Evarist Saliba
A nation’s mission statement
Article 1 (3) of the Constitution of Malta is casually referred to as the neutrality article. A careful reading would describe it more accurately as Malta’s mission statement.
It states that Malta’s mission is to pursue peace, security and social progress among all nations. It is a very praiseworthy mission, though a very ambitious one.
The article goes further into seven sub-sections, describing how this mission is to be accomplished. It includes neutrality, a policy of non-alignment, non-participation in a military alliance, no foreign military bases on its territory, no military facilities to foreigners. This betrays a negative rather than a positive approach. An exception is made for self-defence, or in compliance with measures sanctioned by the Security Council of the United Nations.
There is an elaboration that a concentration of foreign forces is permissible for the performance of civil work or activities, or military technical personnel assisting in the island’s defence.
The shipyards, then a major if ailing industry, was debarred to military vessels of the two superpowers (read US and USSR), and were to restrict themselves to limited repair works on military vessels of other states, apart from civil commercial work.
Peace is highly desirable as long as it is based on justice. Dictators bring “peace” to their country by eliminating opposition. They quote “security” as a justification for this policy, since this is the way that they can achieve “social progress”. Prominent examples are Muammar Gaddafi and Robert Mugabe. I do not believe that this is what Malta wishes to pursue, and our Constitution would benefit by making it clear.
During my lifetime, Europe has seen tragic evidence that neutrality does not necessarily promote peace. At best, it is irrelevant. Did neutrality bring peace to Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg in 1940? No.
Did their neutrality contribute, unwillingly perhaps, to the conduct of war? Yes. It made it possible for Hitler to launch the war, with lightning successes.
As for Sweden and Switzerland, both countries enjoyed peace. Hitler did not need to invade Sweden because it supplied him, willingly or reluctantly is immaterial, with the steel he needed for his war machine. Switzerland boasted of armed neutrality which, together with its terrain, presented a formidable obstacle to an invader. In any case, the occupation of Switzerland was not a strategic necessity for Hitler.
It is significant that most pre-war European neutral countries abandoned their neutrality after the war and sought their security as members of Nato. Austria and Finland, which had been neutralised, as well as a contrite Sweden, felt a moral obligation to contribute to peace and security in a more tangible way by being heavily involved in UN peacekeeping forces. Switzerland had long established a reputation, through the International Committee of the Red Cross, as a major contributor to humanitarian activities during armed conflict.
Does article 1 (3) of our Constiturion provide for a positive contribution to peace and security comparable to those of the countries just mentioned? No. Admittedly, our resources are limited, but the omission of a mention of humanitarian assistance reflects badly when so many other details are included. When one goes into such great detail, what one omits becomes as significant as what one includes.
Malta’s record during the Libyan uprising this year has been appreciated at an international level, yet criticism came from local persons claiming that article 1 (3) had been violated. This exposed the basic inspiration of those who demanded its inclusion in the Constitution as the price to ensure just democratic representation in Parliament.
It should be remembered that this article is a successor to a unilateral declaration, deposited with the United Nations, and later included in treaties of friendship between Malta and Italy, Libya and the USSR, all of which demanded economic support for Malta’s neutrality. Thus the claimed nobility of our neutrality is somewhat tarnished by its direct link to financial/economic support.
As for non-alignment, this ceased to have any political credibility when Cuba, a country openly aligned to the USSR, one of the superpowers, was elected to preside over the movement. Today, “non-alignment” is not only irrelevant but also an embarrassment.
Article 1 (3) has two elements which are valid, though whether their place is in the nation’s Constitution is another matter. One is the prohibition of foreign military bases on the island, and the other is the non-membership in a military alliance. Malta’s history shows that military bases tend to distort the nation’s economic structure. Even in bigger nations, the closure of a military base sends economic shivers in the surrounding areas. Malta is too small to share its civil seaports and airport with foreign military bases. This should not exclude reasonable facilities in accordance with UN Security Council decisions.
As for membership of a military alliance Malta – unlike Luxembourg, a nation of comparable size – does not have clear identifiable neighbours holding similar values. Malta is on the periphery of Europe, having only one border with an open sea, and facing another continent. A military alliance could involve us in disputes that we are unable to influence.
