So now we'll eat our neutrality for breakfast, lunch and supper, shall we?
Now that Gaddafi's gone, we no longer have to pretend and we can ditch our neutrality. And not before time, either.
I’m not one to say ‘I told you so’ because I’ve made so many errors of judgement myself (though not on this grand scale). But I’m really, really finding it hard to resist.
Back in February and March, I repeated and repeated the argument that, quite apart from the moral imperative of siding with a cause that is fundamentally right and just, the other reason why Malta should stop hiding behind its neutrality skirt was that Britain, the United States and France were clearly in it for the long haul and would not give up until Gaddafi was finished.
So the government should have taken it as read that with the UN Security Council vote, Gaddafi was done for, whether it took six weeks, six months or six years.
Then in the new order which followed, those who did not side with the revolutionaries and who sat back waiting to see how things would pan out would be politely told where to stuff it when trying to get in on the rebuilding of Libya act.
Shouldn’t this have been obvious to our government?
I mean, wouldn’t you do the same if you were the new Libyan government? You’re there sweating blood for six months, killing and being killed, risking life and limb and torture, watching your family suffer, struggling with assorted weaponry that you’ve never handled before, and mealy-mouthed Malta says ‘Sorry ta, can’t help because we’re newtrali.’
Then the minute Tripoli falls and Malta knows for sure that Gaddafi is not coming back (because the 0.000001% chance that he might conditioned our government’s behaviour), it’s all telephone calls of congratulations and wanting a piece of the action.
Today, the Maltese government finally considered it safe to release details of the Libyan and Gaddafi assets frozen in Malta. I hope nobody is going to suggest holding those assets hostage in return for some contract or other.
And now this, in The Times today:
Foreign backers of revolt to win Libya contracts – TNC head
Rebel chief Mustafa Abdel Jalil said today that foreign countries which backed Libya’s revolt would be rewarded with contracts in the state’s post-war reconstruction.
“We promise to favour the countries which helped us, especially in the development of Libya. We will deal with them according to the support which they gave us,” he told a news conference in the eastern city of Benghazi.
Jalil, the National Transitional Council (TNC) chairman, thanked countries which took part in NATO’s military operations against longtime strongman Muammar Gaddafi and those which unblocked Libya’s frozen assets abroad.
On the political front, he said six more TNC members would travel to Tripoli tomorrow as part of preparations to base a post-Muammar Gaddafi government in the capital, following the despatch of several other council members.
16 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
You hope in vain. They didn’t quite put it that way, but how else can you read this?
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110825/local/377m-in-libyan-assets-frozen-in-malta.381849
During a meeting with officials of the National Transitional Council in Benghazi last month, Foreign Minister Tonio Borg had said that Malta was considering setting up a credit line to the council but first it had to look into whether it would be possible to allow the council to repay borrowed money through the frozen assets.
The NTC have already NTC have already invited a Maltese delegation to visit Libya in mid September so they can assist with re building the country.
[Daphne – Mohh il-Maltese delegation ghandhom bhalissa, Bob.]
“Mohh il-Maltese delegation ghandhom bhalissa, Bob.”
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110826/local/prime-minister-invited-to-summit-on-rebuilding-of-libya.381967
I think you are not looking at the whole picture , because from the papers one never sees the everything.
During this war which is not over yet , I have seen scores of military aircraft which were never shown to us on the media parked in Park 4. Notably I have seen a French air force tanker which was filling up from there. Only last Wednesday there was a really big four engined (jet)RAF transport plane(?) which dwarfed the RAF Hercules C47 parked near it.
The Gaddafis are still at large and they have the capability of distabilsing the region, their ‘enemies’ and ‘turncoats’ with terrorist attacks.The African people have a different perspective of this war , some refugees with whom I discuss these matters think that Libya is being colonised by the EU and Nato!
When one sees a board game one has to look at it from different angles. I look at it from a different angle to Daphne’s.
I don’t support governments which go after dangling carrots.
Dr Gonzi’s main aim is obviously the field where carrots are grown , the continental shelf.
His main aim was always what’s by right, ours. It is reported that he brought up the subject with Gaddafi on the February visit.
