Library

Article 42, ISIS and neutrality

article42_akkuza

There has been quite a flutter in Malta since Francois Hollande decided to invoke article 42(7)  of the Lisbon Treaty. Even without the eccentric shenanigans of former PM Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici, questions were being raised as to how and to what extent Malta would be committed thanks to this invocation. I thought of providing a little Q&A, just like in parliament, but without the nigi hemm u nifqghek bits.

1. First of all, what does Article 42(7) state?

Article 42 (7) TEU states:

If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.

Commitments and cooperation in this area shall be consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which, for those States which are members of it, remains the foundation of their collective defence and the forum for its implementation.

2. So. This means war right?

No it does not. At least not in the sense that the army blessed and formed in the image of Manuel Mallia will be sent to the front to stand shoulder to shoulder with peshmergas. Nor does it mean that we will have AFM troops patrolling the Champs Elysees any time soon. The emphasis in article 42(7) is on aid and assistance and, more specifically, on the fact that the “security and defence policy” of certain Member States should not be prejudiced. This means two things:

a) Firstly, it means that any state invoking article 42(7) can negotiate individually with any other Member State (and crucially without the need to use any of the EU institutions) any temporary form of aid and assistance.  Each Member State is responsible for determining its contribution on the basis of what they deem to be necessary, which does not necessarily mean the deployment of military assets.

b) Secondly, and more importantly in the eyes of many in Malta, the fact that the security and defence policy of certain Member States is clearly invoked is a direct reference to the ‘neutral’ status of states such as Ireland, Austria and Finland – to give an example of some others. What that means is that notwithstanding any interpretation of military intervention that might be given by states dealing under this article, this obligation stops when the security and defence policy of certain States does not allow it. The second paragraph referring to NATO commitments is a further reinforcement of this distinction.

3. Oh so we are not at war then.

That’s a nice one. Modern politicians of the Hollande mould have a tendency to slip quickly into the language of war once a terrorist attack takes place. This “tradition” is new to this century ever since Commander in Chief Bush declared war on Al-Qaeda. Unlike the 70s and 80s when a terrorist bomb attack or shooting never really translated to a casus belli the political psyche of the post 9/11 words seems to require such heavy handed references and we are living in an age where France will now even try to provoke the UN to declare a war on a state whose existence nobody beyond the self-declared caliphate acknowledges.

Still. In the microcosm of Muscat’s land,  we will first engage in a debate of “neutrality” clauses in our constitution. The significance of such clauses dwindles into nothing when one considers that they were intended to deal with a specific battle between superpowers (a battle that no longer exists) and that in any case they would be invoked in case of a war between states – and not neutrality in the face of the war on terrorism. Another thing, Muscat’s government spent most of its legislature whingeing about the fact that immigration problems are a common problem that should be faced and borne equally by all EU states.

Calling oneself out of the fight on terrorism by relying on an outdated and practically inapplicable neutrality clause is hypocritical to say the least. By saying this I am not advocating participation by Malta on military activity but rather that Malta’s attitude towards security and its contribution to ensuring that the borders of the European Unoion are impervious to terrorists leaves much to be desired. From the Algeria VISA scandal, laughed off by our Chief Salesman to the thousands of Libyan Residencies to the continued insistence of this government to transform Malta into one big trojan horse for entry into the EU… these are ample examples as to how Malta’s contribution to the war on terror could be vastly improved.

4. Where does that leave us?

Well it leaves us with an EU that is gearing up to battle the amorphic monster that is “terrorism” with a series of knee-jerk reactions. It leaves us with a government in Malta that ironically needs to wake up and smell the coffee for the reasons outlined above.

Most of the time, it seems, it leaves us reverting to the centuries old adage: si vis pacem, para bellum.

Sales Report

salesreport

Chief Salesman Muscat was reporting from his business visit in Algeria. He told journalists that the Algerian authorities had laughed off any suggestion that something was amiss with the abnormal number of visas being issued by the consulate run by Muscat’s father’s cousin. Obviously the matter of visas being issued lightly and allegedly on the basis of a network of bribes is of no security consequence to Algeria. Why should it be? It is probably a laughing matter indeed. The arabs have a curious habit of referring to someone as “oncle” or “cousin” out of respect – much in the same way as some Maltese use the phrase “my friend” even if you do not know them from Adam. Muscat was reported to have replied sarcastically about his familiarity with the man running the Algeria consulate. “He’s my father’s cousin, that’s a very strong relationship,” Dr Muscat said sarcastically. Again, he seems to find these things funny. Brushing it all off as being a bit too much brouhaha.