Today, Malta’s international identity is defined through its membership of the European Union. Malta’s political parties have come to agree on this membership. Even participation in the Partnership for Peace is no longer a divisive issue. The experience that we have been through during the struggle of the Libyan people against dictatorship has also highlighted the positive and practical role that Malta can play, in cooperation with other states, in the pursuit of peace.
This experience gives us the opportunity to re-examine the contents of article 1(3). The debate should not be an electoral issue but a sober reassessment, without any unrelated demand introduced as a bargaining chip. In a democracy a government should be free to examine situations as they arise within the existing context, and not shackled by outdated concepts.
Are we mature enough to rise to the occasion?
Popular Stories
In Discussion
28 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Oct 9th 2011, 11:05
"(For a change) What you say just does not make sense "(Ivan Grech Mintoff)
Thank you for admiting that as a rule I usually I make sense.
P.S. Is that what you really meant ,or as usual, you are using garbled and incomrehensible English?
Ivan Grech Mintoff
Oct 11th 2011, 21:31
Its called being cynical.
Nay sardonic, even.
Hence the facetious "for a change"....
Still not understand?
Ask and I'll explain using monosyllabic words.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Oct 13th 2011, 16:01
@ Ivan Grech Mintoff.
Being "cynical", "nay, sardonic even" or "facetious" should not be used except by those who have mastered the skill of expressing themselves in simple comprehensible English using elementary syntax. Otherwise they would have to retrace their step and radically revise their original document - something that has become quite a habit with you.
Ivan Grech Mintoff
Oct 13th 2011, 19:48
Thank you for your sermon.
I would however have preferred a direct answer to what I stated: that you are not making sense again... erm, for a change.
None is forthcoming.
Again.
No surprises...
Francis Saliba M.D.
Oct 6th 2011, 11:31
"The neutrality under discussion is the neutrality we opted for as a nation." (Vincent Bezzina)
The neutrality clause in our constitution is NOT a condition that we freely "opted for as a nation" freely. It was the heavy price that was extorted from the nation in order to gain the democratic right for the political party that polled the highest number of votes would actually have a majority of seats in parliament. Even so, the amended Constitution has entrenched possibilities for it to be amended legally. That is what is being proposed, not that it be ignored,
The person who well and truly ignored the Constitution was the same person who blackmailed the rest to accept the neutrality clause otherwise our "proportional representation" would remain a mockery substituted by institutionalized gerrymandering.
Ivan Grech Mintoff
Oct 7th 2011, 09:00
@FS
Once again: GROW UP!
"The neutrality clause in our constitution is NOT a condition that we freely "opted for as a nation" freely."
Pure emotion.
Actually, it was introduced after agreement between both sides of parliament after a series of 'give and takes': a perfectly NORMAL process in negotiation.
Nobody on the (M)lp side harps on about being forced to accept anything because put simply, this was not the case. they accepted the terms that PN put forward as the conditions that MLP put forward were also accepted by the PN.
No one was FORCED to accept anything.
Nobody 'had a gun' to their head.
Both sides could have said 'no' and negotiations would have carried on.
This is another one of your fantastic statements and adds more to the understanding of "your way of thinking"... and only an idiot would believe such a statement as yours.
"The person who well and truly ignored the Constitution was the same person who blackmailed the rest to accept the neutrality clause .."
Again another blatant LIE.
If only you took your blinkers off for a microsecond, you will find that the person who you refer to went AGAINST his own party so that PR would be introduced into the constitution: the actual OPPOSITE of your very VIVID imagination(!)
The ONLY PERSON found GUILTY IN COURT of IGNORING the Constitution was your beloved PN Leader... how ironic!!
Francis Saliba M.D.
Oct 7th 2011, 15:58
@ Ivan Grech Mintoff.
Do me, and you, a favour and try to understand my comment before you attempt to answer.
Yes! a metaphorical gun was held to the nation's head and its aspiration to be, in fact as well as in theory, a democracy based on proportional representation. According to Mintoff, it was either the neutrality and non-aligned clause or Malta would not have a functioning proportional representation.
Ivan Grech Mintoff
Oct 7th 2011, 20:09
@FS
Until you stop painting history wrongly, I will do you no favours at all.
No one put any gun (metaphorical or not!) to anyone's head. Efa started coming up with that many years after the event...
Like I said both sides could have walked away at any stage. And lets face it, its not the first time that PN shirked their duty and abandoned parliament...
It was not a matter of "neutrality and non-aligned clause or Malta would not have a functioning proportional representation."
