Niccolo Machiavelli on the subject of neutrality
Niccolo Machiavelli
The uproarious welcome given to Sarkozy and Cameron in Benghazi prompted me to look up Machiavelli’s bit about the inadvisability of staying neutral, in The Prince.
His words are as relevant today as they were back then, because human nature and the dynamics of relationships never change in their essence.
A prince is also respected when he is either a true friend or a downright enemy — when, without any reservation, he declares himself in favour of one party against the other. This course will always be more advantageous than standing neutral.
Suppose two of your powerful neighbours come to blows: if one of them conquers, you have either to fear him or not. In either case it will always be more advantageous for you to declare yourself and to make war strenuously.
In the first case, if you do not declare yourself, you will invariably become the next prey of the conqueror — to the pleasure and satisfaction of the conquered — and you will have no argument to offer, nor anything to protect or to shelter you.
This is because a conqueror does not want doubtful friends who will not aid him in the time of trial. And the loser will not harbour you, because you did not willingly, sword in hand, risk his fate.
8 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
“Never let any Government imagine that it can choose perfectly safe courses; […] prudence consists in knowing how to distinguish the character of troubles, and for choice to take the lesser evil.”
Becomes tricky when your Commander in Chief is Walter the prince of softies.
And that is only about taking sides or staying neutral. In our case it is even worse – we PLAY neutral.
Not much about collective efforts in there.
Out of subject but maybe worth noting.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110916/letters/Judiciary-clearly-absent-on-Victory-Day.384899
And we were happy that at last, after the divorce referendum result, we can distinguish between church and state. A young progressive MP now laments that judges did not attend mass on a state public holiday.
The best reply so far:
Mr Andrew Scicluna
Today, 09:37
Mr.Bonnici,
As a foreword may I state that I am neither a member of the judiciary nor do I have any relation to anyone that is.
I think what the country really needs is an explanation to the absence of MPs from Parliament, when they are duty bound (and entrusted by the electorate) to attend.
I think it would be incongruous if one were to compare absence from a festivity (albeit a very important day to Maltese history) to absence from everyday work that is crucial to the running of the country.
After all we all know that MPs are experts at attending these sort of events (I guess the right word in Maltese would be ‘jippoppaw’).
Andrew Scicluna,
Belgium
Malta has never been neutral as Gaddafi and his henchmen proved to Malta and the Maltese and anybody with a brain on numerous occassions.
This was and is a Malta Labour Party (PL) deceit.
The absence of judges and magistrates, is perhaps due to the fact of the shambles our courts are in. Perhaps they are ashamed to show their faces in public.
[Daphne – I am informed that they didn’t turn up in protest about their salaries. So demeaning.]