MERHBA FIL

WE SWEAR TO FREE MALTA FROM THE SLAVERY, COLONIALISM AND DICTATORIAL ILLEGAL EUROPEAN UNION RULE

TELL YOUR PARLIAMENTARY DEPUTY THAT YOU WANT MALTA TO REGAIN INDEPENDENCE AND FREEDOM

The European Union ordered that in 2011 the Maltese and Gozitan people pay it €68,000,000

€186,000 daily stolen from your childrens mouths

What will Malta do in the Libyan conflict?

By Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici the Campaign for National Independence CNI

“Libya – an interim peaceful resolution” is the title written by a Maltese researcher who is carrying out research in an American university, Mr Alfred A Farrugia, who has many years of experience in the diplomatic sector.

In an article that appeared in a local newspaper in English, Mr Farrugia starts by asking who are the sides in the Libyan conflict?

What do those leaders who went from the side of the Libyan Government to the Opposition side want, and are they not also responsible for all that happened during the last 40 years?

Are they also going to be arraigned before the International Criminal Court?

Some of the countries leaders did not care much about the situation that the Libyan people were in as long as they could trade with the country. Is this not a great inconsistency and a case of ‘double standards’?

Is it right that great powers remain free to take all the actions that they feel like, but why do they disregard ‘conflict analysis and resolution’ measures?

Did the American State Department asked the George Mason University of Washington Institute, which specializes in conflict resolution, or the American Peace Institute, or the Alliance for Peace Building , to propose a solution for the Libyan conflict?

Mr Farrugia notes that the UN were very quick to pass a condemnation resolution, apart from also taking a hurried decision in the human rights meeting in Geneva, but did not tell the UN Commission about the ‘peacebuilding’ to consider the issue.

He asks how can countries condemn a civil war, when at the same time they are arming the rebels or the Opposition forces?

Could it be that those who have big interests in the armaments industry are exploiting the situation by selling armaments to both sides?

Mr Farrugia says that a proposal can be made so that as the first step a National Libyan Council will be set up half of which will be from the Government representatives and the other half from the representatives of the Opposition.

This council would have the duty to revise the Green Book that serves as the country’s constitution.

It would also have the duty to see what the main essential requirements of the people including the need for better security and recognition of fundamental rights are.

On the position of Malta with respect to the Libyan conflict, Mr Farrugia says that it cannot be said that it is in our best interests to support one side, because we may be serving other countries that have their own interests in this issue.

He mentioned that while the Maltese Deputy Prime Minister called the mission that brought the workers who used to work in the desert as a humanitarian one, the British Defence Minister called it a ‘military operation’.

He showed his doubts that the aircraft used in the desert mission entered the Libyan air space without permission and had left from NATO bases.

“while it is appropriate for our authorities to take full account of the people of Libya, they need examine whether such needs could be served better through a peaceful resolution, instead of a chaotic civil war. Why cannot the authorities look for a win-win resolution?

“Given Libya’s proximity, it might be important for that country’s leadership to perceive the actions of our authorities as being fair and neutral, if our authorities wish to try and make a positive impact on the current situation.

“Does the international community condone the keeping of stolen goods? Could not our authorities seek and understanding with the Libyan leadership that the Mirages be used solely for self-defence and not against the Libyan people?”

The thoughts by Mr Farrugia are the thoughts of many Maltese of goodwill, who were scandalized and shocked with the Maltese Prime Minister boasting who on two occasions refused that Malta works for peace between the two sides ion the Libyan conflict.

Malta’s neutrality ought to bring peace in Libya

Last week, in a local newspaper in the English language, appeared an article with the title “Maltese Neutrality still a brilliant idea”, written by Richard E. Rubenstein, a professor at the School for Conflict Analysis and Resolution of the George Mason University of Washington United States of America and who came to Malta as a visiting lecturer at the University of Malta.

Professor Rubenstein as spent his life working, studying and learned how when there are conflicts, great efforts need to be made to listen to the ideas from both sides.

In his article he wrote that he wished to express his opinion as a visitor to this island on the principle of neutrality written in the Constitution of Malta.

He was concerned by what is happening in the Arab world, particularly Libya, where the rebellion against Gaddafi is turning into a civil war, and where different forms of military intervention against him appear to be considered by American and European officials.

The American Professor quoted the first article of the Constitution of Malta that states that the country should actively work for peace, security and social progress among all peoples by Malta implementing a policy of non-alignment and refuses to take participate in any military alliance.

The Constitution continues to provide that the country cannot be used as a military base from any other nation except for the defence of the independence of Malta or to support decisions by the United Nations Security Council, and Malta does not permit that its facilities to be used in military interventions against another country.

Thus, Professor Rubenstein insists that Malta should not permit its facilities to be used for military interventions against Gaddafi, even if he uses unjustified violence against the rebel forces.

The American Professor continues to write that many officials and experts have expressed their disappointment about the Constitution of Malta provisions.

But he says that others have said that the Constitution of Malta clause was introduced under the leadership of Dom Mintoff to establish Malta’s non-alignment during the Cold War, and that therefore there is now no more scope for it.