You may wish to keep sounding stupid but please don't insult the intelligence of the readers...
Francis Saliba M.D.
Oct 8th 2011, 11:01
@Ivan Grech Mintoff
The NP could not have “walked away” at that stage without becoming an unwilling collaborator of the MLP’s antidemocratic imposition of an unfair distribution of parliamentary seats. This gerrymandered result did not reflect the will of the majority under a system that was supposed to be one of “proportional representation”. The will of that majority was that the NP be allocated a majority of parliamentary seats in conformity with that party's majority of votes.
At that time, Malta was being subjected to a five-year reign of terror imposed by an MLP that had evidently lost majority support. Accepting the neutrality and non-alignment clause was comparatively a small price the NP had to pay for the nation’s liberation from that tyrannical situation. There is no denying the fact that the concession was made because the MLP was holding a gun at the head of the opposition and Malta’s democratic institutions..
If you stopped your futile attempt to paint over the facts of our recent history you would be doing a favour to yourself - much more so than any favour to me. I can always join the company of those intelligent people who debunk you and thereafter ignore your crude comments. I have not followed their example, so far, only to thwart your attempts to deceive a younger generation that has been spared the hell of living through those terrible years but that runs the risk of doing so if they do not use their vote wisely.
Ivan Grech Mintoff
Oct 9th 2011, 09:12
@FS
Your fantasy simply knows no bounds. Luckily. I am sure that anyone living that era knows otherwise and also those who didn't live the era have access to those who did and can ask simple questions!
"The NP could not have “walked away” at that stage without becoming an unwilling collaborator of the MLP’s antidemocratic imposition of an unfair distribution of parliamentary seats."
The NP had already walked away from negotiations many times. Against their 'swearing in oath BEFORE GOD, they had also abandoned their duty to uphold the constitution and represent their constituents in parliament.
To say that they could not walk away, when they had already done so many times is ... nothing but one of your fantasies. Sorry.
b) It is true that Malta was subjected to a reign of terror in those days. We all have our memories and experiences to refer to. I can assure those who are not as gullible as you make them to be that the violence (and there are FAR MORE than what FS will have us believe) was certainly meted out by both sides. Ask MLP supporters and I'm sure you will have plenty of experienced recounted.
The violence however did stop as soon as the then opposition came to power. Strange how the "labour thugs" lost all their spheroids overnight and how some even went on to be promoted under the PN govt...
c)". Accepting the neutrality and non-alignment clause was comparatively a small price the NP had to pay ..."
"There is no denying the fact that the concession was made because the MLP was holding a gun at the head of the opposition and Malta’s democratic institutions.."
(For a change) What you say just does not make sense:
So, we have (you tell us) great champions of democracy who were heroically standing up to incessant one-way violence, suddenly having a pistol held to their head over something with a small price tag. Ans the reason that they allowed this was that otherwise they would have become "willing collaborators"..!!!
If I may say. your logic is fantastic and not creditable at all.
Those who were there know that normal negotiations took place. Both sides came to a mutually acceptable compromise, both sides were very comfortable with those compromises and both sides agreed to them in an utterly free manner.
And you then have the audacity to point fingers at others and accuse them of trying to rewrite history!!!
FS, every time you write in this way you further increase my belief that the police force (at that time) were correct in boarding you out from being a Forensic doctor "in the public interest".
Please desist from more fantastic theories. At least if you wish to put your point of view forward do come up with FACTS rather than will you? Otherwise you become less and less credible with every post.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Oct 9th 2011, 10:59
@ Ivan Grech Mintoff.
Once more: try to get your facts straight. I was never "boarded out" of my post as Police Medical Officer. The MLP had me illegally "compulsorily retired on grounds of public interest (for which please read MLP, not public, interests). That decision was later reversed because it was "a miscarriage if justice".
Vincent Bezzina
Oct 4th 2011, 20:23
There is nothing outdated by neutrality. In fact, once the cold war was over - what was obvious was how stupid and useless had been the sacrifices of those countries that were used in proxy wars between the two powers. On minute they are telling you that it is okay to see your country destroyed and your family killed and the next minute they are best friends with their former enemies.
After thousands of years of history being caught up in someone else's fight - Malta of all countries should have learned the lesson of sticking to neutrality and putting its own interest first.
