Better-of-buddies contest

The endgame of the deposing of Muammar Gaddafi has been characterised by a spasm of name-calling by the two parties on the subject of which of them has been better of buddies with the thug.

In its turn, the name-calling attracted the attention of a variety of commentators, who swarmed to the pollen like so many queen bees, if you’ll forgive my somewhat muddled use of images from the insect world. There are two types of these worthies, both of whom irritate me somewhat.

One of the types consists in a panoply of erudite writers whose grasp of matters diplomatic and political transcends those of the rest of us, the mere mortals who scribble on a regular basis and who are seen by the elevated ones as journeymen hacks, not really fit to have their comments taken seriously. Given that quite a number of these tend to comment on this column and on my blog, occasionally favourably, I will tip my hat to them and simply invite them to consider my remarks further on.

The second bunch are the more irritating, being the ones who appear to subscribe to the “plague on both your houses” school of political thought that is becoming ever more fashionable. Even more irritating, a subset of irritants if you will, are the ones who pontificate on how boring they find politics and how utterly vulgar it all is, though when the elections roll around, they suddenly come over all anxious and expect someone (generally, certain of us columnists and bloggers) to get down and dirty to make sure their party of choice prevails.

All the perceptive souls in the second group are clearly incapable of differentiating between one side or the other of any argument, giving equal value to both sides, if they bother to listen at all, even if one of them is manifestly ludicrous. I’m not entirely clear in my mind whether they are the cause or the effect of the arithmetic theories of parity of treatment propounded by eminent institutions such as the Broadcasting Authority but the fact remains that, for most people, be they great or great unwashed, as long as both sides are represented, it’s immaterial what they have to say or, even, whether they have anything to say at all.

The foregoing is why so many commentators have started to peddle the line that it’s so, so childish to be name-calling about who was more friendly with Col Gaddafi, ignoring, because their agendas, mentalities or self-absorption make them, the fact that there is a context to the name-calling that needs bearing in mind.

Recall, if you will, the way the Leader of the Opposition originally greeted the Arab Spring by suggesting we take advantage of the troubles in Tunisia to boost our tourism prospects. He demonstrated a way with foreign affairs that was disconcerting, to say the least, to say nothing of embarrassing.

At about the same time (it hasn’t been that long) we had the spectacle of the guy who came sixth in the MEP stakes suggesting to the Prime Minister that it mightn’t be such a bad idea, while discussing Greece’s cataclysmic economic situation, to bring up the point that he (the non-MEP) was being deprived of his seat. Quite apart from its grasp of foreign affairs, Labour was here demonstrating a sense of priority (not to mention propriety) that is itself more than slightly embarrassing.

Need I go on? Need I mention Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici and his hero-worship of Col Gaddafi, taking us back to darker days, to the days when, among the Libyan dictator’s only friends were, you guessed it, Dr Mifsud Bonnici and his illustrious predecessor? To be fair, Dr Mifsud Bonnici’s less moderate utterances were disavowed by the party he used to lead, though only after it became really, really clear that the dictator wasn’t going to do a Sinatra and make a comeback.

In more recent days, we had the edifying spectacle of one of Labour’s spokesmen flying the kite that Libyan funds should be three-fingered and turned to our national advantage, a jingoistic outlook on life that, frankly, fits with the example he’s been given by his own party, with its thinly-disguised attempts to appeal to the insular among us.

The Nationalist Party has charged Labour with dragging its feet before coming out with a condemnation of Col Gaddafi. Labour’s best-of-buddies past with Col Gaddafi has also been dredged up, the link between the two being, according to the PN, obvious. In retaliation, Labour’s apologists point at the government’s relations with Libya lately, totally ignoring the simple fact that when Labour were his b-o-bs, Col Gaddafi was seen as a pariah by virtually the rest of the world, with things being very different more recently.

The bottom line is quite simple: this is not a case of equally bad and/or childish arguments being made, it is a case of a series of faux pas amounting to a serious indictment of the way Labour handles itself in the sphere of international relations, a sphere where our country is measured not only by what the government does but also by what the pretenders to the throne do.

So it is a subject that deserves comment and analysis, whatever the bored or the superior may think. And equally deserving of comment and analysis is the way the debate is carried on: say what you like and however you want to say it and the chances are that you’ll find someone who will give your ludicrous views credence. This is something to which I find it necessary to react, even if it annoys the superior and the bored, to say nothing of the apologists.

Finally, just to make a few suggestions, which I’ve probably made before (understatement, you say?) for food if you happen to be up North, especially now that the weather may turn just a few shades cooler. There’s Ristorante Arzella and there’s La Pulena, both in Marsalforn, where friendly service and good quality are a given, and there’s Tmun Mġarr, which is one of the safe bets.

imbocca@gmail.com

www.timesofmalta.com/blogs