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

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?

My Deputy PM? …. I wouldn't say so

Sit down. Grab a zen ball or something to squeeze with your hands as you get angrier and angrier. This is the SKY interview with Malta’s Deputy Prime Minister Tonio “Gift of Life” Borg. Sure puts divorce debates into perspective.

Jekk Alla Jrid

After Prime Minister Gonzi’s press conference, the first since the UN Security Council Declaration on the no-fly zone, I think I have figured out the man behind “par idejn sodi”. The position and attitude of Dr Gonzi in the name of, and at the head of, the Maltese nation is worthy of a bishop. Of an archbishop even. The position is not political. It is religious. You could fill the gaps in his press conference. The words to fill the gap are 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 of enforcing 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?

If God wills… Well, in God we trust… thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster that for practical and assertive action there’s Britain, France and the USA.

(In un paese pieno di coglioni, ci mancano le palle. – J’accuse 2011 (reprise) )

****

Finally

UN resolution: The key passage

The Security Council… Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations.

1. Demands the immediate establishment of a cease-fire and a complete end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians;

2. Stresses the need to intensify efforts to find a solution to the crisis which responds to the legitimate demands of the Libyan people and notes the decisions of the Secretary-General to send his Special Envoy to Libya and of the Peace and Security Council of the African Union to send its ad hoc High Level Committee to Libya with the aim of facilitating dialogue to lead to the political reforms necessary to find a peaceful and sustainable solution;

3. Demands that the Libyan authorities comply with their obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law, human rights and refugee law and take all measures to protect civilians and meet their basic needs, and to ensure the rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian assistance; protection of civilians

4. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in co-operation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any

part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council;

5. Recognizes the important role of the League of Arab States in matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security in the region and bearing in mind Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations, requests the Member States of the League of Arab States to cooperate with other Member States in the implementation of paragraph 4

The abstainers

Brazil: Has a long history of supporting pariah states.

India: Like Germany and Brazil, has no veto on Security Council. Its abstention came even as the US championed its promotion to permanent membership.

China: Usually abstains when it disapproves of a resolution, sparing its veto for issues of direct strategic interest. Its authoritarian government is concerned about setting precedents for interfering in a sovereign state.

Germany: Outspoken critic of the UK-French plans for a no-fly zone, saying it did not want to get sucked into a war.

Russia: Has its own internal problems, including in Caucasus. Unwilling to get involved in other countries’ affairs.

Source: The Independent (UK)

The Horse's Mouth

I got an email from Joseph Muscat. The subject line said “Pajjiz verament ewropew”. It was a link to a one minute video clip by His Inhobbkomness trying to wriggle out of the fact that the Party of Moderates and Progressives DOES NOT HAVE A POSITION ON DIVORCE.

Inhobbkom is bandying around the idea of the frijjvowt (one word for “free vote”). It turns out that his magnanimous self has “granted” the people a “frijjvowt” – something the Nasty Dastardly DottorGonzi denied them. Yay! We should thank Inhobbkom Joseph for enfranchising the nation.

Really? What has this battle been about? Well Joseph gives us the first half of an answer:

“Jien ma nemminx li din il-kwistjoni hija dwar referendum jew divorzju”.

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

You have been GIVEN the right to express your opinion on the 28th 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. (see “Tie Your Brother Down“).

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.

Daphne Caruana Galizia wrote a good analysis in today’s Independent that shows how many of us who are in favour of divorce legislation but not in favour of this partisan circus feel. I have heard many friends in the last few hours who are considering abstaining or even voting NO in a referendum because of the whole hijack by this PLPN charade.

J’accuse remains convinced that the truly modern, progressive and (if you want, though I do not see the point of this) “European” way of introducing divorce can only happen when one or more parties have the balls to declare that should they be elected to government they will introduce divorce legislation. It is the only way that the people can be empowered to decide – with a vote at the electoral ballot.

Meanwhile as we discuss our referendum question in 2011 and as our leader of the opposition kids himself of having “allowed” us to express our opinion, (Thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster for that)  this is the stage Luxembourg is at with regard to divorce legislation. I won’t bother translating. If you can’t read French then you’re not European enough and you’re not bloody worth it.

Le divorce possible dans six mois

Dans les cartons du Parlement depuis plus de cinq ans, le texte tarde à se finaliser. Les difficultés des députés à s’accorder tiennent en deux points: l’opportunité de maintenir le divorce pour faute à certaines conditions (violences conjugales) et la question des points retraite pour le conjoint qui aurait interrompu sa carrière pendant la durée du mariage.

Hier, les députés ont toutefois réussi à s’entendre sur le divorce par consentement mutuel. Ainsi, la durée de la procédure a été ramenée à six mois au lieu d’un an. Les parlementaires ont acté que la pension alimentaire versée lors d’un divorce par consentement pouvait être révisée ce qui n’est pas le cas aujourd’hui. Pour la députée socialiste Lydie Err, «les progrès sont laborieux, mais au moins nous avançons».

– L’Essentiel, 17th March 2011

I almost forgot… but it’s become our new byline:

In un paese pieno di coglioni ci mancano le palle.

– J’accuse 2011