The reason why neutrality is even under discussion is a measure of the level of corruption and illegality that has crept into this country. If you want to follow the true reasons why some people are so keen on destroying our neutrality - follow the money trail and see who has been receiving money. Think Geddafi was the only one who spread money around in Malta?
The real challenge for Malta is if it can survive the betrayal of those people whose only loyalty is to personal wealth and gain. This time around - it's not even about ideology.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Oct 5th 2011, 06:43
@ Vincent Bezzina.
I do not agree that the war against Fascism and Nazism, and the subsequent "Cold War" between the West and Communist states were just "proxy wars between two powers" - thay were conflicts inflicted on the civilized world by tyrraniacal dictatorships with territorial ambitions.
A declaration of "neutrality" did not protect those neutral nations during the last two World Wars, That "neutrality" turned out to be a fatal and selfish unconcern for the needs of others who in their turn were expected not to remain neutral when those neutral countries were invaded. You help us but don't expect us to help you! A selfish sentiment not to be proud of. It was first claimed by Cain when he protested that he was not his brother's keeper - in fact he was his murderer!
There is nothing wrong in recommending that neutrality and non-alignment be constantly updated in accordance with unpredictable, constantly evolving international situations. It is not at all far-fetched for Malta to require help if our own political and economic integrity is not respected by a covetous aggresor. How could we be so brazen as to expect that others would come to our assistance if we make it a habit to deny reciprocal assistance to others under the pretext of our neutrality?
Your oblique reference to "money trails" and "betrayal of Malta by unknown people loyal only to personal wealth and gain"" are to vague and do not make sense unless you specify who those people are.
Ivan Grech Mintoff
Oct 5th 2011, 09:12
@FS
Oh PLEASE!!!
what feeble arguments....!!
"A declaration of "neutrality" did not protect those neutral nations during the last two World Wars, "..
And I suppose those who did declare themselves as 'non-neutral' (ITALY JAPAN etc.) were spared the harshness of war??? Hallina, dottore!
Neutrality is not a guarantee against being caught up in a war, true.
It is a statement that:
- we do NOT takes sided in someone else's war.
- we will not be USED for others advantage in their wars and neither will we be used to HARM anyone else
That together with ACTIVELY SEEKING PEACE, tells one and all that we are a decent, non war-faring nation, that wishes to build its relationships on peaceful, financial and mutually beneficial economic ties, without any internal interference. It is a CLEAR STATEMENT of what we believe in. No strings attached.
On the other hand, being a BASE for someone else is a sure fire way to attract attack on you!
If you wish to look at history, do so PROPERLY will you?
Ask Germany, UK, France, US, Italy etc. about terrorist attack and fear thereof...
" How could we be so brazen as to expect that others would come to our assistance if we make it a habit to deny reciprocal assistance to others under the pretext of our neutrality?"
1) they would not come to help us.
They would come to help themselves.
Again, look at history PROPERLY and you will see that this has ALWAYS been the case.
Only an utter MORON goes to fight someone else's war without any gain.
And only even bigger MORONS place their country UNNECESSARILY in that predicament!
2) In case it has escaped your notice, Malta ALREADY has such agreements in place whereby other countries will DEFEND Malta (themselves) in case Malta is attacked, whilst Malta does not have to reciprocate if the role is reversed.
Your great satan incarnate (DM) made sure that such agreements are in place!
So please stop insinuating rubbish like Malta will be/is in any danger UNLESS we lose our neutrality/ Non-Alignment (which go hand-in hand) status.
"Your oblique reference to "money trails" and "betrayal of Malta by unknown people loyal only to personal wealth and gain"" are to vague and do not make sense unless you specify who those people are."
Is that so off the Mark?
Libya has oil. NATO and all interested countries where all in there 'defending the Libyan people' as soon as the mud hit the fan.
But what about Yemen?
And what about Syria were people are dieing by the tens EVERY DAY??
Are they not humans too????
Francis Saliba M.D.
Oct 5th 2011, 17:40
@ Ivan Grech Mintoff
Try to understand the comments of others before you venture to criticise them - more often than not the comments already include the answer to your questions on the rare occasions when your questions are relevant to the topic under discussion and when they are not deliberate diversions. It is an a tedious unrewarding job to plod through your prolix and disjointed commentsThe patience of your interlucotors has limits..