Meanwhile. Malta’s Chief Salesman seemed positively surprised that the Algerian counterparts are eager to use Malta as a window to Europe’s pharmaceutical market. What stands out as strange is that given the linguistic and historical partnership with France, the Algerians would still need to use Malta to hitch a ride into Europe. The question really is all about standards. Is Malta becoming one of the weaker links of the European Union? Is this government once again peddling the rights and obligations that were hard earned in order to make a quick sale? We can only wait. Do not expect truthful answers from salesmen though, Their business is not governance but profit.

Sales Alert

salesalgeria_BR

In between world changing summits our PM is off on a business mission to Algeria. The press photo shows a corny group pic of the delegation standing at the foot of the stairs of an AirMalta plane. The delegation is testosterone heavy with two (visible) token women thrown into the fray. Energy and Health Minister is also on board, presumably to cook up another top secret arrangement the details of which can never be announced because of their economic sensitivity. Meanwhile our PM still cannot explain how his relative issued 7,000 visas for Europe in Algeria. The Algerian government should of course be worried since wherever Konrad Mizzi seems to go for his wheeling and dealing there seems to be a tendency of the government collapsing soon after. One, two, three… Viva l’Algerie!

The truth, if he lies

turhtjospeh_akkuza

La vérité, si je mens (The truth if I lie). We’ve carried that movie motto on this blog as from the start back in 2005.  I was reminded of this motto when I read Dr Muscat’s interview on the Times today. It’s the truth, if I lie – it’s a nonsensical phrase actually that can be substituted by “I promise” or as we were used to hearing on the streets of Malta when we were young “Promise to Jesus”. Whatever your choice of phrase is, Muscat’s assertion really needed this kind of appendage at the end. Here’s what he was reported to have said:

“As for the dwindling number of arrivals to Malta, Dr Muscat denied suggestions made by his predecessor, Lawrence Gonzi, that this was the result of some form of agreement with Italy, insisting this was only due to better collaboration with the neighbouring country.”

We can safely assume that Muscat was already squirming uncomfortably at this point since he had already had to pull out an enormous amount of somersault arguments to deal with the Michael Falzon hot potato. I’m sure in the back of his mind he was blaming the failure of Saviour Balzan and his name dropping stunt to distract attention from the myriad scandals that the Labour government is brooding upon.

But back to his statement. Muscat gave us a clear example of his Magritte Policy – the “what you see is not what you get” statement. In the very same sentence he tells us that there is no form of agreement with Italy but that ther is better collaboration with the neighbouring country. Come again? In what universe of CHOGM flop organising and nation paralysing nincompoops with a degree in management and economics is an agreement not a form of collaboration?

We are not talking about two friends meeting in a pjazza and deciding who will pay for the pastizzi and coffee at is-Serkin. Nor is this a “gentlemen’s agreement” to rent a flat that will only be put to paper should circumstances require and should pressure be too much. No. These are two sovereign nations dealing with each other at diplomatic level and reaching agreements that has repercussions on the operation of their administrative and military forces. Orders will be given as a result. Priorities will be set in an IF/THEN format such as: If migrants are rescued at sea THEN do not take them to Malta BUT proceed to ITALY no matter where they are found.

That sort of thing requires formulation, confirmation and agreement in the form of positive action usually in the form of signatories scribbling their names on very formal paper. More importantly, an agreement normally involves obligations on both sides. Now we can all see for ourselves that Italy is taking on the bulk of migrants (erm ALL recently found migrants) – Muscat himself has never denied this and we have questions being asked in Italy and the EP about it too. So we know what Italy’s side of the obligation consists of. What then is Malta giving back?

Muscat wants you and the kool-aid drinkers to believe strongly that this is the result of “better collaboration with the neighbouring country“. If this vague meaningless phrase can be put quickly in succession after a denial of anything the dastardly Gonzi said then it will add muchly to its level of credibility. What Muscat does not and will not answer is what Italy are getting in return.

Maybe Dr Gonzi is right, maybe he is wrong. That is not the point. The point is that Muscat will only say the truth if he lies. He will not tell you what he promised Renzi and Italy because, as we know by now, he is above accountability.

And for the next two weeks he will be more than that. He will be busy having tea with what he sees as the selfie-imposing VIP while you are confined to your house and (if you are a businessman) losing money due to the national paralyis that is needed by the party that couldn’t be trusted to organise a piss-up in a brewery.

The truth, if I lie.

 

The truth about convenience

truth_akkuza

Saviour Balzan’s performance at yesterday’s Public Accounts Committee must have been a sight for sore eyes and Lord do we have sore eyes on the island. In many ways Balzan has become the champion of all the “hekk hu go fik” stalwarts who will never get enough of (as Ian Borg put it) getting an orgasm out of imagining worse places in their hell that would be reserved for what is left of GonziPN. Part of the reason may very well be that more often than not Balzan gives the impression that he operates on the very kind of substance that fuels (excuse the pun) this kind of voter.

