This afternoon on CNN
Released Dutch soldiers arrive at Athens airport
Libya proposed swapping jets for Dutch prisoners
By Ivan Watson, CNN
March 14, 2011 Updated 1321 GMT
(CNN) — The Libyan government tried and failed to swap three captured Dutch military personnel for two Libyan Air Force jets whose pilots defected with their warplanes to the European island nation of Malta last month.
Maltese officials who helped negotiate the release of the Dutch prisoners in conjunction with Greek diplomats on Thursday, say they rejected Libya’s request for the return of the Libyan Mirage fighter planes. In a telephone interview with CNN, a spokesman for Malta’s foreign ministry said Libya sent Mohamad Tahir Siala, a senior Libyan diplomat, on a private jet to Malta on Wednesday to meet with Lawrence Gonzi, the Maltese prime minister.
“During the discussion it was discussed whether Malta would give back the two Mirages in exchange for the Dutch prisoners,” said ministry spokesman Melvyn Mangion.
In an interview with the Times of Malta newspaper this week, Gonzi said he refused this suggestion and insisted that the Dutch prisoners had to be released immediately without any conditions.
The three Dutch navy personnel were captured by Libyan security forces on February 27, after they tried to evacuate a Dutch citizen from Libya by helicopter.
The prisoners, two men and a woman, were later shown on Libyan state television along with their Lynx helicopter. Libyan state TV also showed captured weapons, and claimed that the crew had been operating a fighter helicopter in Libyan territory in violation of international law.
After several rounds of negotiations this week, “eventually the Libyan authorities accepted to release the Dutch prisoners without getting the two Mirages back,” said Mangion.
The Libyan government has reportedly made several requests to Maltese officials to have its fighter planes returned, since their pilots landed unexpectedly in Malta on February 21. The pilots said they refused to carry out order by the government of Moammar Gadhafi to bomb Libyan protesters. Maltese officials say the two pilots have since requested political asylum.
On Thursday, the Dutch foreign ministry announced Libyan authorities had released the three Dutch prisoners and that they were in good condition after being flown from Tripoli to Athens, Greece.
Malta, a small island nation less than 250 miles off the Libyan coast, has long had close economic and political ties with the Gadhafi regime. Some observers call Malta the “gateway to Libya.” But the increasingly bloody conflict in Libya has put this small country in an increasingly precarious position.
Since forces loyal to Gadhafi began a deadly crackdown on unarmed protesters last month, Malta worked with the U.S., British and other governments to help evacuate foreigners fleeing Libya.
However, the Maltese government also announced it is unwilling to play a larger diplomatic or military role in the growing confrontation between the European Union and Libya.
“The Maltese prime minister reiterated that Malta will not be used as a military base should there be an action against Libya,” said Mangion, the Maltese foreign ministry spokesman, citing a neutrality cause in Malta’s constitution.
“Malta will not act as a mediator between Libya and the EU, even though Libya formally asked Malta to,” Mangion added.
29 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
I must say I’m quite fed up with hearing about this “neutrality clause” of our constitution. A referendum on neutrality would have been more relevant than one on divorce.
Malta seen by some observers as the ‘Gateway to Libya’ Din hi l-hsara li ghamlilnha Mintoff u l-PL.
There goes our neutrality condition with the nations that matter.
This neutrality clause has done Malta a lot of harm. I’m still amazed at how what was Gaddafi’s request to Mintoff to declare Malta neutral to keep the Western powers off his coast has come, (counting since 1971) may, 40 years later, come to the partial rescue of this dictator.
And to add insult to injury, it is this bone-less PN foreign affairs minister that is waving this ‘neutrality clause’ in the face of each and every nation that quite rightly sees Malta as a possible factor in any future military action taken against this mad-dog.
Malta is only neutral when it comes to such things. If, for instance, we take the case of the long period when Libya was under UN sanctions, it is no big secret to all other nations that Malta may have, indeed, become the stepping stone for sanctions’ avoidance.
In the long run, we must also learn why, during Johnny Dalli’s tenur, was the Iranian IRSL shipping company given the clearance to operate from Malta. IRSL is nothing less to what Aeroflot was during the Soviet era.
All EU and Western eyes are on Malta on this subject too because our governments have this habit of turning a blind eye to such things and then only realise the seriousness of matters when the foreign press really starts looking in to our semmingly honest dealings.
Bin-newtralita hlisna minn Mintoff biex blajna lil Gaddafi
Malta is not neutral – it has been neutered by Gaddafi with the enthusiastic active co-operation of MIntoff and the reluctant acquiesence of the NP under blackmail so as to restore some semblance of true majority rule that was being abused by the MLP through blatant gerrymandering.
The way things have developed both the NP and the LP should find it possible to free Malta from that humiliating bondage.
Suppose Libya decides to sent its armed forces to take back the jets, what can we do? We have no means to stop them and since we are neutral we cannot accept any foreign military troops on our soil. Am I correct?
