Author: Jacques René Zammit

Categories
Mediawatch

J'accuse Shortlisted for Journalism Award

You may have read by now that the J’accuse column on the Malta Independent on Sunday has been shortlisted for the “Opinion Article” section of the Malta Journalism Awards organised by the Institute of Maltese Journalists.  J’accuse has often been critical of the awards themselves – especially since we could never fathom a system that requires in which you nominate yourself for the prize.

Nothing has changed since then and we do believe that one reason the nominations are not “altruistic” so to speak is the fish-pondism that curiously (and understandably) is part of journalistic culture in Malta. It’s not like we’re falling over ourselves to say how good “the others” are is it? Anyways – so why are J’accuse’s articles on the nominations list and how did they end up being shortlisted?

We have Alex Vella Gera to thank (he does not know yet). Around the time the nominations were opened AVG was supposed to get a literary prize of sorts. Alex refused to pick up the prize in protest at the obscenity case that was still open at the time – if I get this right, Alex would not receive a prize from a government that still tolerated such laws. I am sure Alex will correct me if I am wrong – he did and here is his full explanation:

I didn’t attend the awards ceremony for this reason alone: because it was held under the auspices of the prime minister, leader of the political party which runs NET TV, and which accused me and Mark Camilleri of paedophaelia (a pretty serious accusation, especially when unfounded, in this day and age). My not attending was not a non-acceptance of the prize (I need the money badly) and neither a protest against being hauled to court. I bear no grudges about that. I hope that’s clear now, although I suspect I’ll be called to correct misconceptions and inaccuracies once again soon enough. – AVG

Some people, commenting on the AVG business, said it was ironic that he was being awarded a prize when his work was being “censored” by the police and when he was actually still an accused in court. Sweet. Only Alex was not awarded the prize for “Li Tkisser Sewwi” so it was a little less ironic.

Back to us. We liked the idea of prizes for misfits. So we nominated three articles from J’accuse. The articles in question all deal with the state of journalism in Malta – something that J’accuse has taken much to heart believe or not. We did not really think we’d get very far to be honest so Kudos for the shortlisting. As an addendum we would like to add that we would have liked to nominate some blog posts for the category of e-journalism but our questions regarding the procedure for an electronic (unsigned) application remained unanswered.
Here are the shortlisted articles:

1. The Day Journalism Died (28th February 2010)

In which it is argued that Malta’s foremost programme (winner of the Best Current Affairs Programme in the Malta TV Awards) that boasts that it sets standards in investigative journalism has abdicated its responsibility. The article questions whether the ethical standards that should be upheld by investigative journalists have not been lost using the Bondi+ programme about blogging as an example.

2. A Nation Divorced from Reality (11th July 2010)

In which both censorship and divorce are examined in the light of current developments and attitudes and in which J’accuse returns to the running theme that no matter what the medium for discussion is or what the current theme is, the Maltese have difficulties reconciling themselves with the image in the mirror.

3. The Power and the Glory (28th November 2010)

In which the relationship between power and exposure/popularity is examined. J’accuse analyses the concept of “fish-pondism” or the refusal to acknowledge other sources/opinion within the journalistic/opinion column community. Is Maltese media prepared to engage with the New Media or will “fish-pondism” prevail?

It’s not really about “winning” the prize – we’d actually be surprised if we got much further than this (incidentally congrats and good luck to fellow shortlisted entries Claire Bonello and Kristina Chetcuti). It’s more about making the point in the community that should be listening.

Incidentally the Maltese blogging community is getting a shake up (and is very much alive and kicking) over on facebook thanks to Davinia Hamilton’s new page. Here’s to hoping that a new phase of cross-referencing discussion will open: still trying to find a way to create a common blogroll for Maltese blogs.

