Making Malta’s position clear

The Prime Minister has made it clear enough that Malta will not be involved in the coalition’s military operations against the Gaddafi regime in Libya, intended to protect civilians from being targeted by the armed forces.

Malta will permit flights through its air space but will not be used as a base. Some came out against this stance, saying that if we truly wanted to be against the regime, we should participate in the coalition’s actions. Others mixed porridge in the usual manner, blaming Lawrence Gonzi’s decision on the neutrality clause in the constitution, and urging its removal.

In the main expressed public opinion was for Gonzi. The Labour opposition too agreed that Malta should not be used in the action against the Gaddafi regime. The position is clear enough in Malta, at least for those who do not deliberately wear blinkers. It is not that obvious overseas. Some reports and cartoons in the British press, suggesting that Malta was a base and could attract Libyan missiles, did a lot of harm. But the local authorities reacted quickly to scotch the rumour.

Even so the position is not as clear as it should be to foreigners, even the most objective among them. I gathered as much through exchanges I had with expatriate financial personnel through a telephone link. After our official business was over, they asked me for my take on the situation in Libya, and how that would affect Malta.

I doubt they are the only ones who need more clarity. That shows it is not enough for the local authorities to explain locally. A careful information project has to be drawn up whereby our position is explained abroad as full as can be. It should include our embassies, our presence in the EU, and briefing of journalists.

The Malta Tourism Authority, in particular, has to re-tailor its promotion abroad. Malta’s true position has to be protected and projected now. And possibly, for a considerable time to come. That will be so if regime change does not take place in Libya soon.

There is quite a strong possibility that the coalition’s actions might end in stalemate. The coalition will destroy much of the regime’s military capacity, as they have already done with its air force. But they will not enable the rebels to force Gaddafi and his minions out of Tripoli.

The regime retains considerable ground military assets there. It has in place a carefully selected security force headed by one of Gaddafi’s sons. It includes an unknown number of mercenaries, who can still be paid in gold even if the regime’s cache of dollars, the currency which fuels that particular deadly game, runs out.

Moreover, the regime is reportedly using human shields to prop up its defensive position, since the coalition would run into deep international trouble if it was confirmed it was killing civilians as it tried to take out the regime’s forces.

As if that was not enough to make the coalition’s position stressful the coalition forces are hardly a picture of unity. The US President had at least one cold foot and very early on began to make it clear his country did not want to continue to lead the project.

Other Western nations expressed doubt about the offensive or, if they backed it originally, about whether it was disproportional to the objective. The Arab League, an important leg in the coalition table in order to give it legitimacy going beyond that supplied by the UN Security Council, has been blowing hot and cold.

A friend of mine who quoted to me Winston Churchill’s very early antagonistic position to all Islam, countered my suggestion that the great man was a racist by sending me the following quotation from the older Churchill: “A politician needs the ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month, and next year. And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn’t happen.”

That seems to fit the politicians behind the anti-Gaddafi drive to perfection. The more time passes, the more snarled up they seem to be in their actions and inaction. They are trying to display the ability to explain why, but without any great success. Particularly so when critical voices are growing to charge the Western parts of the coalition that they are guilty of two weights, two measures, attacking Gaddafi without parallel resolve regarding other autocrats in trouble spots in the Middle East and the Gulf.

This uncertainty at times becomes laughable, an easy fit to Churchill’s witticism. It is by no means a laughing matter for anybody, though, least of all for Malta. The security aspect aside, Malta’s economic interests in the Libyan connection are very extensive, in terms of Libyan investment in Malta, Maltese investment in Libya, Maltese exports to that country and arrivals from it, which are included in our tourism totals.

That is the immediate concern, which could have long-term consequences. If Libya ends up in a stalemate, divided between east and west, or if the Gaddafi regime survives for a length of time, or even if it loses but parts of it remain at large outside Libya, the security implications on our own soil could become very real.

That ugly potential scenario lies in the future. In the short term we have to project Malta as it really is. It is good that there is political consensus about that need. The private sector and the rest of us too should do their part through contacts and relations abroad.