The history of ties which a community had with foreign societies over the centuries unfailingly includes unpleasant episodes. Not least in Europe, where imperialism has always been a leading factor in human developments, from Roman times and before that. In fact, European nations ended up striking out to acquire empires all over the world, not just in their own continent. And they succeeded in this for some time.

Maltese society was never big enough to aspire to rule others. More likely, it would seek to be overseen and governed from outside... by some power it considered to be sufficiently "attractive", as after all still remains the case at present.

What still suprises me is how, as a people, we persisted with a certain loyalty... or call it deference... towards outsiders who colonised "us". Indeed, controversies arise here between those who sound partisans of a given coloniser as contrasted to another. Not all colonisers behaved in the same way, that's clear, but whether they were knights of St John, Romans, French, Sicilians or British, what they certainly did  was what suited them, not the society - no matter how it looked like then - of these islands.

***

INFLATION

In the comparison of Malta's cost of living with inflation rates in the rest of the EU, I always thought something peculiar was being registered. Malta's inflation rate often followed a direction that was opposite to that of the rest of the eurozone. When in the latter, inflation would be climbing, in Malta it got lower. The same happened in the other direction - when inflation is damping down in the rest of Europe, in Malta the tendency is rather on the up.

I raised the point a number of times. Those I spoke to either disagreed that any such effect existed; or argued that it has little significance; or did not see how there could be some systemic explanation for it. As long as Malta's inflation rate is lower than that of the EU as a whole, the matter arouses next to no interest. Perspectives change when as is happening now, Malta's inflation rate is higher than in the rest of Europe.

***

AS IN IRAQ?

Undoubtedly, one can feel no sympathy or solidarity with the current regime in Iran which has been running the country with an authoritarian and clerical grip for over half a century, following the collapse of the Shah. (The latter's rule was just as objectionable as the present one.) In Iran, human rights, women's rights and democratic principles are flagrantly flouted.

However a war between sovereign states has to be triggered and run according to the precepts of international law regarding war. That launched by Israel against Iran to destroy Iran's nuclear potential, for according to Israel the country will soon have developed a nuclear bomb, does not satisfy the criteria set by international law... no matter how the war proceeds.

All that gets referred to as evidence about the Iranian "threat"  reminds one of what used to be said about the equally objectionable regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, that it was making ready weapons of mass destruction. Iraq was invaded and completely messed up. All that had been alleged about the weapons of destruction it was setting up turned out to be a fable.