 

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Jasmine Politics

Conflicts, Interests & Elections

Would you believe that the international position of a number of countries is determined solely by the need to win points in national elections? No? Ok. So here goes a bit of speculation:

  • Denmark – enthusiastic participation in coalition wins incumbent many points for imminent election “With general elections set to take place before November, the move is allowing Denmark’s government to score points with the electorate – strongly in favor of the mission – and Washington, said Bjoern Moeller, a specialist of African conflicts at the Danish Institute for International Affairs.”
  • France – Sarkozy, frontman of “immediate action” supposedly refused to handover operations to NATO because NATO is coordinated from Brussels and it would deny him of the valuable chance of grandstanding before his home electors (who have suddenly found some new confidence in Mr. Bobblehead). Some speculate that Sarkozy’s re-election campaign started in Tripoli.
  • Russia – we thought they’d just abstain right? Nope. The Medvedev vs Putin battle has opened up. Putin’s ridiculing of the interventionist approach found a critic closer to home as Medvedev – Putin’s future opponent for the next presidential election opened fire on Russia’s president.
  • Germany – another abstention. The answer lies in Baden-Wurtemburg – an important regional election for Merkel’s christian-democrats: “The main motivation, it was felt, was rather the state election next Sunday (March 27) in the extremely important state of Baden-Wuertemberg, where the Christian Democrats have ruled the roost since 1953 and fear its very possible loss this time. Although it is relatively prosperous (with the main Daimler-Benz works), Merkel’s party lost face after the Stuttgart railway station violence and is also aware that most people, regardless of their views on Gaddafi, do not want any more German soldiers fighting and dying in other continents. Merkel probably hoped that a cool response on Libya might win anti-war voters, even though the USA command is firmly welcomed on German soil.” BW is not the last regional election this year – there’s five others after that.
  • Spain – the commitment of the Iberian nation can also be explained in terms of electoral losses. By getting a quasi-unanimous vote in parliament in favour of participation in the UN resolution implementation, Zapatero ensured that no political party would get political mileage out of the decision: “Of the 340 lawmakers present, 336 voted in favour of Spain’s participation, three voted against – two from the far-left Izquierda Unida party and one from the tiny left-wing nationalist BNG party – and one lawmaker abstained.”

It is impossible to escape the reality that intervention on an international level is never purely altruistic. Whether it is electoral calculations or business interests, you cannot avoid factoring in these “egoistic” considerations.

Categories
Jasmine Politics

Conflicts & Interests

Over the past few days the word on the Maltese net/blogosphere/press has been split between the eagles and the doves. It all boiled down to the position Malta seems to be taking with regards to the events in Libya – and in particular the emphasis being made on “Malta not being used as a military base“. Our foreign minister came up with specious phrase: “Militarily Neutral” while others (PM included) have been at pain to stress that Malta will not participate in the “military action“.

At the end of this post I am appending the full text of the controversial “neutrality” article in our Constitution. I would also refer readers to a brilliant article by Prof Richard E. Rubenstein (Maltese neutrality is still a brilliant idea) that appeared on the Times on the 11th March 2011.

Rubenstein argues that the notion of neutrality as entrenched in the Maltese constitution is “neither outmoded, contrary to Maltese national interests, nor immoral”. Rubenstein’s reading of this neutrality is one that “does not imply either passivity or immorality”. J’accuse is very much in agreement with this interpretation. We have argued for a principled approach by the Maltese government. One that does not send signals of yellow submissiveness and wait-and-see approaches.

Our line here does not mean we are plugging for a coalition base in Malta but that we expect a principled – moral even – approach in the development of our position in the international field. Taking Rubenstein’s theoretical approach of a neutral country that is not passive and that is geared towards participating directly by offering a credible platform for conflict resolution (a Guido De Marco revisited) it is not hard to see how the Gonzi/Borg reactive, passive and submissive approach fails even on this count.

The collective action of Malta’s political representatives gave out an impression – and a strong one at that – of a country that was hedging its bets. It was a Malta that still worried about its ephemeral commercial interests with Gaddafi and his government. One that seemed reluctant to condemn the dictator even when his final hour seemed so close. The signs we sent out were not confusing: they were actually quite clear. We gave an unconditional, unqualified message that we would step back and wait: and thank God for all the confusion of neutrality clauses behind which to hide.

Yes, an actively neutral Malta can be a desireable goal for future politicians. Not being on the active “military” side of the UN resolution enforcers is no biggie. Doing everything we can to send out the message to the world that we are actually hiding under a rock until it is all over – when we will crawl out again ready to do business with the next people in power – is a huge huge issue. It is that issue that leads us to conclude that our nation still lacks the balls and a set of clear beliefs.

 

 

***

Article 1 of the Constitution of Malta
(1) Malta is a democratic republic founded on work and on respect for the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual.

