If allied forces need to use Malta to carry out the UN-mandated military action against Libya, “we should accept”, according to former President Eddie Fenech Adami.
He said this morning that Malta’s constitution allowed it to take full part in action as long as it was sanctioned by the UN’s Security Council, as happened in the case of Libya.
However, he did not criticise the government’s cautious approach so far, where allied forces have been permitted to fly through Malta’s airspace but military support was not being offered.
“Yes, I have no doubt that Malta is doing enough. I don’t think [the allied forces] realistically need their planes to take off from here instead of Italy... But if the request is made with the blessing of the UN, according to our constitution, we should accept.”
“I think that if what is happening is done with the blessing of the Security Council, we are... I would not say obliged...but free to accept that decision. We should not go against the concrete resolutions of the UN.”
He was speaking during a political discussion in Tarxien to mark the party club’s 25th anniversary, where he and former President Ugo Mifsud Bonnici were interviewed by former The Sunday Times editor Laurence Grech.
Meanwhile, Dr Mifsud Bonnici said he had reluctantly accepted to Malta’s non-alignment clauses, but now accepted that it would be good for Malta to do all it could to stay out of wars, “because our country has seen too much war.”
He said people his age remember that Malta had a very tough time during World War II.
“We had bombs falling on us and we were starving. It was a very ugly experience. Although we too disagreed with fascism and nazism, we suffered more than we should have because we were a British base.”
Therefore, he said, our neutrality clause had since “served us well”, even if it was sometimes used “as an excuse”.
“In today’s circumstances, it means that we can tell our friends: ‘Listen, leave us out of it this time.’ And I think this is not a bad thing for our country.”
“Does this mean staying out of a battle between good and evil? In such a circumstance we should always choose ‘good’. But we should see what we will lose if we are used for war and what we will gain.... for the time being, I don’t think it is in our interest to get involved.”
DIVORCE
Dr Mifsud Bonnici said he was strongly against divorce because the State should not reward people who get into new unions while they are still married.
“It’s one thing to make a mistake or try in one’s conscience to try and find another solution in life, but for the State or the whole country to say you did well and recognise a new union while you are still married, is very harmful.”
Dr Mifsud Bonnici downplayed the oft-quoted idea of a couple being “incompatible”, saying no couples are compatible and marriage reveals stark differences between spouses.
“My wife and I like to do different things. We like to eat different things and have different interests,” he said, adding, however, that a couple had to make an effort to stay together.
Dr Mifsud Bonnici said he was “almost ashamed” that his country was on the way to introducing this law.
“One of the values of this nation is the principle of keeping to one’s word. How can we make a law for people not to keep their word? God forbid that when a man gets old, he chooses a new younger wife... We are dismantling one of the pillars of society,” he said, to loud applause.
He said it was “ridiculous” to take a vow of marriage for life and then water it down to four years.
“As this law is proposing, the priest should ask: do you take this person for four years?”
Although he said people should not “judge” those who freely decide not to live together any longer, society must be interested in “the rules”.
“And the rules should remain the same,” he asserted.
He also criticised the referendum question as “unclear”, saying even those in favour of divorce should vote against it.
Meanwhile, Dr Fenech Adami reiterated his stand against a referendum on such a “moral and ethical” issue.
He said issues of principle like this should not be decided by the majority, and MPs should therefore not be bound by the public’s decision, particularly if the decision is “morally incorrect”.
“The European Union referendum was extremely important but it was not an issue of ethics or morals,” he said, adding that in the case of a divorce referendum no MP should be forced to vote against their conscience.
However, he said a referendum result should not be ignored, so “obviously, there will be consequences” for those MPs who vote against the will of the majority.
The divorce issue, he added, was raised through “political disloyalty” because an MP (Nationalist MP Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando) put forward a Private Members’ Bill on such a controversial and moral issue behind everyone’s back, including his own party and its leader.