Vincent Bezzina
Oct 5th 2011, 19:14
Francis - The neutrality under discussion is the neutrality we opted for as a nation. Why on earth are you trying to muddle the issue with Nazism and fascism? At the time was a colony - a country occupied by a foreign power.
As for taking the higher ground when it comes to dealing with dictators - I wonder how we ended up awarding so many medals to all the north African dictators now deposed? I thought we were arguing in favour of doing away with neutrality because the ships that visit leave so MUCH money!!! Calling other people selfish when they saying put principles and our long term interest ahead of a quick buck today ? Precious! I am so selfish, I am denying someone selling us short!!
Quoting the bible was was really scrapping the bottom of the barrel for arguments btw - i took it as a failed attempt at humour!
Mr Evarist Saliba
Oct 4th 2011, 18:37
@ Ivan Grech Mintoff
I am not going to waste any more time with you and your incoherent and convoluted scribblings which do not address the real issues which I raise, or distort them.
For the sake of those who may not know me, I have attended more meetings of the Non-Aligned Movement, at regional and global levels, including summits, contributed to the documents they produced or lodged reservations on parts of these documents, than any other Maltese diplomat or politician.... yes....including your relative. I was the person who persuaded the author of The Malta Yearbook to include a section on the Non-Aligned Movement when Malta joined it. I do not need your advice on what it was supposed to stand for and what, in fact, it turned out to be.
Ivan Grech Mintoff
Oct 5th 2011, 08:46
@ ES
We all know who you are - you seem to go to great lengths to publicise yourself at every opportunity...
The purpose of the organisation as stated in the Havana Declaration of 1979 is to ensure "the national INDEPENDENCE, SOVEREIGNTY, territorial integrity and security of non-aligned countries" in their "struggle against imperialism, colonialism, neo-colonialism, racism, and all forms of foreign aggression, OCCUPATION, DOMINATION, INTERFERENCE or hegemony as well as against GREAT POWER and bloc politics."[4] They represent nearly two-thirds of the United Nations's members and 55% of the world population, particularly countries considered to be developing or part of the Third World.[5]"
the Non Alignment movement is actually so relevant in today's financial/political turmoil that it has just celebrated its FIFTIETH year in existence and over 600 delegates where present.
I too will waste no more time with what seems to be another hidden agenda...
I will finish off by repeating that (like many many others) I disagree with your bland that Non-alignment is now "shackling Malta", irrelevant or even embarrassing us...
If that belief annoys you, so be it, but it is a truthful belief (even though you insinuate that I am untruthful! :) )
Regrettably one can only conclude that such statements as yours could only come from someone who thinks himself above other great statesmen like India's Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, Egypt's President, Gamal Abdel Nasser and many others who felt that their countries future lies BEST in non-alignment...
Ivan Grech Mintoff
Oct 5th 2011, 09:43
@FS
"Putting yourself in a corner is when you assert that submitting to the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court is worse than the political suppression of that supreme court of law."
Translating to 'normal logic', I have therefore put myself in a corner because according to you, your ALLEGED and HEAVILY DISTORTED political suppression is worse than being FOUND GUILTY in court.
A HEAVILY DISTORTED ALLEGATION is more valid than a COURT SENTENCE!!
Again, how on earth does one even comprehend let alone argue with that logic?!!
If you are happy with your kind of logic... fair enough!
Enjoy...
Francis Saliba M.D.
Oct 4th 2011, 09:57
@ Ivan Grech Mintoff.
On top of your mendacious version of the MLP record of violence during the seventies and eighties do you expect us now to accept also your unique abridged definition of democracy?
No one is disputing the Constitution to be the supreme law of the land. To my knowledge, the only person to do that was your relative, Dom Mintoff, who expressed, in the most graphic terms, his contempt for it and for the Constitutional Court.. But, as Evarist said correctly, the Constitution may contain "outdated concepts" so much so that it contains in-built provisions for its amendment according to law. If you read Evarist's comment intelligently you would not find any trace of any suggestion by him that the Constitution should be "ignored" - that is your malicious fabrication. Once more it was Dom Mintoff, not Evarist Saliba who stated and behaved as if the Constitution could be ignored.
Ivan Grech Mintoff
Oct 4th 2011, 12:28
@FS
1) I expect you to accept nothing but your version of the truth. Even though it is based on incredible jackanories that you have stated ad nauseum before and that you REFUTE indelible evidence to the contrary... I lose no sleep over that.