(2) The territories of Malta consist of those territories comprised in Malta immediately before the appointed day, including the territorial waters thereof, or of such territories and waters as Parliament may from time to time by law determine.

(3) Malta is a neutral state actively pursuing peace, security and social progress among all nations by adhering to a policy of non-alignment and refusing to participate in any military alliance.

Such a status will, in particular, imply that:

(a) no foreign military base will be permitted on Maltese territory;

(b) no military facilities in Malta will be allowed to be used by any foreign forces except at the request of the

Government of Malta, and only in the following cases:

(i) in the exercise of the inherent right of selfdefence in the event of any armed violation of the area over which the Republic of Malta has sovereignty, or in pursuance of measures or actions decided by the Security Council of the United Nations; or

(ii) whenever there exists a threat to the sovereignty, independence, neutrality, unity or territorial integrity of the Republic of Malta;

(c) except as aforesaid, no other facilities in Malta will be allowed to be used in such manner or extent as will amount to the presence in Malta of a concentration of foreign forces;

(d) except as aforesaid, no foreign military personnel will be allowed on Maltese territory, other than military personnel performing, or assisting in the performance of, civil works or activities, and other than a reasonable number of military technical personnel assisting in the defence of the Republic of Malta;

(e) the shipyards of the Republic of Malta will be used for civil commercial purposes, but may also be used, within reasonable limits of time and quantity, for the repair of military vessels which have been put in a state of non-combat or for the construction of vessels; and in accordance with the principles of non-alignment the said shipyards will be denied to the military vessels of the two superpowers.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Jasmine Politics

There are no men in Tripoli

I came across this real story in the middle of a BBC news item about Tripoli eyewitnesses. It speaks volumes and does not need any additional comment.

An old woman, in her late 70s at least, I’m told, entered the bank to collect her 500 Libyan dollars ($410; £253) in state aid announced a couple of weeks ago.

There were two long queues – one for men and one for women. She stood in the men’s queue.

The men urged her to move to the women’s section. “Why?” she challenged.

A man told her: “Ya haja [a term of respect for an elderly woman] this line is for men, women is the other one”.

She loudly replied: “No. All the men are in Benghazi.”

The room is said to have been stunned into silence and she remained in her place until her turn came and she walked out with her money.

It is perhaps a bittersweet private reminder of how frustrated many here are at the lack of efforts in Tripoli in recent weeks to defy the regime and take to the streets.

The joke doing the rounds among the silent opposition in Tripoli is that upon liberation the Benghazi people will bring container loads of women’s underwear for the men in Tripoli.

***

On a separate note here is a brilliant article by the UK Independent’s  Robert Fisk exploring the feelings of families who lost loved ones as  “collateral damage” in previous attempts to hit at Gaddafi. Sgarbi and Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici might have an opinion about civilians faultlessly involved in this preventive intervention but their opinion pales in comparison to that of a mother who lost her daughter in 1986 following an US bombing in retaliation to the Berlin discotheque bombing by Gaddafi. I for one did not expect this kind of answer from her.

But it was with some trepidation that I called them yesterday. Mrs Ghosain answered the phone. “I hope they get him this time,” she said. And I asked, timidly, if she meant the man with the moustache. Colonel Gaddafi has a moustache. Mr Obama does not. “Yes,” she said. “I mean Ghazzefi.” “Ghazzefi” is the Lebanese Arabic pronunciation of the man’s name.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Categories
Articles

J’accuse: Conscientious objectors and objectionable consciences

Last Thursday’s UN Resolution 1973/11 did more than just belatedly clear the Libyan air of the one-sided aerial assaults by Gaddafi’s troops. The resolution also cleared the air of a lingering suspicion that the scheming Colonel had managed to get away with hypnotising the international community into an inert bubble of passive gobsmackedness. He had not. As green troops honed in on Benghazi and as we held our collective breath for the inevitable bloodbath in the eastern rebel stronghold, the UN Security Council finally voted to impose a no-fly zone over Libya (and a bit more).