Others believe that if it is applied, it causes harm to Malta internationally and in international commercial relations.

Others believe that the moral right to protect the population from violence or war crimes committed by their leaders overrides the civil law and should lead to article 1 of the Constitution of Malta to be terminated.

Here Professor Rubenstein clearly states that: I take a totally different position – one that I have not heard expressed with some force in some debate (about the Libyan crisis). As I see it, the principle of neutrality in the Constitution of Malta are neither redundant, are neither against national interests, and are neither immoral. On the contrary, they reflect a creative vision of Malta’s international role that goes beyond the context of the cold war of Mintoff’s time.”

He continued to write that this priceless concept is that in a competitive world and power blocks seeking their geopolitical and economic interests with all necessary means, including the use of massive violence, there is a great need for persons who work for peace on a regional basis.

The world in general and in particular the Mediterranean region have a great need of enough neutral countries – and capable public official – who are able to help the parties in a conflict to solve their fighting prior to a genocide being committed.

The American Professor insists that this type of neutrality neither implies passivity nor immorality.

On the contrary, it reflects a decision intended to serve the country in the manner with which the Catholic Church helped the European sovereigns in the Middle Ages by mediating in conflicts.

It recognizes the enormous value of the role that the experts who are trusted by the parties in conflict to identify and address the cause of the fighting.

According to Professor Rubenstein, this type of conflict resolution goes beyond the negotiations and power bargaining for an analysis of the problems that would be producing the violence.

He states that this was what had ended the trouble in Northern Ireland and the civil war in Mozambique and stopped the countries from exploding after the fall of the Soviet Empire.

If someone who is trusted and neutral was ready to mediate between the United States of America and Iraq, it could have been that there would have been no need for that useless war.

And if the technique of the resolutions be now used in Libya, Professor Rubenstein believes that a civil war may be averted.

But the resolution of the conflict in Libya will not succeed if there is not some country or organization to take a strong decision to adopt a “third party” role – that remains officially impartial even when those who are generally condemned as the “bad” uses violence against those considered as the “good”.

Many times it is difficult to hold this impartiality, but how many times have we became aware after great destruction, that this distinction between the bad and the good was too simplified? Or where it clearly appeared that the use of violence against the party that was at fault weakened the capacity of society for peaceful reconstruction.”

Professor Rubenstein ended his interesting article with these words: “Notwithstanding its strategic position in the Mediterranean, Malta is not a strong economic or military power.

Leaders who see on the long term understood that, in a world obsessed with power, this is not a disadvantage but an advantage. The neutrality clause in the constitution of Malta requires the country to exercise a different power – moral authority – and a different strategic thinking: a strategy for peace.

The require that the Maltese people hold back, not for narrow national scopes, but to serve the common good as this country has always done when it negotiated the Law of the Sea Treaty and other international agreements.

“No, the neutrality clause in the Constitution is not outdated. With the right will and dedication, Malta can implement its destiny to become a platform for peace and conflict resolution.”

Wrong Policy

The manner with which the EU is acting in the issue of the human tragedy that is happening in Libya, uncovers the hypocrisy, the lack of good will and the poverty of the EU policy.

Because the UE does not understand that for the human tragedy created by the bloody fighting in Libya has to first and foremost to stop the fighting.

On the contrary the UE is not thinking how to stop the fighting, but is only thinking on how the Libyan Government is overcome in fighting, and is helping for this to happen.

Apart from the tragedy of the deaths both on the rebels side, as well as of those n the government forces, there is the tragedy of the hundreds of thousands of foreigners who have exited Libya where they found their living and because of the fighting had to abandon the country that was helping them.

It is facilitating their return to their own countries without any hope that they are going to find a job.

The best help that the EU could have given them was to seek a stop to the fighting in Libya without any delay, and the foreign workers could go back to work there as they used to do before in peace.

The EU countries from the first moment that trouble started in Libya decided that there was going to be fighting, and called for their citizens to leave the country forthwith.

There was no reason for this haste and insistence that foreigners be evacuated from Libya, but the EU countries chose to organize an evacuation as if it was a military operation, and in fact they have used their military means and forces under the pretext of a humanitarian mission.

The exit from Libya of hundreds of thousands of foreign workers some of them highly skilled tradesmen and technicians, was also made so that important works will be stopped and mostly for oil production to be stopped, which is a source of huge funds for the Libyan Government.

The evacuation of foreigners from Libya was urgent simply because the Western countries wanted to ensure that their citizens will be out of the country prior to the taking of measures against the Libyan Government.

The measures against the Libyan Government were thought of from the very beginning as evidenced by the intensive propaganda campaign against it, not only by the means of mass communications, but also by the political leaders of many EU countries and the Americans.

Both the President of the European Commission, Barroso, as well as the President of the European Council, Van Rompuy, publicly predicted the end of the Libyan Government.

The Maltese people want Parliament to take steps forthwith to curb immigration in our country

Please sign the popular petition to the Maltese Parliament to take the necessary measure to curb illegal immigration in our country

WE WANT INDEPENDENCE FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION

If yes, help CNI in its work so that the majority of the people would want to get rid of European Union rule.