Libya is – or maybe isn’t – moving into endgame and, as I write this, the Yanks and the Brits are rattling sabres and talking about no-fly zones. Understandably, this has led to questions being raised here as to whether we would, more precisely should, allow ourselves to be used as a base for military operations in Libya, whether for interdicting aircraft use by the Gaddafi regime or of the more directly interventionist type.

I floated the idea on my Facebook/Twitter page and the general trend of thought was that the notion of neutrality was, variously, outdated, inappropriate and not applicable. There are a number of arguments to be made, all of which should be subservient to the primacy of the Constitution.

For instance, given that neutrality within the Constitution is aligned with the status of non-alignment, which is a concept that has gone the way of Mintoffian Socialism and the Cold War, is the combined status a dead letter, a curiosity that can safely be ignored? I doubt it because while there exist no blocs from which to maintain equidistance, I hardly think our Constitutional conscience could allow us to take sides if, for instance, Greece were to declare war on Algeria (not that I can imagine a reason for this, but anyway).

Would the effects of the neutrality clause be extinguished, say, if the United Nations (you know, that excellent body that admitted Libya to the Human Rights Council in the first place) were to resolve for the introduction of a no-fly zone? Would we be legally able to put our runways at the disposal of the UN’s forces?

Here the arguments against are less cogent.

Working from the premise that the collective of nations is a force for good (though by the time it gives its thumb up, the strength of this power to do good is a bit akin to that of an ice-lolly in the Sahara at noon) would not the moral imperative of acting in concert with the majority against a genocidal regime overturn a narrow reading of the Constitution?

Maybe so, but remember that the UN actually thought Muammar Gaddafi was a respecter of human rights not so long ago, so who’s to say the aforesaid collective of nations won’t lose its collective marbles at some point? Perhaps as a matter of principle, simply toeing the UN line is not quite the thing to do.

What would be the case if the EU, the conglomeration of western values and principles to which we subscribe, were to place Col Gaddafi beyond the pale, where he should have been firmly placed a long time ago, and institute that well-known humanitarian exercise, that of caging a rabid dog? What price neutrality then? Not very high, I’d suggest.

The problem is, of course, that all these elegant disquisitions are as nothing compared to the primeval bellowing that will issue forth when Labour’s Old Guard hoists itself onto to its raddled old nag and lurches forward to bash GonziPN about the ears, which it has been simply gasping to do but been unable to because of the leadership the Prime Minister and his government have displayed throughout the crisis.

Already, either by their silence (too embarrassed to remind people of their undying love for Col Gaddafi, I suppose) or by their inanities (inane to the extent that Labour had to dissociate itself from one of the choicer utterings), the Old Guard have shown they remain none too eager to contradict the Libyan dictator, so you can imagine the caterwauling that will be raised if Malta were to participate in trying to help the Libyan people militarily.

Labour has much to live down, as we all know, not least of which the fawning adulation of Col Gaddafi that we used to have to endure whenever he was around and Dom Mintoff would roll onto his back to have his tummy tickled. There will be those who will screech “but Lawrence Gonzi did the same up to a few weeks ago”, to which I would point out that, yes, like virtually every other Western leader from Silvio Berlusconi to Tony Blair and back again, Dr Gonzi had to interact with Col Gaddafi, and our position is even less felicitous than any other European country in this regard, but is this comparable with the way Labour’s bosses used to snuggle up to him and purr?

I mean, for heaven’s sake, Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici even travelled to Libya not so long ago (whether he used Col Gaddafi’s personal jet, like Joseph Muscat is reported to have done, I don’t know) in order to pile sick irony onto even sicker irony by accepting to ferry back here a human rights award given by Col Gaddafi to Mr Mintoff.

So the bottom line is, however much you argue that the Constitution does not actually prohibit us from participating in armed action against Col Gaddafi, if the government were to opt for this course of action, it will have to put up with such a chorus of schlock horror from the Graffitis (who couldn’t find a picture of Dr Muscat with Col Gaddafi, poor things) and the Reno Callejas, George Vellas and Alex Sceberras Trigonas of this world that the game would hardly be worth the candle.

Except that this is an out-and-out thug without whom the world would be a better place.

imbocca@gmail.com

www.timesofmalta.com/blogs