Britain and France (for spearheading the vote) and the US (for belatedly seeing the light) became the new symbols of the fight for liberty and democracy. They were the West’s answer to the Libyan rebels’ plea for support. There were also five abstentions on the day. None of the permanent members exercised their veto but the five abstentions carried the weight of five nations’ conscientious objection to the means being suggested. The abstention roll call is a roll call of giants who refused to commit to decisive action to prevent an impending bloodbath: Russia, China, Brazil, India and Germany.

Lay down your arms

Thankfully for the international community, Malta did not have a vote on the Security Council resolution. I’d hate to see the likes of Cameron, Sarkozy and Obama wait for our nation’s representatives to fret about who to pass the decision-making buck to in such a situation − referendum? free vote? who knows? We cannot however hide from the geopolitical reality of the situation and, after having milked what we could of our “heroic” acts of bravery in the “evacuation”, we now find ourselves bang in the middle of the effective area for enforcing a UN mandated no-fly zone. What would OUR conscience say?

After a couple of hours (over 15 but who’s counting?), during which we had to “suffer the ignominy” of being tagged as a British military base on some lax international news channels (so much for 31 March − but thank God for the Malta Tourism Authority for setting them right), our conscience finally dragged itself to a podium and addressed the gathered assembly of journalists.

But back to the conscience. Our Prime Minister found some time to stay away from the hotline with Libya or from the god-awful diversion of “the divorce referendum question” and addressed the nation. This was in a way our moment of truth. Which side would Malta be on? Would the neutrality question raise its hypocritical head again, almost 30 years on from the infamous “compromise”? Would the heroic George Cross Island once again become a fortress and bastion for the forces of liberty and democracy?

Fear and Loathing

Well, watching Prime Minister Gonzi at work was an experience. I did not see an assertive Prime Minister on the podium. I did not see a leader of men who put his country on the same side as those who would do their utmost to help their brothers in distress. Gonzi looked more like an Archbishop. You could fill the gaps in his press conference by inserting the Maltese “jekk Alla jrid” (if God wills).

If God wills, the guns will be put down. If God wills, the Libyan leader who threatened bloodshed in the Mediterranean basin will suddenly develop a human side and will not proceed with the massacre. If God wills, there will be no need to enforce the no-fly zone because there would be no more fighting. If God wills, we will not need to send planes from our island. If God wills, we will remain the selective Florence Nightingale of the Mediterranean – the unsung heroes. If God wills, the Malta Tourism Authority will remain the only authority reminding the world that all we care about is tourism – and that, hey, we are not a British base, we are an independent republic that freed itself of the Brit oppressor (and Nato) in 1979. Jeez… haven’t you guys seen Gensna?

On the one hand, there’s British Prime Minister Cameron saying “to suggest that we should pass a resolution like this and then sit back and hope that somebody somewhere in the Arab world will act instead of us is profoundly wrong.” We get Archbishop Gonzi being the non-committal apologist worried of shaking the hornets’ nest of anachronistic neutrality clause or of standing on the side of liberty. We do not even get a condemnation of Gaddafi and a clear “Get out!” We get a half-baked prayer that hopefully the arms are laid down and that there will be no need to enforce the no-fly zone. Yes. And the ugly monster will go away on its own. Is this really a position based on conscience and principle? I’m not too sure about that but the impression we seem to be giving is of a country lacking the serious attributes to stand tall among nations. Ah, but we sure have a great big conscience.

bert4j_110320_02

Free vote and free conscience

Archbishop Gonzi’s video to his flock was not the only one to drop into my inbox this week. We also received Inhobbkom Joseph’s vid following the parliamentary marathon vote on the question to be asked for the referendum. It was a gut wrenching performance by the paladin of Maltese Progressives that begs the question: Does he know no shame? Joseph’s fans still swim happily in the belief that the divorce question is somehow interlinked with the survival of this government. Joseph does nothing to dispel this confusion for the sake of a clearer divorce debate. No. He actually tells us “this is not about the referendum or divorce”.

Yes siree, the horse has spoken. So there you are, you stupid, peddling peasant who has been celebrating a great victory for the progressive modern Malta being catapulted into Europe by Joseph and his Fawning Horde (+JPO and Mugliett). You thought it was about divorce? Hell no. It isn’t.

