US Ambassador raises neutrality dilemma

e.cortis

Dec 6th 2009, 14:23

@ John Azzopardi

Yes nuclear bombs make mincemeat of everything, even of Super Powers !!. That's why we, a tiny grain should stay away from conflicts. We have no expansionist ambitions like the Super Powers. Look at Switzerland. No one expects or demands her to send troops for "PEACE" purposes . "The US does not need Malta "!! Can any one, perhaps his excellency the Ambassador, enlighten us WHY they are building one of the largest embassies in Europe at ta" Qali ?. About the Super Powers: Yes there are still TWO . Does anyone believe that Russia is a spent power ?. Why is it that both powers have recently agreed to diminish further their nuclear arsenals?. Numerically, Russia has more than the U.S.Come on, let's stop being gullible and believe western propaganda !.

joe portelli

Dec 6th 2009, 10:58

it is easy to say we are neutral when one is surrounded by patriot missiles and satalite spies in the skies.

Neutrality is not understood by some one at war.

A student of mine , an Israeli soldier was discussing Libya one night. The minute I said I did not know who was right or wrong, he flung into an assault and nearly killed me - I had a hard time explaining that in europe we are free to withold judgments when two parties are in diagreement. ( I must say other previous students , both from Israel and even Libya never got wound up as this particuolar man did) the point is that whilst many people accept neutrality as a right to not side with anyone, the most violent often do not agree.

So Malta, we have church bells no patriots and we have women in bikini to distract our enemies and no destroyers - we also like to claim neutral.

Whe we claimed this in teh early days at UN and prevented some important convention being signed , it brought US & USSR to say, that if Malta was of signiciant size they would have had big trouble.

Reno Calleja

Dec 6th 2009, 07:46

Your Excellency.

Please leave Malta alone and do not try to inolve us into world conflicts. The U.S have no freinds but interests. Trying to involve us in the Afghantistan war which was started by Bush and is being escalated by Obama smacks of arrogance.

Malta's neutrality is an active one and under Labour was always used as an instrument of peace.

Witness the Mugabe/Smith meeting in Malta to solve the Rhodesian question , Malta's role to bring peace between the King of Moracco and the Polizaro movement.

Thanks to the foresignt and wisdom of he Lahour and Nationalist politicians who entrenched neutrality in our Constitution and kept Malta away from wars started by the United States adn than Soviet Union, Malta has never suffered a terrorist attack.

Many beleive that In l967, independent, Malta was used b the U.S. and Britian, without the knowledge of Borg Olivier, to lend logistical support to the Israelis. This is shemeful. To the U.S. ambassador I say, leave in peace. To quote yuo a maltese proverb. Min xarbu kielu l-bnkalaw.

lgalea

Dec 5th 2009, 23:42

c. camilleri
You have got your comment all mixed up in your attempt to attack.
Malta's neutrality and non-alignment clauses were put into the Constitution after the hijack and have absolutely nothing to do with the hijack. In 1987 to be exact. As for neutrality being imposed it was agreed to by the majority of the MPs so you cannot say that it was imposed. So do you want us to be used as a military base and send our soldiers to fight for the Americans or anyone else for that matter and interfere in other nations internal affairs as the USA and NATO did and are doing in many countries? NO way camilleri. We want to live in peace not war.

Steven Camilleri Your comment has got nothing to do with the subject in question. How about the use of our ports and airport by NATO and American aircraft? That would mean that we are being used as a military base.

John Azzopardi Sorry John but you've got your facts wrong. Any ship can be sunk buyt you cannot sink Malta or any other country. EFA once said that but he was proved wrong by foreigners.

Jesmond Micallef

Dec 5th 2009, 18:41

Very interesting indeed. I have to say that the US Ambassador Douglas Kmiec has indeed and quite rightly challenged the "Neutrality" of Malta. Indeed that argument of the former Cold War scenario of "us and them" might be valid but may I put forward my own scenario here as follows:

Nations form groups, wether for economic reasons or not , you name it you have it. Consider the EU and the ASEAN communities, for instance. Companies form partnerships, groups, which in turn form large corporations. Take the airline groups for example such Star Alliance, Sky Team and One World. Furthremore take Ford, GM, Siemens to name a few others. Do I need to mention the history of serious managerial problems these large corporations have had and still have ? I am becoming very sceptical of these "partnership" principles we are seeing today.

