Mario de Marco’s article titled ‘We must stand for truth’ is a welcome break from the platitudes that one finds in other articles and sectors of the media regarding IS, their presence in neighbouring Libya and the threat they supposedly constitute.
The article in question is commendable because it does not envision IS in particular and Islamic extremism in general as being phenomena which exist in a vacuum.
Nor does it boil down the complex reasons that may induce a sane individual to join such a wacky cause to simplistic explanations like brainwashing; an explanation that surely does not make sense in relation to the European recruits of IS who have had an exposure to Western thought and lifestyle.
De Marco rightly notes that we need “to understand what is pulling down humankind to such low levels” and to address properly such issues, mentioning “the divide between the haves and the have nots… (the) suffering that is happening around the world, including in our own societies” as well as the “pockets (within) our societies (who are experiencing) pain” and the ease with which “suffering (may turn) into hatred (and) hatred into terror” as reasons that explain (without excluding others) the surge in terrorism and violence.
He also rightly notes that eradicating these phenomena entails eradicating their causes, warning that there “can be no long-lasting solution to IS if the Western World ignores what draws this hatred in the first place”. There are no simplistic solutions. The “treatment (has to be) long lasting”.
One aspect however where I disagree with de Marco concerns neutrality. Admittedly, the vice-leader of the Nationalist Party avoids senseless commonplaces regarding the need to debunk neutrality in order to be safe against a potential threat. Neutrality cannot guarantee that we shall never be attacked by anyone.
Yet, neither can joining a military alliance assure our safety. Those who are suggesting that we debunk our neutrality clauses fail to notice two things: 1) joining a military alliance will increase the likelihood that an enemy of such alliance will see us as a target; 2) the neutrality clauses in the Constitution (see Chapter 1: 3: bi and bii) already stipulate that in exceptional cases, Malta may ask for help against foreign aggression (defence treaties in this regard already exist) or participate in missions sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council.
It does not mean that we fail to take sides regardless of the issue or irrespective of whether a major injustice or violation of rights is being committed
Additionally, if the threat is a terrorist threat rather than a conventional attack, joining a military alliance will not boost our security (indeed it will increase the likelihood that we become a target) since terrorism is not fought with standing armies. Major terrorist attacks were in fact carried out in main Nato countries (USA, UK, Spain, France).
Where de Marco is, to my mind, mistaken is in suggesting that neutrality involves something like sitting on a fence and not taking sides between two parties. Neutrality so understood would be tantamount to indifference.
Yet, the neutrality clauses in our Constitution entail something else; they entail that we do not take part (except in cases mentioned in the previous paragraph) in military ventures or join military alliances.
It does not mean that we fail to take sides regardless of the issue or irrespective of whether a major injustice or violation of rights is being committed. (The militancy of Dom Mintoff and of de Marco’s own father in favour of the rights of Palestinians proves that this is not the case). It simply entails that, save for exceptions which the Constitution itself contemplates, we do not help, join or initiate military ventures.
This stipulation is morally and politically sound. Even in those cases in which, according to the Just War theory, the conditions which render a military intervention justified obtain, it does not follow that everyone indiscriminately is duty bound to join a military venture.
This holds in the current situation. If a strike by Western powers against IS bases may be justifiable, this does not – logistically and morally – entail that Malta has a duty to militarily abet such strikes. Malta may envisage for itself a different role; acting as a bridge between different continents, civilisations and cultures; one that would help to diffuse the causes of terror which de Marco rightly highlights.
Another point of disagreement with the PN’s deputy leader concerns one passage in which he claims that this time around, we should not be neutral because, in this case, “truth lies on one side only”.
This is probably where the writer goes mostly off the mark, as is obvious if we ask a number of questions in relation to this issue. Who created IS? Who is financing it? (It’s an insult to the intelligence of the average person to expect one to believe that IS obtained its enormous funds simply through a bank robbery. The dumbness of this story is matched by the equally inane story concerning a recent episode where, supposedly, the US ‘mistakenly’ parachuted a supply of weapons to IS instead of the Kurds.)
Did major US allies in the Gulf region fund the group?
Is IS’s ideology akin to that of major US allies in the region? And where do they buy their weapons from?
Why did the European Union lift an arms embargo on Syria a year ago, when the rebellion was already dominated by head-chopping fundamentalists?
Why were people who were linked to Al-Qaeda brought to Libya when the revolution started, with the blessing of the US and its allies?
Does truth really lie on one side only?
Michael Grech teaches philosophy at the Junior College.