You have been GIVEN (thanks Joseph) the right to express your opinion on 28 May. It’s an expression that will count for Jack Shit come the vote in Parliament following the referendum. Because the same party that is claiming to be dragging us kicking and screaming into the Europe of modern progressive values DOES NOT HAVE A POSITION ON DIVORCE. It has a position on “frijvowts”. It gives its MPs the “frijvowt” on the referendum question. It gives the people a “frijvowt” to say what it thinks on divorce AND it will give another “frijvowt” to its MPs to vote on the eventual Bill in Parliament ACCORDING TO THEIR CONSCIENCE.

That means that this sniggering geezer who is so patronisingly smug about moving Malta closer to Europe (puhlease) would love to have y’all believe that the “frijvowt” is actually a yes to divorce. IT IS NOT. Because the probability is that even with a positive referendum result (and Joseph is not doing much to encourage that), the chances are that the 69 eejits voting “according to their conscience” shoot down the Bill. Godbless.

bert4j_110320_01

Balls and bollocks

Two videos. Two men addressing the nation. Two supposed leaders that represent our country. They only managed in their own way to make me squirm with anger and disgust. I know for a fact that they made many others want to leave − rip up their passports and conscientiously object to being a part of this country full of men abusing their objectionable consciences. Twice, in the space of a week, we have had to suffer the arguments of supposed leaders of men who are hiding behind convoluted reasons that they like to attribute to conscience. The end result is that we have leaders and potential leaders who have abdicated their decision-making responsibility − all in the name of a conscience that is increasingly hard to decipher (and justify).

It’s sad. Very sad. In both cases the lives of men are at stake. On the one hand our PN government is failing the rebels in Benghazi, Misratah and more on the flimsy excuse of a neutral conscience. On the other our supposed PL Progressive Leader has failed to grab the bull by the horns and forge together a party that asserts the right to divorce and remarry in the 21st century. Taking us into Europe is he?

I’ve got a new slogan for J’accuse for 2011. It’s proving to be more and more true as the year unfolds. It’s best said in Italian and I guess this week really proved its point: “In un paese pieno di coglioni, ci mancano le palle”.

This article and accompanying Bertoon(s) were published on today’s edition of The Malta Independent on Sunday.

Categories
Jasmine Politics

Bahrain & Yemen: What resolution?

The Yemeni Jamahariya and the Kingdom of the Two Seas have also been caught by the wildfire of the Jasmine revolution. In Bahrain the Shia 70% of the population has been ruled by the al-Khalifas and Sunni elite for over 200 years. The Sunni police and army of Bahrain are now being boosted by Sunni reinforcements from Pakistan, Yemen, Jordan and Syria. There is no doubt that the Bahraini troubles have a strong element of sectarian violence and this renders the politics of international intervention very different from that in Libya.

The Saudi’s, huge players in the regin, have worries of their own in the Eastern Shia province were there were calls for release of Shia prisoners. The US and West is distracted by the Libyan debacle and they still rely on the Arab support to give that particular action an international dimension. Intervention in the Middle East is further complicated by the fact that the ties with the Sunni leadership are much more intricate than those wrought enthusiastically with Gaddafi once the UN embargo was lifted.

Which leaves the only possible intervenors in the region as Ahmadinejad’s Iran, Iraq, and Lebanon – unsurprisingly mainly Shia territories. Iran’s hands are tied in much the same way as America’s in this sense. Any possibility of intervention by Iranian troops will be seen as an attempt to extend its sphere of influence in the region.

Whether it is Libya, Bahrain or Yemen that we are speaking on, it is increasingly evident that international assistance to national uprisings has to be able to withstand the possibility of being linked to “egoistic interest” of the intervenors. Whether it is oil, business or sectarian religious solidarity, no amount of UN resolutions will be able to mollify the realpolitik behind the reasons of one government’s intervention.

Another important issue that is being revisited on an international level is the question of the respect of sovereign integrity. We all saw the Libyan emissary briefing the press angrily about Libya’s indignation for foreign interference. The precedent being set here relates to whether the international community is prepared to sit back any longer and watch an elite in country X mistreat, kill and torture its own nationals – simply for the sake of “respecting territorial integrity”.

The lessons handed down to us in previous centuries combined with the increased levels of the values of the common heritage of human rights and the immediacy with which information about violations of such rights reaches the world will play a huge role in defining the new rules of the international scenario. Will Woodrow Wilson’s dream come true a century too late?