The big dilemma that is Libya

Last week, I participated (or rather tried to, since it is very difficult to get a word in, which somehow seems to be the intended design of the programme) in a Xarabank discussion on TVM.

Way back, at the start of this show, many years ago, I had criticised its thrust in that I perceived it to be encouraging, or at least aiming at, a base, and sometimes vulgar, audience; ostensibly the title Xarabank may have been adopted for that very purpose.

This led me to crossing swords with Peppi (then Joe) Azzopardi. Irony would have it that years later, in 2003, as chairman of PBS in the very difficult times of the EU referendum and general election, I found myself standing four-square with Peppi and Where’s Everybody in the defence of freedom of expression against the bizarre decision taken by the Broadcasting Authority to block Xarabank just because the eminent Alfred Sant refused an invitation to take part.

Meanwhile, Xarabank was developing along more professional lines and aiming at a wider audience, on television at least – many of the people actually present still considering it an evening out and getting a free sandwich, cake, apple, drink and transport still hanging around. For many years it has been the most popular television programme, so, agree or not, it is what Malta’s TV audiences want and so be it. But this was an aside albeit at the beginning of this piece and there I was sitting it out last week.

The topic was Libya. The speakers were a mix of politicians, present and past, anti-Gaddafi Libyans resident in Malta, Maltese nationals who have just fled the North African country, an attractive lady who had less of a say than I did, a Graffitti rep who probably made most noise (as Graffitti reps tend to – perhaps we’ll discover what they’re all about some time anyway) and the undersigned. A number of interesting issues were discussed nonetheless and they did cover the full spectrum. I will try and highlight the main one and make some brief comments (perhaps some that I did not have the time to then).

One of my fellow speakers proposed that mediation should take place between the factions. President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela (elected indeed, but democratically?) offered such a mediation and the dispatch of a pan-South American-Asian-African team, a proposal accepted by the Libyan “Leader”.

But how can one mediate with a man who, as aptly described by the US Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, is “disillusional” in the nonsense he is uttering? He has no position to resign from; all the Libyan people love him; there were no killings of his people, Al Qaeda was drugging the young rebels and so much more. A man who has opened up his armouries to the “people” to kill their fellow countrymen and who will surely be indicted by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity. A man who must just go.

Mediation is a nice process which I fully support but there must be a situation which makes it possible, which there is not.

Another speaker condemned the hypocrisy of western leaders in rehabilitating the “Leader” by embracing him, nurturing foreign trade and direct investment with and in the Jamaharija and supplying arms to Libya. This was before the present hell broke loose – not since. These western leaders’ aim was to stabilise the region, promote their own economic interests (nothing wrong per se) and remove the threat of weapons of mass destruction.

There is no doubt that Muammar Gaddafi has been a dictator for 42 years. By the same reasoning promoted by Graffitti and their like, no western or truly democratic governments would have any contact whatsoever with a host of dictatorial and undemocratic states – China and much of South America and Africa, for example. This argument just does not hold ground.

Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi came in for a lot of praise in the way he is handling the present crisis. In fact, his handling has been perfect and perfect is a word I really find difficult to use. In fact, I have never believed that perfection can exist, yet this has been a prime example of the Nationalist Party electoral war cry “par idejn sodi” (a pair of safe/strong hands).

It is doubtful whether a Maltese Prime Minister has ever had to shoulder such a crushing responsibility. Its weight is unimaginable. Truly, Dr Gonzi has a Cabinet and a government but the buck stops with him. Undoubtedly, his decision not to return the Libyan Mirage fighters flown to Malta must have been his greatest dilemma – or was it? Faced with a situation where, by right, in a legal context, these aircraft belonged to the Libyan government and should have been returned – and, in fact, their return was requested by none other than the Libyan Prime Minister – Dr Gonzi went for his values:

Do I send back these aircraft so they can be used to kill? I cannot do it.

Not only, but a Libyan aircraft carrying pilots to fly the Mirages back to Libya was refused landing permission. At the same time all this was happening, Air Malta aircraft were in Tripoli airport. Was the safety of crew and passengers at risk in any way? This is a question which does not require an answer.

As my friend Alexander Borg Olivier (a career diplomat and legal adviser with the United Nations for decades) wrote (March 4 “I was impressed by the wisdom and courage manifested by Malta under the able leadership of Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi” and “With two Libyan military aircraft arriving unexpectedly and without authorisation and their pilots defecting to Malta, Dr Gonzi was suddenly confronted with the most difficult and unprecedented political situation as Prime Minister”.

Another cardinal point, and perhaps directly the most important, is Malta’s status of neutrality, side by side with its obligations towards the UN Security Council, as well as our own security as state. But another time. There might very well be further developments.