These last days, practically all the major European media focused on just one issue - how despite its economic might, Europe remains after all hugely dependent on the US. For its security, for its communciations not least over the internet, for its technology, for its trade...

Up to now, everything was tied to the certainty that the US would remain an eternal ally of Europe. Very limited attention, if any, was given to the possibility that the US could withdraw or demand an inapproprate return for the role they had assumed. The last European statesman to have forcefully insisted on the consequences of this scenario was French President Charles de Gaulle, more than sixty years ago.

Today, a main concern among European governments revolves around the question-how did we end up so dependent on the Americans? German chancellor Merz has set a European march towards "independence" as the most important resolution for this year. However the Europeans have assumed enormous strategic commitments - mostly but not solely with regards to the war between Russia and the Ukraine. They know they won't be able to keep up with them without US backing... even if they "all" unite around the same targets with a shared full commitment - something which cannot... in any way ... be taken for granted.

***

DELAYS IN COURT

Much speculation was doing the rounds in the past weeks about the choice of Chief Justice and who was going to be selected. I agree this is a very important matter. Keeping it on the agenda is useful. No doubt a valid resolution will be arrived at.

Still to be honest, there's a much more important issue - raising questions that continue to be asked and which most likely will remain without a satisfactory solution, no matter who is in government.

When will court delays in the processing of cases be truly eliminated?

For instance, it was recently reported that a trial by jury is being held over a murder committed some fifteen years ago, if not more! Another trial by jury of a much more explosive murder, socially and politically, remains pending after one doesn't remember how many years. Why should this be?

***

GREEN SPACES

One cannot but agree with claims that are being made to insist that if the government really intends to create new green spaces in the country by way of "parks" or some other construct (which as publicised, is indeed a very good initiative), such spaces will truly need to be "green". They shouldn't be made into zones where concrete passageways are laid, crossed with a layout of paved squares where kiosks can sell beer and pizzas, and lined with narrow channels of soil where yellowish trees struggle to survive.

All too often, the establishment of so-called green spaces is ending up subject to the Maltese urge to walk only where the ground is even and to laze the time away on benches close to where hamburgers, Coke or a beer are being sold. It has been argued that plans for the construction of new parks require much wider discussion and evaluation than what gets mentioned (no matter how sincerely expressed) at consultation and public relations meetings with "children" and "families". Those making this argument have a point.