We are now witnessing again... like what we witnessed long years ago during the Vietnam war ... how the destruction that war brings in its wake affects all those who voluntarily or not take part in it, and how that destruction is irreversible. At least for the human beings involved. You can reconstruct whole buildings, perhaps to their same pre-war specifications. But you cannot resurrect the dead.
On paper, this can be well understood even if at a distance. When the destruction is happening in real time and in a way that can be seen from day to day, its effects are more deeply experienced and come closer to the bone.
Intellectually, one can comprehend the principle which von Clausewitz the philosopher “of war” enunciated: War is the continuation of political action by other means. Faced with the ongoing facts about the destruction caused by war, one realizes fully how these alternative means can be destructive, cruel and irrational. Understandably over the years, the currents of pacifism among peoples remained strong even if almost always submerged.
Confronted with the facts of destruction, even the ideas that are put forward about what constitutes a “just war” begin to sound somewhat derisory.
***
CAN EVERYTHING GET DONE?
I just cannot see how the European Union... and come to that, possibly the US as well... will find it possible to simultaneously implement all the projects it needs to launch if the aims that it has established for itself are to be achieved. I understand the European Commission’s emphasis for instance not to accept to curtail any initiative or to conduct it at a slower tempo.
The fear is that if this approach is resorted to, the signal would have been given to whoever is feeling under pressure, or to those who dislike some aspect or other of the projects being laid out, for them to do their best to disrupt the momentum of ongoing initiatives.
On the other hand, if all the projects now being laid out for implementation are to run, overall investment requirements, public and private, are bound to be enormous. How will they be met?
***
NEUTRALITY
Faced with the ongoing changes in how the Europeans are considering their security situation, countries like Finland, Sweden and even Austria have been reassessing their neutrality status. Public opinion surveys are registering that following Putin’s invasion of the Ukraine, a majority of citizens in these countries have begun to favour their country’s membership of NATO.
Meanwhile, neutral European countries are increasingly becoming isolated as the European Union progresses with its aim of attaining a “strategic autonomy”, by pushing forward with measures laid out in its so-called Strategic Compass.
Personally I continue to believe that neutrality remains the option that Malta should pursue. However I feel that a discussion needs to be carried out about how it should be articulated and carried out, and this after a sober and factual updating of the policy, one that takes into account, without sentimentalism or antagonism, the island’s experience as a full member of the EU.