2) "Once more it was Dom Mintoff, not Evarist Saliba who stated and behaved as if the Constitution could be ignored."
Re the constitution the only one ever found GUILTY IN COURT of breaking the constitution was a certain PN Prime Minister - a hero of yours. Again I gave you indelible evidence of that previously.
Case closed.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Oct 4th 2011, 18:26
@ Ivan Grech Mintoff.
Sorry! I won't allow you to close the case whenever you choose to do so because you have driven yourself into a tight corner and when you run out of your comments that I do not grace as logical arguments at all.
Dom Mintoff did not win or lose Constitutional cases. As was his wont, Mintoff's solution was much more drastic, much more tyrranical and dictatorial and absolutely anti-democratic. His method of choice was to juggle wih the responsibilites of judges during an on-going case before them and to suspend the Constitutional Court for as long as he considered necessary to achieve his aim.
I am so grateful to you for providing me with so many opportunities to burst the bubble of a non-existent MLP halcyon days of glory. My only fear is that some wiser MLP personality would muzzle you before you cause more irreparable harm to that party
Ivan Grech Mintoff
Oct 4th 2011, 19:16
@FS.
So, in your eyes giving you the ONLY Prime Minister ever to have been found GUILTY in Court of breaking the constitution is me putting myself in a corner?
How does one even start to figure out that logic let alone respond with that kind of thinking...?!
FS you are truly a GEM!! Keep trying...
" My only fear is that some wiser MLP personality would muzzle you before you cause more irreparable harm to that party"
Well, let's just say you are very much off target, ok?
For a change!
:)
Francis Saliba M.D.
Oct 5th 2011, 08:49
@ Ivan Grech Mintoff.
Putting yourself in a corner is when you assert that submitting to the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court is worse than the political suppression of that supreme court of law.
You may continue to say whatever you like until someone, more intelligent and more authoritative in the LP, does not clamp his hand over your mouth so as to prevent you from causing more damage to that political party with its responsibility to present itself to the Malta electorate as a credible future government and not a perverse continuation of the MLP to which we were accustomed.
Mr Evarist Saliba
Oct 4th 2011, 09:37
@ Ivan Grech Mintoff
Your comments are so shallow that they do not really need an answer, but let me be restpecful and answer you.
*) Non alignment is a position which distanced itself from the two superpowers. Cuba's presidency of the movement made a mockery of the concept. Besides, which countries are the superpowers of today, and who will decide for us what makes a country a superpower?
1) Your definition of democray is not backed by any authority that I know of, and in any case it does not deny the right to any democratically elected government to decide on an issue which comes before it, even if the opposition happens to disagree.
2)You are twisting what I have written and this reflects badly on your knowledge of English, or your sincerity. I never wrote or implied that government should ignore any law. All I asked for is for a review of what the law says, between the representatives of the majority and the minority of the electorate in a calm atmosphere.
3) Again you are not reflecting truthfully what I have written. Nothing which I have written could ever be interpreted, honestry that is, that the law is like a piece of elastic. I do not see your logic that it was quite acceptable for the Constitution to be amended to introduce Article 1 (3), but it is unacceptable to reconsider its validity, now or at any future date.
Finally, what is dangerous is your attutude which is devoid of any respect for the truth.
Ivan Grech Mintoff
Oct 4th 2011, 12:23
@EV
Your typical knee-jerk insult to anyone who disagrees with you was nothing but expected even from someone who asks us to be mature.
Your answers are more appreciated so that one can analyse them and reply to them. Here goes:
"*) Non alignment is a position which distanced itself from the two superpowers."
If the definition was to stop there then it would seem to suit your needs to become aligned with "someone" most admirably. Unfortunately your definition is inaccurate or incomplete at best.
"The anticolonial and anti-racist posture of mainly Third World countries who have sought a collective identity separate from the capitalist and socialist blocs in the northern hemisphere." - Oxford Dictionary
So... the definition includes those countries wishing not to be racist, to be anticolonial and not form part of any CAPITALIST or Socialist bloc.
No mention of superpowers but CAPITALIST and socialist bloc.
Again for matters only known to your good selves even if one were to ignore the BIGGEST and most powerful socialist bloc (China) with which all the world seems to want to do trade...
Are you telling us that there are not any CAPITALIST blocs in the world today?