[Daphne – How would it take them back? By beating a path with tanks all the way from Grand Harbour or Marsascala to the airport? And then how would they get into the airport? These blessed planes – too much fuss is being made about them. Shades of the big bad wolf. With so much going on in Libya, why would they want to distract themselves with an armed expedition to Malta?]
Mars give me strength. “Since we are neutral we cannot accept any foreign military troops on our soil.”
Shall we order the Italian Military Mission out then?
Besides, let stop once and for all this wretched Maltese habit of hiding behind the law. Never mind the constitution. Do YOU think we should accept foreign military troops on our soil?
I do.
I do too.
Giov, don’t be impressed with Gaddafi’s military power.
The advances he’s making towards Brega are insignificant. Brega is a small oil town with a few thousand people, most of them foreign workers who have since left.
The reason Gaddafi’s army is not able to hold on to any town that it seizes is because he is running out of supplies. An advancing army needs a lot of supplies to be able to advance, such as fuel, food, water, ammo, medical teams and last but not least, a strong will.
His army lacks all of the above and it will never take Benghazi, a city with over one million people and a stronghold for the opposition.
The ‘rebels’ have acquired quite a few weapons and a significant number of tanks which they haven’t used yet, but as soon as the threat from the air is over the story will be quite different.
Isn’t there a Defence Agreement with Italy?
Yes. Which is in breach of the neutrality clause in our constitution, because Italian troops are stationed in Malta AND, more importantly, it forces us to take sides in a conflict where Malta would be attacked (I mean, Italy is required to come to our defence, and we’re expected to take their side, although with specimens like Tonio Borg at the helm I wouldn’t be too sure.). Now do you see why this neutrality is a lot of claptrap?
Sur DeMartino – the article 3 of the constitution includes a proviso allowing the Maltese government to ask for foreign intervention in case of an invasion.
The scenario you provide is ridiculous. Is that meant to be an argument against the neutrality clause?
Besides, the neutrality clause does not fully apply here since this is a revolt not a war between two nations. Moreover, having called for Gaddafi to step down we are not neutral.
Still, the constitution bars the Maltese government from allowing foreign forces to operate from Maltese territory.
@Giov – In the case you mention, it would be self defence, so Malta can call up outside help without violating the Constitution
It is astounding how we tend to let our imagination take us far, far ahead of the present events.
First of all, if these members of the new interim council had any sense, they should have first consulted with KMB and Gowzef. Libya had closer ties with these two peas in a pod than with anyone else (except Dalli) I left Dalli out for the simple reason that he is no longer a Maltese politician.
With regards to the Mirages, let’s face it, we don’t need them, so since Spring is around the corner, why not hold some picnic charging a small fee to the public in order to pay for cleaning the usual mess left behind, load the Mirages on a barge and dump them off-shore where some other sunken boats are located. They will add to the attraction the divers (and fish) enjoy so much. We don’t need them and neither do the Libyans especially if they end up in the wrong hands.
But joking aside, the dilemma of the recognition of the interim council is very real indeed.
Gaddafi many say was illegitimate because he deposed the king and appointed himself as ruler, and a bad one at that as well. True.
But is the interim council not a bunch of individuals who appointed themselves and are posed to assume responsibilities which, most likely (for some, at least) are well beyond their capabilities? Would anyone (except Sarkozy) call the council legitimate?
So, although it is most desireable to dispose of Gaddafi by any means possible, I can now understand the reluctance of the powerful nations and the smallest one too, to jump into the unknown (or little known) too soon.
We can take the lead from the protesters themselves. One cannot win a conflict by sheer numbers, unorganised and unarmed at that. The initial adrenalin won them a few victories but when they faced reality they either retreated or got killed.
I cannot imagine the number of phone calls, e-mails, faxes etc going between world leaders trying to sort things out and I don’t envy any one of them since taking a wrong or even premature decision may cause bigger problems in Libya and other countries especially those in its vicinity.
At an early stage, and before the jet fighters were immobilised by outside help in spite of our “neutrralty”, it needed only a few parachutists including a relief aircrew.
Dear god in heaven. And the AFM sentries would presumably have let them board the planes, filled their tanks, and gave them a packed lunch for the journey, right?
No, Baxxter. They would have allowed the Libyans to take over that part of the airport and the fighter aircraft as they did on the similar occasion of the Egyptair hijack whilst our Task Force under the distinguished military genius of a transferred Commissioner of Police boasted wrongly that everyone on board that plane had been rescued unharmed under the supervision of our political experts in the control tower.
You are aware that even a couple of pilots dropped into Luqa Airport constitute an invasion by Libya, right? Then WE would have been justified in retaliating.
I should like to think that today’s AFM members, and its current commander, have higher moral standards than their predecessors in the 80s. They’ve certainly moved away from the Dejma mindframe. The politicians, on the other hand, are stuck in a timewarp.
This neutrality clause in our constitution reminds of Chamberlain clutching his piece of paper after he had returned from Munich and bleating “peace in our time” forgetting that Czechoslovakia had been shafted. When he was forced to go to war in September 1939, he remarked that nobody had heard of Danzig before or knew where it was.