Of course your average voter has every prerogative to elect to vote on the basis of partisan zeal, inbuilt prejudice and repressed anger. The urge to wave the flag in the face of opponents and yell about some tkaxkira is also a prerogative protected by the constitution and the right to universal suffrage. Yes, we are doomed to have the fate of our nation determined by the insufferable partisan who will go on weighing the aptitude of a party to govern not by its potential but by contrasting it to what is perceived as the virulent other.

Not Saviour though, he is a public person as in he is an editor of what for all intents and purposes is a newspaper. Yesterday Owen “the law” Bonnici kick started the waltz of connivance with this “editor” with what he called a “preambolu” (preamble). He informed all and sundry that as the editor of a paper Balzan would not be obliged to divulge his sources. True. Very true. Also redundant. It was just Bonnici’s way of tucking Balzan comfortably in his seat short of providing tea and biscuits and a nice warm cover. I switched off the radio at that point and have the various newspaper reports to go on for what happened after.

First a preamble of my own. What follows will surely provide the various sycophants of the Taghna Lkoll litter to call this blog a “nationalist blog” or a “poison pen” (though we may be older and wiser as a blog but not as important in the machinery and cogs of the system). Experience has shown that worrying about this form of accusation is like worrying that it is raining: best to put on a good waterproof jacket and not get mixed up in the mud that inevitably forms. Let the future be my judge.

Speaking of judges, that was the first impression that Balzan’s deposition seems to give: Judge Balzan was in court. Comfortably seated and welcomed by Bonnici he dispensed opinions as though they were edicts from a judicial platform. “George Farrugia should have been tried in court.” “Lawrence Gonzi lied.” “Tancred Tabone was a scapegoat.” “Tancred Tabone might have been Austin Gatt’s cousin”. In what he probably believes to have been his finest moment he spun and linked story after story, confident in the fact that “his sources are protected” to lead to the culminating “bombshell” (not my words, but one of the papers chose this term). The Shell out of court settlement with the PN government as compensation for having missed out on some tenders. The big news? Simon Busuttil was the lawyer for Shell.

Now, not having the benefit of Balzan’s disgruntled sources (I will assume you can see that for yourself – the disgruntled bit I mean) I can still try to piece together the “facts” provided by Balzan and ask a few honest questions.

  1. There seems to be sufficient evidence pointing to a network of information that led to a skewered oil procurement policy that took place under a nationalist government watch. So far so good. We did not even need Balzan to see that far.
  2. The conflicting evidence as to who was in it up to his teeth and who was not seems to arise from the fact that it all depends on who you accept as source. Would it be George Farrugia the whistleblower? Would it be the Farrugia brothers who according to Balzan’s song were approached as whistleblowers but later dropped in favour of their brother?
  3. Light bulb – as Gru would say. Could it be that those who are now claiming to be victims and unwanted whistleblowers have found a place to vent their side of the story in Balzan?
  4. Could it be that the convenience of these internecine wars and shady suspicions falls right in the lap of Bonnici’s Labour – happy enough to tag along with any mud that is thrown inter partes so long as some of it can be made to sound like it sticks to GonziPN?
  5. And in the light of 4 above, what better manna from heaven than a non-sequitur about a retainer held by the current leader of the nationalist party for an oil company with regards to an out of court settlement related to procurement of AVIATION FUEL that has nothing to do with the procurement of Farrugia’s oil? The important thing for Bonnici and his party is that Busuttil’s name was finally dropped in the context of the Oil Procurement scandal – no matter how vaguely. For the man in the street busily “orgasming” (Ian Borg again) on the GonziPN links this must be heaven. For Muscat a welcome distraction from GaffarenaGate, ChinaGate, ChrisCardonaGate, PremierGate, ODZGate, SandroChetcutiGatesandTowers… heavens where do I stop?
  6. Then there was that bit of magic about Gonzi lying that he did not know Farrugia’s wife – because he regularly received chain prayers from her. Which of course would make me best friends with most Nigerians who insist on trying to send me money at every opportunity they get. The Prime Minister passed on whatever information was received to the secret services but apparently, according to Judge Balzan, they went about their work maladroitly. Of course that should raise questions about the secret service, the police and more but we are not in the PAC for that are we? We need to find mud that sticks.
  7. Finally there’s Austin Gatt. Never a beloved minister. Neither he nor his minions and now MPs were ever going to be seen in a good light of even the most moderate of PN supporters let alone the “hekk hu go fik” brigade. It gets a bit confusing because at one point Tancred Tabone is highlighted as being both the “scapegoat” of the situation as well as the (possible) cousin of the minister. Claudio Grech is guilty of arrogance – I wonder if it is of the same type that we get whenever PM Muscat gets asked an uncomfortable question.