"1) Your definition of democray is not backed by any authority that I know of..." etc etc
What you mention is (again conveniently) only PART of democracy and the democratic process. And since you are still not convinced don't take my word for it. Take a look at :
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy
where you will see quotes like:
- government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
- a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
( you see where the minority has equal voice as the majority?!)
etc etc.
Show me ONE definition which states that " "a government is free to examine situations as they arise... and not shackled by outdated concepts." especially when in this case those shackles are a countries CONSTITUTION. Since you're a champoin of the truth and liberally suggest that others are not telling the truth, please do show me ONE definition of this great theory of yours....
2) ". I never wrote or implied that government should ignore any law. All I asked for is for a review of what the law says"
What you actually wrote was:
"In a democracy a government should be free to examine situations AS THEY ARISE within the existing context, and not shackled by outdated concepts."
My interpretation of that statement stands regardless of your infantile insults...
3) "... I do not see your logic that it was quite acceptable for the Constitution to be amended to introduce Article 1 (3), but it is unacceptable to reconsider its validity, now or at any future date."
I have absolutely no problem in the constitution being ammended as long as it is done LEGALLY. In fact I went on to clearly state this fact. What I found alarming in your article is that :
- "Today, ‘non-alignment’ is not only irrelevant but also an embarrassment"
It is not an embarrassment at all. What to me is embarrassing is letting others lead you by the nose for THEIR benefit and not yours, whilst throwing a few tidbits at you to keep you happy..
- "In a democracy a government should be free to examine situations AS THEY ARISE within the existing context, AND NOT BE SHACKLED by OUTDATED CONCEPTS."
Is it truly too much for you to accept that NEUTRALITY, ACTIVELY SEEKING PEACE and NON_ALIGNMENT are concepts which others do NOT find outdated but ESSENTIAL building blocks for the rest of our future to be built upon? Have we really become that intolerant of others' points of view and only seek our own no matter what.?
"Finally, what is dangerous is your attutude which is devoid of any respect for the truth."
No... what is dangerous is INTOLERANCE to other's opinion, the law (including the constitution) and disrespect too others....
I live in hope (but have no doubt) that we are still in time to turn all of my above concerns around.
After all the Constitution AS IT STANDS is there to defend my TRUTH over others....
"Have a nice day..!"
;)
Non-alignment is pretty much self explanatory. It means not to be aligned with ANYONE. And the whole point of the NA movement was fro a group of countries to have their OWN
Ivan Grech Mintoff
Oct 3rd 2011, 18:10
"Today, ‘non-alignment’ is not only irrelevant but also an embarrassment - Evarist Saliba"
Ha!!
Why? Because you say so?
"Today, 'Non-alignment' is the only way to guarantee Malta's peaceful and prosperous future. A truly magnificent concept that must never be undermined by those with ulterior motives namely to make Malta a puppet state once more" - Ivan Grech Mintoff
Ivan Grech Mintoff
Oct 3rd 2011, 17:21
"In a democracy a government should be free to examine situations as they arise within the existing context, and not shackled by outdated concepts."
What a highly dangerous statement to come out with...!
1) Democracy does not mean that "a government is free to examine situations as they arise". A democracy means that the minority has equal voice to the majority.
2) The "and not shackled by outdated concepts." that you refer to is actually the highest law of the land. Are you suggesting that (THIS) government should be able to ignore the highest law of the land to do what it feels like??
God forbid any such thing else, of course, the opposition can start doing the same thing too, as can therefore the people themselves ... ultimately everyone can be 'unshackled' by 'outdated concepts' as and when they wish in the name of "democracy"...
No. I think that the law is there for ALL to obey whether we like it or not and not just when it is convenient to do so.
3) Are we mature enough to rise to the occasion?
We would indeed have to be very immature to think of the law as a piece of elastic that can be stretched to fit all sizes... when convenient to me yet absolutely rigid when it comes to those who disagree with me!!
Maturity dictates that the law is there for ALL to be obeyed no matter how I might disagree with it.
After all, our constitution itself (the LAW) does permit a perfectly democratic way to alter the law if we decide that it needs changing.
As both parties agreed not too far back.
Surely both sides have to be mature enough to adhere to what they both agreed to, would you not agree?
I say again, ES, what you are suggesting is very very dangerous indeed. One therefore wonders why you are suggesting such a path.
And why now...?