When he interrupted his holiday, Gonzi did it mainly to get approval from his cabinet to issue licences for oil exploration on the much disputed continental shelf. Recognition of the NTC could have been done from Prague via a teleconference or mobile phone.
Littlle Joe’s main concern, according to One News, was the guarantees by BP on safe deep-sea drilling. There was no mention about our oil drilling rights with brother Muammar.
Now our government issued licences for drilling on the disputed continental shelf. Surely they will have to let us take what’s ours.
NTC, after all, is formed by ex-regime henchmen. One general was killed without any explanations.We will wait and see what will happen when the expatriates who were against the Gaddafi regime return to their homeland.
In the meantime we will drill for oil on our territory, and this time round there will be no Frattini or Berlusconi conspiring with their brother against Malta.
Tra i due litiganti il terzo gode. The new Libyan leaders will be perceived to be ’bad’ like Gaddafi if they will oppose such drilling.
In Egypt and Tunisia the people who are in power are still dragging their feet on the democratic reforms.
Agree with you 100%, Daphne.
Has Maltastar suddenly noticed the civil war next to us?
Throughout this conflict their reporting on the Libyan civil war has been minuscule. Today, their front page carries:
– British SAS leading hunt for Gaddafi
– Inside Gaddafi’s bunker
– New Libya flag flying all over Tripoli
– Four Italian journalists kidnapped in Libya, have been freed
– CPD sending aid to Libya
– Rebels take control of Gaddafi compound
– Fierce fighting around Gaddafi compound
– Malta officially recognises NTC as Libya’s legitimate government
– $2 million bounty on Gaddafi’s head
Scarily enough the only article I clicked on from their front page was “Gerard Depardieu kicked off plane after ‘pee’ incident”.
Neutrality. My pet subject. When you say “ditch” do you mean removing it from the constitution altogether, applying for NATO membership (what other military alliance could we join now that the new Libya has shafted us?) or simply taking part in offensive military operations (basically the only option left to us is Afghanistan)?
The secret weapon to defeat the Taliban: an AFM roadblock.
Our soldiers are not to blame. The post-Dejma generation is dying to do some real soldiering.
Give them proper training, equipment and leadership, and our servicemen could perform brilliantly in any theatre, including Afghanistan.
Here’s an idea. Abolish the Ministry for Gozo, and establish a Defence Ministry. You gotta start somewhere.
Now that it is all over, or nearly, it is up to the new government to make sure that it is not just a change of name. They must not fall into the same way of doing buisness like their predecessors.
I do not totally agree with what Jalil said that countries that backed the revolt would be rewarded with contracts. This seems like the old way of doing buisness in Libya -you scratch my back and I scratch yours.
Contracts should be awarded to the companies offering the best terms, etc.
[Daphne – You’re wrong. The Libyans owe their freedom to the British, the French and the Americans, and they know it even if you don’t. The British, the French and the Americans are not the policemen of the world or a charity organisation and they deserve to be rewarded. Remember always that it is the taxpayers in those countries who made it possible for Libya to be liberated. You don’t win by staying out of the game, as Malta repeatedly tries to do and did again this time. This is the basic principle of entrepreneurship, which you should know: high risk, high reward (or massive loss). No risk, no reward but you’re also out of the race.]
So now we expect to see all the best contracts awarded to France, Italy and England and Malta will receive some scraps to keep us happy.
What I think Jalil should have said was that the first thing that he would see to was the paying of the millions in outstanding debts owed to foreign companies. I doubt that any Maltese companies can compete with the huge international ones, especially if those will be getting preferential treatment.
‘Malta will receive some scraps to keep us happy’
Even as you circle like a vulture at a funeral, whinging and whining about unfairness, people are still dying a couple of hundred miles away and thousands more suffered dreadful lives and horrible deaths.
That’s at least partly because Malta protected its friend and paymaster when he could have been blasted into oblivion.
And now you complain that it’s not fair that everyone else gets the spoils.
Why do you imagine that Libya – as opposed to Libyans – would want to keep Malta happy? What and why, does new Libya owe Malta?
Most of what you say is right. I am in no way saying that it wasn’t England, Italy and France who helped them most, and of course they should be rewarded.
