Neutral crocodiles?

The history of neutrality has not always been glorious, or cool!

Neutrality has often been used as an excuse by countries not only to escape their responsibilities, but equally often to profit from other people's suffering.

Let's take three countries who are today among the world's richest. Switzerland is a good start, since it's a favourite of old Labour, who are very quiet about the fact that the Swiss themselves have now voted for abortion - we thought only the EU pressurised you into that kind of thing?!

Switzerland was happy to call itself neutral in World War II. Yet they allowed the supply trains of the Germans and Italians through and charged for this kind service. Their refusal to allow in Jewish refugees who were escaping is well known. Countless died because of this hard heartedness, which some call neutrality.

The Swedes too accommodated the Germans while calling themselves neutral! They allowed the Germans to cross their country, but refused the same privilege to the British, who were trying to go to Finland's aid.

Eire too (today Ireland) never denounced Hitler and their leader sent condolences on his death saying "I acted correctly and I feel wisely".

Of course none of this impacts on our relationships with these countries today but neutrality of itsef has not brought peace anywhere.

Can you feel neutral about Jews dying in concentration camps? Can you feel neutral about Bosnian Muslims dying in modern day concentration camps?

If you're neutral in these situations, what do you do? Ignore them and let others do the dirty work as it happens so often?

The best summing up of neutrality was made by Churchill: "Each one hopes that if he feeds the crocodile enough, the crocodile will eat him last. All of them hope that the storm will pass before their time comes to be devoured."

The cold war is over! Russia is now helping Nato!

It is a drasticallly different world to what it was when Dom Mintoff enshrined neutrality in our constitution. So our PM has said we should update our neutrality clause.

And of course we get a storm from Labour saying our PM does not care about neutrality, and equal bunkum.

Think about it. What does neutrality mean to you today? As a Maltese or as a Gozitan, do you really feel neutral about everything?

Did you feel neutral on September 11, when terrorists destroyed the twin towers?

Do you feel neutral about suicide bombers in Israel?

Did you feel neutral when you heard how the previous Afghan regime destroyed and humiliated women?

None of us wants to go to war. But, of course, we do want to be part of the international pressure groups that condemn such things, or to send humanitarian aid.

We're too small to have much of an army but I would like to feel that some of the world's powerful nations, such as the US and the UK, would be on our side again.

But Labour is in boycott groove. With Labour you can't question anything. If you say we should rethink our neutrality clause they paint you as less of a patriot.

If you want to appear on Xarabank to discuss landfills, as the Birzebbuga mayor did, you get ordered to toe the party line!

If you disagree you have to resign or get thrown out, as the endless list of Alfred Sant's opponents shows. From George to Lino, from Alex to Joe, the list is pretty long.

The real reason for the boycott is that Labour is petrified of appearing on a discussion programme of any kind and looking stupid or making a mistake. It is a justified fear because their policies on everything, from neutrality to VAT, from the EU to landfills, are so half-baked and unjustifiable they can't really survive any probing questions.

So Labour, strategically and cleverly, has decided to only talk alone, or to their own, and never allow themselves to be challenged!

I suppose all this is very, very neutral!