The immorality of neutrality

Reno Calleja’s vigorous promotion of “neutrality” and his hackneyed slogan “Malta first and foremost”, in the TV chat show Xarabank, draws our attention to this contentious issue.

I congratulate Peppi Azzopardi for reacting to this flawed concept of patriotism by saying, towards the end of the programme: “Human beings first and foremost”. Contrary to the philosophy of Cain and Mr Calleja, this eminently Christian principle underscores the value that we are our brother’s keeper.

Neutrality has a shameful history at worst and a short-sighted one at best.

In World War II, Sweden’s neutrality was respected because they connived with the Nazi regime. They allowed Nazi troops to use their railways to invade Russia and they made a fortune selling their iron ore to Hitler’s regime, a vital resource for Germany’s armaments.

Switzerland’s neutrality allowed it to make business to its own advantage with Nazi Germany during WWII while denying sanctuary to Jews escaping from the genocidal situation in territories occupied by Hitler. Switzerland is notorious in pursuing its financial interests with callous disregard from which source money pours into its banks. The recent case of Hosni Mubarak’s billions of dollars, while so many Egyptians wallowed in poverty, is a case in point.

But, as Mr Calleja implied, safeguarding national interests should trump any other consideration. This smacks of politics without morality.

Even so, neutrality is not always convenient and often fails to act as a deterrent against aggression. Powerful aggressors always get their own way if it suits them. The neutrality of Belgium and Holland did not save them from being invaded and occupied by Nazi Germany in World War II.

In Malta’s case, neutrality did not spare us from being bullied by Muammar Gaddafi preventing us from searching for oil resources in our own territorial waters

Thankfully, as the world gets more and more interconnected, not least because of the miraculous leap in communications technology, neutrality is being questioned more and more. For instance, the impunity with which billions of dollars of ruthless dictators, criminal organisations and other corrupt sources are sanitised by being deposited in tax havens is being brought under public scrutiny and condemnation more and more.

We also need being reminded what Mr Calleja’s insistence on the value of our enshrined neutrality really implied during the Mintoff regime.

During the Cold War, besides supporting terrorism and promoting communist interests, Libya purchased billions of dollars of highly sophisticated military equipment from the USSR, well in excess of the needs of Libya’s armed forces.

At the time, Malta allowed Libyan warships to be routinely serviced in the Dockyard, yet, Nato warships were barred from the island under the pretext of our so-called much vaunted neutrality.

Even then, when considered conveninet, the British warship, HMS Brazen, was allowed to enter Malta in 1985 with the then Labour Foreign Minister Alex Sceberras Trigona sporting a sailor’s cap of that ship.

The choice of HMS Brazen by the British government was most appropriate as it portrayed with poetic justice the disgraceful and doublefaced politics practised so shamelessly and brazenly by Dom Mintoff and later by KarmenuMifsud Bonnici.

Also, political refugees from eastern Europe and the USSR trying to seek sanctuary in Malta risked being hunted down and forcibly repatriated. On more than one ocasion, I gave emergency treatment to such people on the run. So this is not hearsay.

In other words, our neutrality was not just a matter of equidistance between victim and aggressor. It acted as a smokescreen for despicably siding with the latter.

This reprehensible chapter of neutrality in our country’s recent history is now being exposed for what it is. Hopefully, neutrality will be struck off our Constitution after being subjected to a referendum where, in a spirit of authentic democracy, our people will be given a clear choice after a fair and informed exposition of what it implies.

Finally, we should never forget the ringing words of the Jew, Elie Wiesel, survivor of Hitler’s death camps, who said: “I swore never to be silent whenever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor never the tormented.”