Comments on: The Maltese government has just used Obama’s ambassadorial choices as justification for its own. Maybe it should ask why Obama’s choices make the international news.

By: Catsrbest

Catsrbest — Fri, 19 Jul 2013 22:01:07 +0000

In reply to AG. And the illegal immigrants entering Australia are not fleeing war and other turbulent zones/countries like the ones arriving here. It's as if you are comparing apples to oranges.

By: ken il malti

ken il malti — Fri, 19 Jul 2013 20:27:51 +0000

In reply to La Redoute.

Yup, party donations seal the deal for who gets appointed to these positions.

Obama has honed this to a fine art and he doesn’t even try to hide this fact.

It is typical corrupt Chicago style cigar smoke filled back room politics brought to Washington DC.

By: fabio

fabio — Fri, 19 Jul 2013 17:09:51 +0000

In reply to La Redoute.

It is true that party donations is a criteria but they are all vetted by the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and over the years despite the party donations most of US political ambassadors were people of international standing in their own field.

As one US diplomat once told me: “The US cannot afford to make a mistake in such appointments, because the credibility of the nation is at stake. Many party donors with no proper ambassadorial credentials have failed to be appointed over the years”.

[Daphne – Oh, I don’t know about that. We have had some pretty unimpressive party fundraisers and similar sent to Malta as US ambassador over the years. And a couple of good ones too.]

By: David

David — Fri, 19 Jul 2013 12:08:39 +0000

In reply to AG. And therefore big Australia is not obliged to adhere to so called "basic human rights"? [Daphne - Australia is not a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights. Malta's legal obligations come under that convention. I have no idea about what treaties/conventions Australia may or may not be a signatory to, and I have no interest in finding out at this stage.]

By: Van Buren

Van Buren — Fri, 19 Jul 2013 10:49:50 +0000

However, the President’s ambassadorial nominations are vetted – and occasionally rejected – by the bipartisan United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.

By: Niki B

Niki B — Fri, 19 Jul 2013 10:37:34 +0000

Look who were the lawyers in this case involving l-Imniehru who was found dead this morning.

[Daphne – Yes, I know.]

By: Jozef

Jozef — Fri, 19 Jul 2013 10:22:21 +0000

http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2013-07-19/news/i-believe-asset-declarations-as-much-as-i-believed-previous-ones-2113044480/

Right, Muscat’s cabinet, according to him, is an agglomeration of Austin Gatts.

I bet he feels fulfiled, snapping at journalists. Kurt got himself an assistant, finally.

By: La Redoute

La Redoute — Fri, 19 Jul 2013 10:13:19 +0000

In reply to Fabio. Not the political appointees. The key criterion is party donations.

By: Fabio

Fabio — Fri, 19 Jul 2013 09:48:13 +0000

One slight difference is that the USA appointees are all people of international repute in their field and usually carry with them a successful track record in international business, diplomatic studies, and expertise of the region they are posted to.

By: AG

AG — Fri, 19 Jul 2013 09:16:40 +0000

Looks like someone is walking in our Joseph’s footsteps:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/kevin-rudd-to-send-asylum-seekers-who-arrive-by-boat-to-papua-new-guinea-20130719-2q9fa.html

[Daphne – Not really. Australia is not a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights.]