There are worrying implications that result from the Oil Procurement Scandal. In my opinion the most worrying of all the things that Balzan implied yesterday was in fact the weather-vane approach adopted by the police depending on who is in government. That something was definitely amiss in the oil  procurement methods is not hard to deduce. That it is all being lost in a desperate attempt by the government and people bearing grudges against Gonzi’s PN (and now the current PN) to change this into an anti-PN crusade is shameful to say the least.

Our class of politicians – all of it – is what we have as representatives. They are obliged to perform their representative duties in full respect of the mechanisms of democracy, particularly by ensuring that the guarantees of constitutional checks and balances are strong and fully functional. The PN’s efforts at changing and morphing into a party that has left behind the malaise of GonziPN must stick within these parameters. Labour has by now shown clearly that it has no intention to follow the rules of the accountability game.

Moments of “glory” such as these for Saviour Balzan will go down well with the Taghna Lkoll crowd. His convenient (though mostly irrelevant) name dropping will be applauded in most circles. Such moments will do close to nothing to further the cause of solving the problem of corruption that has been clawing at the heart of our system under bipartisan blessing. Worse still they will do nothing at all to open the eyes of the people to the rampant corruption that is taking place daily before their eyes.

So long as the Pied Piper can play the tune….and it seems that it’s an LP… a 10 year tune in fact.

 

 

Like China in their hands

china_akkuza

 

Prime Minister Muscat has constantly shot down all criticism of his well-rooted tryst with all matters Chinese. The tryst goes a long way and includes the now-you-see-it-now-you-dont consulate in Shanghai manned by ‘person of trust’ and wife of Minister Consul-non-Consul Sai Mizzi. In his latest attempt at belittling any form of criticism Muscat referred to the fact that while people in Malta criticised his sale of Malta’s power source to China, the very next day George Osborne was parading a similar investment in the UK, also by the Chinese. The peddler of words is brilliant at yelling out slogans and words in controlled circumstances – such as a parliamentary monologue – and his Clever Hans effect spurs him on to entertain the gullible public. Any naysayer will  immediately be shot down with brilliant repartees such as “You’re obviously nationalist” or as I have been told recently by an arse-licking political appointee “You’re finally out of the closet”.

But back to the Chinese and Osborne. First of all the Chinese investment in the UK is not all over the place and not dependent on government guarantees, nor is it a sale on the cheap of public land. Our National Salesman is only brilliant in the way peddlers of knock on fakes in the street are brilliant. He sells because his product is sold cheaply or on the border of legality. In the UK a special economic set up was made to cater for the Chinese investment – nothing of that here in Malta were we are slaves to the sons of Ming in every possible transaction.

Not just that. Questions are being raised in the UK as to whether the Chinese have not bought into more power than simply economic investments. The Independent reports that the UK has been “accused of doing China’s bidding” after a police raid into the home of a man who had survived the Tiananmen protests:

Chinese democracy activist and Tiananmen Square survivor Shao Jiang, 47, was arrested in the street outside London’s Mansion House where a reception was being held for visiting Chinese Premier Xi Jinping.

Campaigners say Dr Jiang was “brutally manhandled” by police officers after he attempted to block the motorcade by standing in front of it – in a scene reminiscent of a famous image of a lone protestor standing in front of Chinese tanks used to crush peaceful protests in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square in 1989.

He was holding two banners, which read “End autocracy” and “Democracy now”.

There are now strong accusations that British police and Scotland Yard are bowing to pressure from China. It’s no laughing matter when the police of a nation are subject to the whims and fancies of another nation – and one that is not too fond of liberal democratic methods to boot.

Muscat might have little reason to laugh now, especially when events similar to those that went on in London have occurred closer to home. The dossier of Chinese Slave Labour is not yet closed yet in Malta though little seems to be done about what appears to be China government sanctioned activity in the matter. The Times of Malta reported on the 20th October that a Chinese man who had reported a case of abuse and exploitation at work had been arraigned on charges of assault.

It’s not funny. Not funny at all Prime Minister Muscat. There is a limit to the lack of accountability to the public when engaging in dealings with nations that are, let’s say, not too happy with democratic methods. One can only hide for so long behind the spurious excuse of economic sensitivity. The charades of budget speeches that are only extended monologues of cool-aid distribution peppered with antiquated FEMA catchphrases can only impress the accolytes and the gullible in much the same way that a hypnotist has his way with those who are easily impressed.

The fourth estate has a huge responsibility here in keeping up the pressure and asking more and more questions of this government and its dealings until it gets the answers that are required.