Competition is a natural element of the DEMOCRATIC process, but what is happening here ? This same element is being eroded slowly slowly but surely, I'm afraid to say.

Malta has once again a DILEMMA on its shoulders, does it need to please, I dare ask ?

JoHn Azzopardi

Dec 5th 2009, 18:32

Maltese always want it all without sacrificies. Well, you cannot have it all and live in peace. How easily the world forgot that if it weren't for the US during WWII as well as after, the world will be completely different today. As for Mr. Cortis, yes an aircraft carrier can be destroyed, but a country too with all the nuclear weapons out there. If a country is in the way, it will have to suffer the consequences. Believe me when I say, the US does not need Malta. It's only in some people's heads if they think otherwise.

D Vella

Dec 5th 2009, 18:32

Neutrality is a usefull tool to have. In case the US Ambassador hasn't noticed,Malta has no enemies.We are at peace with the World,indeed we are welcomed wherever we are and many times,sometimes without fuss or publicity, this little Island has brought much mightier States to the table to talk,precisely because of our neutrality. We want to remain that way,useful to all,enemy with none. Leave us be Ambassador Kmiec.

e.cortis

Dec 5th 2009, 17:25

@John Azzopardi
An aircraft carrier can be sunk, and today, quite easily !!. MALTA cannot !!. Ask the late Mr.Churchill who used to refer to Malta as "The UNSINKABLE Aircraft carrier !!. And he was right...

c. camilleri

Dec 5th 2009, 16:50

It was only recently that we recalled what price of blind pursuit of neutrality could have. We still remember the tragedy of the high jacked Egyptian Airliner with the great loss of innocent lives. Because of our anti-US bias at that time American officers were not allowed to lead the Egyptian troops in storming the Airlines. The consequences of this decision is well known.
Perhaps the Maltese speakers should have mentioned the fact that our neutrality was the price the majority was forced to pay for a fair and democratic elections after five yrs of labour governing with a minority of votes.

Steven Calascione

Dec 5th 2009, 15:40

This is a good opportunity to further ecumenical understanding between the Muslim and Christian faiths. Perhaps the Imam of Malta would like to comment on how he thinks we could contribute to improving the lot of the ordinary Afghan.

Robert Callus

Dec 5th 2009, 14:43

Because the US calls them 'peace efforts' it doesn't mean they are a such, far from that.
The Iraq war for oil was nothing about peace. Saddam was a brutal dictator, true, however the general sentiment by Iraq civilians is that now it is much worse. At least with Saddam you could pretend you adore him, clap your hands and most probably you are safe. Now the country is destabilised with continuous violence.

Afghanistan is not that bad. However many civilians are being forced to help the US troops. The problem is that when the troops leave the town or city, the Taliban will come and torture those who help the troops. Innocent civilians find themselves between two enemies.

Should Malta involve itself in these (or other) "peace efforts"? Over our dead bodies.

Steven Camilleri

Dec 5th 2009, 14:20

Military Base Mr Galea ? Have you been to ta Qali latly? Thank God they did some Tarmac on the way to Ta'Qali from Pitkali road!

Evarist Saliba

Dec 5th 2009, 14:17

Comments so far show a distorted version of our neutrality, and the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE).

Our neutrality is well defined in the Constitution. Twisting this version to suit any agenda, inluding that of criticising the policies of any other country, is a distortion of the truth. Malta may, and indeed has an obligation to, be involved in peace-keeping operations sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council.

It is a complete distortion of the truth for anyone to claim that any political party in Malta opposed Mintoff's concept that security in Europe is closely linked to security in the Mediterranean. It was Mintoff's tactics in pursuing this concept that led to severe criticism not only from local sources but from ALL the other nations participating in the CSCE, inclding the Mediterranean countries.

I do not take the comments of the USA ambassador as interferance. He is highlighting an issue from which we are running away.

Our neutrality is defined in the Constitution in terms of the confrontation of two superpowers and their military alliances, and is (mostly) irrelevant to the international situation we have today.

Where do we stand today?

a.muscat

Dec 5th 2009, 14:16

Two Bushes, two wars, many dilemmas.

Mr. Bush (the father) coined the New World Order.
Mr. Bush (the son) have put the rules and divided the world by using one sentence, actually they were 7 words: Who is not with us against us.