But didn’t our little country contribute in helping?
Have we already forgotten the risk we took in witholding Gaddafi”s Mirage planes?
[Daphne – Silvio, don’t make me despair. It would have been worth something if we’d OFFERED to keep them. But we didn’t. They landed in our laps and the alternative was disgracing ourselves in every possible way by returning them, and also the pilots to their death. So no, we deserve neither thanks nor praise. Also, I trust you realise, after these past six months, how pathetic the ‘we kept the planes’ arguments really sound.]
Have we forgotten the humanitarian aid we gave, the supplies we sent to Misarata etc.
[Daphne – ‘We’ gave nothing, Silvio. The humanitarian aid was all donated by NGOs. The state gave nothing.]
Now read what the Libayan Ambassador had to say about the information he was passing through our Govt to Nato.
[Daphne – I don’t trust him.]
We were in no position to make all this help public for the simple reason that we are on the doorstep to Libya, and nobody could tell to what extremes Gaddafi would go.
[Daphne – BOLLOCKS, SILVIO. We are no closer to Libya than Italy is, unless you think 60 miles is a really significant distance. What rubbish, honestly.]
It was the right decision to be cautious, but everyone knew on whose side we were all the time. Even the rebel leaders had nothing but praise for us.
[Daphne – You’re completely wrong about that. One rebel leader was actually quoted in The Financial Times as saying “We don’t trust Malta, because Malta is close to Gaddafi”.]
“…, and mealy-mouthed Malta says ‘Sorry ta, can’t help because we’re newtrali.’”
Daphne, if my anzjan memory serves me right, the government never made such a statement.
[Daphne – It did, Angus. I sat there and listened to it via the television. ‘Malta is neutral and can’t participate in military action or offer its services in that regard.’ That’s where one shows willing, not in gathering supplies donated by third parties for onward shipment.]
The government thought it prudent not to be presumptuous and make forward statements when it did not have the resources to back them up.
[Daphne – Come off it, Angus, and we’ve been through this already ad nauseam. Malta only exists today because its sole purpose throughout history was as a military base. Without that purpose, we would not have been here. All the systems and behavioural methods are still there, ingrained in us: give the Maltese an emergency and an ordinarily apathetic population suddenly becomes galvanised with excitement and determination to deliver. Why did Malta handle the evacuation of civilians from Libya so very efficiently? Because the systems are still in place – and so is the mentality – from our years of training and experience as a military base. The only time our wheel was dented was when those Labour cruds decided to do things their way, leading to the Egyptair disaster.]
Therefore the government’s only position was to offer humanitarian aid, at some expense, I should add, moral support and followed to the letter the UN resolution including the freezing of Libyan assets.
Offering (as an example), the airport as a staging base for raids on Libya had nothing to do with the ‘neutrality’ issue raised from time to time by the Opposition propaganda machine, but rather, it was a logistical problem.
As a matter of fact when repeatedly the neutrality issue was raised regarding the landings of the two Mirages and subsequently the many emergency landings by crippled NATO aircraft, the government ignored the rantings from the left and granted permission in each and every emergency case.
[Daphne – As an alternative to what, Angus? Giving the Mirages back and handing the pilots over to certain death? Refusing to allow crippled craft to land?]
Had NATO not had accessible venues from which to launch its sorties such as bases in nearby Sicily and off aircraft carriers, I am confident that some emergency works could have been carried out at one of Malta’s disused landing strips, though that would have taken considerable time.
I find that such articles chastise proper and prudent action taken by the government who stayed with the right side of the conflict from day one and stayed within its means which, by the way, proved to be so vital in saving the lives of 16,000+ workers who were evacuated to Malta before proceeding to some 90 different destinations.
[Daphne – Angus, we agree on many things but you really try my patience on this one. Every country involved in the attack on Gaddafi had huge investments in LIbya and far more civilians than Malta did. And it didn’t stop them. MALTA’S STANCE WAS RISIBLE, COWARDLY AND UTTERLY PATHETIC, and at no point has this been more clear than it is now. We were cautious and prudent for NOTHING and now we lining up to get SOMETHING.]
