I had no qualms about doing so when the Libyan crisis first surfaced while discussing the uprising on One TV on 28 February. When Joseph Muscat went on record denouncing the violence and loss of life in Libya as well as speaking out against military intervention and upholding our duties and obligations as a UN member state, he was ‘ridiculed’ and dismissed lightly by the usual suspects for allegedly lacking vision in his response.
Two days ago he dismissed the Gaddafi regime’s behaviour as unacceptable by any standards, while calling for an immediate ceasefire in Libya to facilitate ‘the necessary changes.’
Little did the mentioned armchair critics realise that when addressing the Foreign and European Affairs Committee our Foreign Minister went on record stating that ‘restraint and prudence are not tantamount to weakness.’ Serious geopolitical analysts like Stephen Calleya were until last Saturday advocating caution on our part as a country, even defining it as understandable; particularly within the context of a no-fly zone – not only because of our geographic proximity to Libya but also due to the international community’s own cautious sentiment on the whole issue.
Only days after Joseph Muscat was the first local politician to speak boldly about safeguarding our national interest, The Times last week reported government sources from Brussels as stating that Malta defends its interests as the EU approves new sanctions.
This was linked to the assurances sought to ensure that Malta-based companies with Libyan state investment will continue to operate in light of new EU sanctions.
According to The Times, Richard Cachia Caruana boasted that the government had managed to get reassurances enabling Maltese businesses, employing hundreds of Maltese workers, to continue to operate.
The Times even went on to report Mr Cachia Caruana as having stated that Malta’s stand while in favour of sanctions, was cautious on some elements since these would have either impacted negatively on the Libyan people or on employees of companies in Malta and other member states.
Please note the word ‘cautious’ being used once again!
The juiciest quote was the following:
“Malta has no problems with defending the national interest as required.”
While I do not intend in any way to denigrate Malta’s attempts to defend its interests in the EU, it will be sheer folly to conclude that all is clear on the job market front.
There are various levels of economic activity between Malta and Libya.
I am saying all this without for a moment also factoring in the strong possibility of a massive influx of asylum seekers that we could face in the coming months. Something which if past EU performance is anything to go by, could easily leave us with minimal tangible support – if any at all.
During my contacts with the electorate, foreign affairs hardly ever feature on their agenda, but these last few days not only did an overwhelming majority show a great eagerness to find out how the Libyan crisis would develop and end, but much of them showed concern both from the security and also from the economic angle. These included people of various political views.
Others even asked for information as to what constituted a no-fly zone operation.
As an independent political analyst told me last week the tide is turning within local government circles and government is realising that pragmatism and realpolitik are warranted rather than resorting to knee-jerk measures of idealism.
During the weekend Tonio Borg was heavily criticised by Gonzi media groupies for having said that the EU priority should be a ceasefire, not a Gaddafi exit. What I found intriguing was that according to an interesting article by David Lindsay carried two days ago in The Malta Independent, Minister Borg also confirmed that it was not only Malta that had pressed for calling a ceasefire in Libya at an informal meeting of EU Foreign Ministers but also ‘a handful of other EU countries’.
He made the point that if such a ceasefire were to be called for and heeded, it would, at least temporarily, quell the concerning level of growing violence in Libya.
Joseph Muscat was equally wise to dismiss talk of mediation as futile when the prerequisites were not there. That such prerequisites did not exist was confirmed by the Libyan rebels who understandably want Gaddafi to go now, and by the Libyan leader’s son who is reported to have swore that there would be no negotiations, calling the rebels terrorists and saying there would be a war to the end.
That a course of pragmatism in the Middle East is being sought is not something Malta alone could or should pursue.
The US Obama administration has been doing so during these past days, as confirmed by The New York Times last Friday when it spoke of how he has adopted a policy of restraint by recognising a stark reality that American national security interests weigh as heavily as idealistic impulses.
In the words of his national security adviser, who deflected calls for more aggressive action in Libya, he told reporters what American officials have been saying privately for days: That not only is intervention risky, but they also fear that in some cases, it could be counterproductive, provoking a backlash against the US for meddling in what is a homegrown political movement.
If anybody is being opportunistic it is not Joseph Muscat but all those who prefer to opt for selective justice.
General Wesley Clark, a former NATO supreme allied commander in Europe last weekend not only said that Libya does not meet the test for US military action, but he said that if the objective in Libya was humanitarian then we would work with both sides and not get engaged in the matter of who wins. While in Iraq in 2003 the US according to him failed to chart a clear path to democracy before taking action, he claims rightly or wrongly that in Libya “we (i.e. the US) don’t know who the rebels really are or how a legitimate government would be formed if Gaddafi were pushed out. He did not exclude that there could also be a violent scramble for authority in which the most organised, secretive and vicious elements could take over.”
In his own words – We don’t need Libya to offer us a refresher course in past mistakes.
These sentiments found a perfect echo in Sunday’s British press, particularly in the Sunday Times, reminding one and all that if we arm the rebels, we have no guarantees of where the weapons will end up; recalling how the political vacuum led to the Afghan resistance being filled by the Taliban and eventually by al- Qaeda.
On the other hand we still have to find out whether Gaddafi will manage to reverse the tide of the Arab Spring through his scorched earth approach.
All this begs the question as to who is being really opportunistic.
On the local front, I would say first and foremost, those hired guns whose sole interest is in shoring up Lawrence Gonzi while he continues to trail badly at the polls.
Meanwhile we seem to be in for a long haul. That is the only near certainty as an uncertain scenario continues to unfold.
[email protected]
www.leobrincat.com
Leo Brincat is the Shadow Minister for the Environment, Sustainable Development & Climate Change