Ex USA administration and policy makers (or oil companies and or war mongers?) brought more cataclysmic to the entire world. No need to mentions unjustified wars that were based on lies, brining the world into the edge of bankruptcy and environment disasters are just to examples!

President Emeritus Guido de Marco is right and what he says perfectly match what Mr Margalit says please:
‘"This is not an internal conflict. You [the EU] are part of this conflict," he added. "I am talking about terrorism. I am talking about another London, about the clash of civilisations. The clash of civilisations started in Jerusalem and it will end in Jerusalem," Mr Margalit said, referring to the tube bombing in the UK capital in 2005.’
http://euobserver.com/9/29089/?rk=1

My point is, unless the victim of the victims of the Holocaust gets their occupied lands back, talking about peace and neutrality will remain an illusion!

Miguel Micallef

Dec 5th 2009, 13:47

Peace for the Americans would be if your soldiers were at home with their families instead of dying in a warzone Mr Ambassador. Peace for the Afghans would be if there were no US soldiers killing them, Mr Ambassador. Peace for the Maltese means that we do not get involved in your 'peaceful tactics for world domination', Mr Ambassador.

John Azzopardi

Dec 5th 2009, 13:35

Guys, get over it. I agree with the US Ambassador. Nuetral from what. Today, Malta is no longer nuetral. It's part of the EU. It's aligned with Europe and with the new constitution in effect, there is much less nuetrality. Nuetrality means not being aligned with anyone and not taking orders from anyone. As we all know, we are now part of Europe and when the EU directives come out, we have to conform. Period. And we all know it. As for IGalea, believe me, the US does not need little Malta for it's base. An aircraft carrier is enough to do it's job.Let's get real. The days Malta was of importance for military purposes are now over. hate to burst anyone's bubble. But those are the facts.

joe portelli

Dec 5th 2009, 11:14

its no different to , jekk mhux maghna-kontrina. (you're either with us, or against) neuratlity ??? what about neutrality ( he says neurtality MUST be linked. To what ? to one's own ideology?

socialism and mintoff's old words - now having to hear it again through new socialist america

e.cortis

Dec 5th 2009, 11:07

"How right was Malta to insist in the Helsinki summit in 1975 that no peace was possible in Europe unless there was peace in the Mediterranean". Rightly said, Dr.Demarco. But it was Mr.Mintoff's idea and his stand that brought the conference to accept this clause. At that time Dr.Demarco was a leading campaigners agianst Mintoff's stand. Who can forget the demeaning and denigrating attacks and comments agaist Mintoff's stand coming from the usual quarters and choirs ?. But, it is better late than never !!!. Thank you Dr.Demarco fo finally agreeing to Mr.Mintoff's stand.

lgalea

Dec 5th 2009, 10:13

So we now have the USA ambassador questioning our neutrality and non-alignment do we? This is your first diplomatic blunder in Malta Mr Ambassador, because you should not be questioning our Constitution and interfering in our internal affairs. Seems that you have a knack for adding blunders to your collection Mr Ambassador.

Well Mr Ambassador, our neutrality means that we do not take part in what you call peace initiatives because your peace initiatives are ILLEGAL WARS and INVASIONS of other countries. No Mr Ambassador, The USA does not strive for peace but only to impose its Pax Americana. Keep your dirty wars and invasions to yourselves. We and the world do not need them. Neither do we need your warships and NATO warships in our country. By having yours and NATO warships in our country you are breaching our Constitution and insulting the Maltese citizens.

Have a look at the list of USA invasions of other countries Mr Ambassador.
http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa02.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Panama
http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=352

Should one wonder why the USA is one of the most, if not the most hated country in the world?

Malta will not be turned into a USA military base Mr Ambassador.

Charles Sammut

Dec 5th 2009, 09:34

"Malta's neutrality meant the country was also neutral to peace efforts around the world."

"Peace efforts" is usually a euphemism for the imposition of Western cultures and values by military intervention on countries and peoples whose traditions and way of life is very different to those of the West. No one has any right to foist one's values and mores on others.

Rarely do "peace keeping" efforts deliver lasting peace. Nature must be left to take its course, however brutal that can be. Diplomacy through carpet bombing and economic sanctions don't work. But some nations' economies are terribly sensitive to outbreaks of peace.