Reminds me of some politicians, both local and foreign.
Nowhere did I blame the present AFM. The point that I am trying to make is that neutrality has no place in a tiny island like Malta with a disproprtionately large strategic importance. We would be easy pickings for just about any tin-pot dictator.
Because of our silly pretence at being neutral we are far less equipped than the rebels in Libya to repel an attack from the air or the sea. Equipping our armed forces with the the minimum necessary ground-to-air missiles, and other modern defence equipment, would cripple our economy beyond repair. Without a credible alliance we are pitiful sitting ducks.
Our Gadaffi-dictated incapacitating neutrality forced Mintoff himself to go cap in hand begging protection from some Nato countries that he had just kicked out and from unreliable neighbours to the south now embroiled in civil wars. We put on blinkers daily so as not to see the valuable but inadequate foreign Italian military personnel perennially stationed here.
When we actually needed military assistance it was against that self same Gadaffi who was the instigator of our “neutrality” and whom MIntoff then likened to “the worst of enemies”. We were so impotent that we had to eat humble pie and suggest to Saipem to beg themselves for protection from the maligned American Sixth fleet, an assistance that was unthinkable in the prevailing MLP anti-American stance. The lives of the crew of our totally inadequate coastal vessel had to be sheltered by the hostile Libyan submarine who took pity on our crew incapacitated by the rough sea.
The acme of our ridicule and our humiliation was reached by our foreign minister of that time when he posed with a Royal Navy salor’s cap emblazoned HMS Brazen.
Need I go on? During the last war an honourable Malta garrison acting inside an invaluable alliance distinguished itself by a heroic defense because it was equipped with the best military hardware then available. In today’s world we need similar alliances more than ever before, not only in our own selfish interest, but also to ocupy a merited honourable place among the world’s democracies.
Well, god damn it, Dr Saliba, you were a professional diplomat, and you should have spoken out. But I never heard a single word from you on the subject of neutrality.
That’s the trouble with your sort. You’re all smiles and acquiescence when you occupy your privileged position. Then we learn that you had a hidden gripe all along.
And you can actually articulate your thoughts and speak proper English, so your words would have had more weight. It’s not too late. A nice opinion piece to The Times would start things moving. Come on now, Dr Saliba. Don’t let me down.
[Daphne – This is Francis Saliba you’re talking to, not the diplomat Evarist Saliba, who to my knowledge has never posted a comment here.]
Wasn’t there a Dr Francis Saliba who was Maltese ambassador to somewhere, who had a TV programme called “Diplomacy in action” or something? I remember him interviewing the British High Commissioner.
Presumably Baxxter is referring to Dr Francis Cachia.
Yes that’s right. Sorry for the mix up. There’s a couple of comments of mine directed at Dr Francis Saliba which were based on this mistaken identity, and for them I apologise.
Thanks for all the information provided. In case you have misunderstood my comments, I am against any form of neutrality. On the contrary I would offer a military base to the Western powers.
@Baxxter
Instead of the ridiculous proposition of just a couple of pilots parachuting into Luqa airport please consider the realistic situation of military transports full of commandos landing at Luqa – you may recollect a similar occasion. I am not questioning the moral standards of the present AFM. I am questioning their ability to repel similar attacks inadequately armed with the military equipment that Malta could make available to them under the present “neutrality and non-alignment’ situation.
You are barking up the wrong tree, Baxxter. I have never been a diplomat and I have never been posted as a Malta ambassador to anywhere. I have never interviewed anybody on any TV programme and I do not write any opinion column in any newspaper. I have always made my opinion known on any newspaper that would publish my letters (very often in a Bowdlerised version).
Seeing that I have been mentioned, even though in a grossly mistaken way, I feel that I should have my say.
I have been a diplomat who served in Tripoli both during the time of King Idris and Col. Ghaddafi, and as such I acted on the instructions of my foreign ministers (who were also prime ministers) Borg Olivier and Mintoff.
As for the neutrality clause in our Constitution, I had nothing to do with its formulation, and had my advice been sought I would never have suggested anything like it.
For the record, Gaddafi had nothing to do with its formulation in a unilateral declaration by the government of Malta which was deposited with the United Nations, and later attached to the friendship agreement with Italy.
Its inclusion in the Constitution was a condition imposed by Mintoff to give the winning party in an election the right to govern if it obtained 50 per cent plus one, or more, votes. This blackmail vitiates its legitimacy.
Neutrality is presented as a positive contribution to peace when history shows that it is not, and in fact it is often a screen for pusillanimity and self interest. In our case, Mintoff used it as a bargaining chip in his rounds for financial subvention from other countries, claiming that Malta’s neutrality can only be maintained if other governments helped it to be economically sound through their financial aid.
Many comments betray an ignorance, or an impaired idea of what the neutrality clause contains, and this has not been helped by the constantly changing interpretation that it is being given by those who defend it to make it relevant to our times.