciku.com/space.php?uid=87&do=album&picid=8248

        Malta has made a pretty packet out of the whole ferrying business, what with planes having to pay for landing rights, hotel accomodation, catering etc etc. Apart from the look good factor.

  6. La Redoute says:

    The last we heard someone chant ‘Jew b’xejn, jew xejn’, Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici was in power.

    People go through hell, and you’re planning to scrounge a helicopter for free. How cheap. And I don’t mean the price.

  7. SM says:

    “You can prevaricate and duck and dive in Italian and Maltese, but try doing that in English and you’ll invariably sound like you’re speaking your second or third or even fourth language.”

    I believe Sir Humphrey illustrates the point in this clip:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8keZbZL2ero&feature=related

  8. ciccio2011 says:

    “the Maltese government’s position that the exit of Colonel Gaddafi from the political scene is ‘inevitable’.”

    I agree with you, Daphne. This is a very vague observation. I mean, as Adam Smith once said, in the long run we are all dead. And, inevitably, Gaddafi will, ONE DAY, exit the political scene.

  9. Jason Borg says:

    Kemm jidhru inkwetati f’dak ir-ritratt! Ja qabda pulċinelli. L-ewwel kollha jilagħqu lil Gaddafi u issa kontrih. Imħatra li la jerġa’ jieħu l-kontroll tal-Libja jmorru najxi najxi għal xi kuntratt ġdid.

  10. ciccio2011 says:

    Daphne, in the case of Gaddafi, Malta is succumbing to the politics of FEAR.

    I am not sure that we are alone in this, but let me talk about Malta.

    Our government is afraid to take a tough and clear position of rejection of the Gaddafi regime including the government led by his sons and his lackeys.

    In my view, anyone not taking on directly the Gaddafi regime must be afraid that it will survive and take back control. Now – whereas there is still a good chance that this may not happen, because wars are dirty and unpredictable, and I believe Gaddafi will be toppled – should the Gaddafi regime prevail, it is going to be much worse than what it was before, and more dangerous.

    It will retaliate against the opposition and will equip itself with more lethal weaponry. It may even sponsor foreign terrorism. Therefore, it will inevitably be an illegitimate government and no state can be legitimised in dealing with it.

    I think this point is not being made clearly enough.

    If a clear position against Gaddafi and his regime is not taken, that regime will not be demoralised, and we will be writing our own fate of having to deal with that regime in future.

    The only other fear I can see is that of losses on existing investments in Libya. If I were in government, I would take the view that these should be totally written off – past losses, and hence will not let those investments come in the way of deciding Malta’s politics about Libya. Anything recovered will be a future profit.

    If Libya is to have a post-Gaddafi government, we would stand to benefit from business deals that will compensate for the past losses.

    If Libya continues to be run by the Gaddafis, who would want to continue doing business there anyway? Who would lend money for use in Libya?

    • .Angus Black says:

      A pertinent question regarding Maltese business in Libya would be whether any bond issues were subscribed to by Maltese citizens to finance major projects by Maltese businesses, how much, and when due.

      This and similar issues are the shades of grey I wrote about in my comments above.

      • ciccio2011 says:

        I would expect a special feature on TV about this, with proper explanations by the MFSA, Central Bank and Stock Exchange officials and investment consultants.
        Can Reno Bugeja dissect this subject?

        The politics of fear is not taking the country anywhere. There is too much attention paid to “political correctness” everywhere in the world, including Malta.

  11. red nose says:

    I think that Libya has “vast” business interests in Malta and when say Libya I mean the Gaddafi family.

Leave a Comment