I am one who was trained as a former diplomat in a doctrine that I still think of as “Gaullist” for it was most proclaimed by France’s General de Gaulle: that states should not interfere in the internal affairs of other sovereign nations. I always found myself in agreement with this.
However in Europe, diplomatic practice has shifted towards a doctrine that was placed in a central position to define how nations need to act: observance of human rights. Indeed, the principle had already been laid out in the charter which established the United Nations. Meanwhile the US seemed to consider that the doctrine had to apply only to others, not to itself.
As it stands, the human rights doctrine implies that interference in the internal affairs of others can/should become more stringent. Which immediately gives rise to conflicts of interest. If one is to insist with Nicaragua say, for a total respect of human rights, why then not do the same with regard to Saudi Arabia?
***
“IMPARTIAL”?
The Catholic Church in Malta has every right to be accorded recognition as a national institution, for it is one: it represents the many in our society who are Catholics. It has the allegiance of people who come from all sides of the political spectrum.
Still it would be foolish to argue that the Church is politically neutral (better, impartial in a partisan sense) ... or that its leaders know how to be so.
If this were the case, the Church would have been conscious of the fact that many of its representatives are not impartial. Rather they are quite prepared to show upfront or subtly, their partisan leanings.
Whatever one believes about the Labour Party and the present government, as an institution that should be impartial one would have expected the Catholic Church not to allow even the appearance internally of conflicts of interest.
This holds even more in Church appointments that are of a judicial or quasi-judicial nature. It does not seem at all that attention has ever been given to this aspect of how things should get done.
***
ARGUMENT
Some might rate the following argument as too controversial. It still is useful to consider what it might be flagging.
Who is benefitting “most” from the Ukraine war?
Surely not the Ukraine. Its citizens are being killed, its cities devastated.
Europe is having to give full military and economic backing to the Ukraine, while trying to counter the inflationary roll that could ruin the programmes it has been launching to modernise its structures while countering climate warming. There is no beneficial payback in this.
Meanwhile, Russia itself which started the war is losing thousands of its citizens. Its resources are getting depleted as it becomes increasingly dependent on China. To keep the pressure up, it is being obliged to issue nuclear threats, as the number of its allies diminishes.
In the end, it is the US which is really benefitting from the situation. True, it is spending billions of dollars to support the Ukraine militarily; but dollars are issued by the US. So in a situation where others are “distracted” by the fighting in the Ukraine, the US can concentrate better on its competition with China, a game which US decision makers seem to consider as vital to the maintenance of their global hegemony.