Now that we’re at the start of a new year... assuming that a change in the yearly calendar really counts as some kind of marker... it makes sense to review what was the greatest source of threat in the past year. This might help to reinforce understanding as to how it could best be countered. Even so, such a review must still be carried out with one’s feet on the ground. For calculations will not always be done in good faith by all those involved.

For me, indeed for all of us, obviously the greatest threat to our society... to all humanity... has again become that of war. The challenge of how to meet this threat can hardly be undertaken by Malta, which is another trite, obvious statement. Yet it would be useful if we, like everybody else, recognize  how the origins of war can arise for, it seems, they could be building up beneath the surface close to us without our realizing what is going on.

Then the spasms of war burst to the surface unexpectedly, triggering widespread destruction. Against this eventuality, smaller nations can only provide a service of protection and warning. As neutrals, their word might hopefully in delicate moments, give scope for ideas of compromise.

***      

CLOSE TO THE PEOPLE

A rhetorical flourish much deployed in recent years was the wish expressed by politicians to remain close to the people. I admit to having been one of those who a long time ago greatly contributed to put this rhetoric upfront. And it has really taken off since it is used by everybody. Government, Opposition as well as others who will be neither one nor the other, all boast about how much they want to stay close to your concerns!

What I much fear from what I see and hear all around is that the citizens we prefer to stay close to end up being the ones who happen to be the canvassers of ministers and leading Opposition figures, as well as their families.

One cannot say that they are not part of the people. They are. But the reference to being close to the citizens is supposed to have a much wider connotation... if I remember well.

***

HUMAN RIGHTS 

For long, I believed in the doctrine (which I call Gaullist) that decries interference in the internal affairs of foreign countries. Which is what the respect of national sovereignty demands. In contrast to this position during the past decades, concepts have been developed regarding human rights which having entered the practice of diplomacy and of international law to limit the bounds of sovereignty.

I understand and agree overall with the concepts of human rights and the need to ensure they are respected. However I also see the possibility for them to be used as a tool by the stronger powers against the smaller ones. Or even for certain leading powers to use against their peers while the sins of others seem to get overlooked. This is what happens for instance regarding certain Israeli practices deployed against the Palestinian people.

On the other hand, it is difficult not to judge and condemn approaches that are being implemented in the most barefaced manner. Like the decisions of the Taliban in Afghanistan to exclude women from education. Or the barbaric decisions of the Iranian government to punish, even execute, protesters against the obligation for women to cover their face and head.

02 January 2022