Daphne, I agree with most of what you write but on this I most definitely disagree with you. Any conflict is unpredictable and subject to twists and turns. Once the Libyan conflict started anything could have happened.
[Daphne – Yes, anything could have happened, but the bottom line is that the Americans, the British and the French were not going to pull out until Gaddafi went, however long it took. That should have been the starting point for any planning: that whatever else happened, Gaddafi was going and was not coming back. The British, the French and the Americans said they would make sure of that, not least because there could be no Plan B.]
Some time ago you wrote an article about Airmalta and argued correctly that there is no guarantee that it will survive its current problems. Government and Airmalta management need to take the right decisions to safeguard Airmalta’s future.
[Daphne – I can’t see the comparison.]
Now picture this scenario following the start of the conflict. The Maltese government gives its full support to Nato strikes on Libya and allows the airport to be used by military aircraft. The Gaddafi regime declares this to be unacceptable and that this gives him the right to fire missiles towards Malta.
[Daphne – Exactly why would Malta reason this way when Italy, the same distance away, did not? And we thought the Italians were bad.]
Irrespective if any missiles are fired, the threat would have led to a significant and immediate reduction in tourist numbers. The economic impact on all tourism-related businesses, including Airmalta, would have been catastrophic.
[Daphne – This is where we part company. I’m not in the ‘utilitarian thinking’ camp. Anything worth having is worth making sacrifices for, and getting rid of Gaddafi is very much in Malta’s interest so we should have been kissing the feet of France, Britain and the US and bending over backwards to help just for the sake of it, to show that we are decent and not craven misers.]
Nobody can say that this could not happen. Neither you nor anyone else could give any guarantee of what could or could not happen.
[Daphne – Actually, there was one guarantee, jae: that Britain, France and the United States were not going to permit Gaddafi to stay in power. Even if you couldn’t work it out from the simple fact of the very high stakes involved and that if he stayed they were in trouble, they spelled it out.]
Britain and France paid a significant cost in support of the Libyan rebels, but there was no major risk to their economy and their jobs. Malta’s situation was different. The price paid by Malta for supporting military action could have been disproportionate and could have hit right at the heart of our economy.
[Daphne – ‘There was no major risk to their economy or their jobs’. Are you operating on full throttle here, because it doesn’t seem like it? Exactly who was the target of Gaddafi’s terrorist attacks? That’s right, Britain and the United States. A bit of thought should have let you see that the countries who went to war on him now HAD TO get rid of him because they stood to be on the receiving end of years of terrorism if their attempt failed. How hard is this to understand. It’s basic strategic thinking.]
Nobody in his right senses, not even Gaddafi, ever doubted that the war would be won.
The big question was how long would it take, and what would it cost, not just in money.
The USA thought that Iraq would be just a walkover, but they are still there. Afghanistan was just a skirmish, they are still there.
It could have happened in Libya. It could have gone either way, luckly it proved otherwise, Gaddafi’s bark was bigger than his bite. But who knew than?
I still think the decision to be cautious was in our best interests.
If it took much longer the repercussion on our economy would have been very big, firms who traded with Libya wouldn’t have been able to keep the banks off their backs for much longer, at least now there seems to be a light at the end of the tunnel.
It also seems that we are in the good books of the new Libya.
I do not disagree with most of your replies to my comments except …
If Gaddafi fired a missile at Sigonella, most Italians and most tourists to Italy would not have bothered. If Gaddafi fired, or even threatened to fire, a missile towards Malta, our tourism industry would have been wiped out for several months.
The perception of danger at Sigonella would have had no significance. The perception of danger at Malta’s only civil airport and lifeline would have been highly significant.
Even if one were to be confident of the eventual final outcome, i.e. the downfall of Gaddafi, there was no way of knowing whether it would have taken three months , six months or two years.
A long drawn out conflict, with spill over in central Mediterranean, would have been disastrous for Malta. That is why it would have been a mistake for Malta to give active support to Nato military strikes.
Yes, getting rid of Gaddafi is very much in Malta’s interest but I reiterate that the potential implications for Malta of active involvement could have been disproportionate.
[Daphne – This is a disgraceful attitude: sitting back on our haunches and letting others do the work. This is why I say we part company right at the start and so can never agree. ]