Author: Jacques René Zammit

Is this the future of the demos?

One of the Times’ quotes of the week was by Prof Kmiec, the latest US ambassador to grace our shores. He kicked off with a provocative question regarding Malta’s Constitutional neutrality status:

While I respect how Malta values its neutrality, the question I ask is: neutral to what? Is it neutrality to peace? Is it neutrality to assisting those striving for peace?

First of all this begs the question as to what exactly Prof Kmiec is respecting since, by his own admission, he has no idea what the whole business of neutrality is about. I know that the business of an ambassador involves being diplomatic and all but this sounds hideously like diplomatic speak for “I respect the fact that you’re a country that loves to be neutral uselessly because there is nothing to be neutral about.” Prof Kmiec would have been better off  directly questioning the utility of the neutrality clause that was framed in a different era with different realities.

There is an even more insulting inference to be made from Kmiec’s questioning. Essentially Kmiec provocatively implies that our neutrality prevents us from assisting nations on a mission for peace. The Times fell for the bait in its editorial egging for change, presumably to accommodate Kmiec’s requisites (sweetened with lucrative ship repair contracts for the peaceful US navy). The problem, Prof Kmiec, lies mainly in understanding whose peaceful whims and missions we would choose to accommodate in the future.  Would it be a US quest to eliminate a future Saddam and uncover his plentiful hoard of “weapons of mass destruction”? (All those Rocks in Babylon). Or would we use it to assist the US intelligence agency in their peaceful mission to fly suspected criminals to areas of the world where Fundamental Human Rights are an expensive extra? Mr Ahmadinejad too has a peaceful mission of his (at least he likes to think so)- that of providing his people with nuclear power – how would the US read any Maltese efforts assisting Ahmadinejad in his peaceful aims?

In short, and avoiding caricaturised models of world peace, Prof Kmiec (and the Sunday Times Editor) would do well to note that our neutrality may be anachronistic and hard to define in today’s world but it has kept us out of more than a spot of bother. The day we need to redefine our neutrality in terms of peace I am quite sure we can do it in our own terms – particularly since peace and neutrality do not seem to be the best kind of US Premium Export.

Bafana, Bafana my backside. Portugal, Ivory Coast and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is the mantra I have been repeating ever since the nail-biting draw for next summer’s World Cup ended. Not even the radiant presence of South African beauty Charlize Theron and her tongue-in-cheek remarks about things best left unsaid (she’s talking about you Raymond “Bloody” Domenech!) could assuage my disappointment at the cruel, cruel draw that had just resulted in Brazil being placed in this edition’s group of death. Kaka’, Ronaldo and Diver Drogba will be vying for one of the two places to emerge from Group G – that is unless there is no 2010 version of 1966’s Pak Doo-Ik lurking in the shadows.

So while I resigned myself to the idea that it will be sufferance for me and my nails as from day one (15th June for me), I contemplated the cruel system of seedings, groupings and geographic divisions that separated the weak from the tough before you could say alea iacta est (the die has been cast). You see, even in matters as frivolous as sport (I cannot believe I am saying it), eight decades of trial and error have resulted in a neatly polished system of meritorious classification known as “seeding”. It allows FIFA to spread the ‘best’ teams into different groups and ensure that we do not end up with World Cup semi-finals featuring Switzerland, Slovakia, Honduras and New Zealand.

The commie in you might ask, “What is wrong with all the teams getting an equal chance in an FA cup sort of way? Doesn’t the system favour the bigger, better teams giving them a greater chance to get through to the final?” Well. Yes it does. And that’s because the system is designed to make sure that the winning team gets a fair chance to prove itself against teams of all kinds of calibre. Otherwise a lucky draw could result in the likes of New Zealand (I love them, I really do) marching all the way to the final simply by being drawn against weaker teams. The “fair chance” theory that is a natural reaction to the seeding-based kind of selection, as we witnessed in Cape Town this Friday, is a load of bollocks after all.

All’Olimpico di Torino, Juve(ntinove) batte Inter (17) due a uno. Gol (roccambolesco) di Lucio nella sua porta e risposta di Eto’o al priéo tempo. Gollasso di Marchisio seguito da megarissa causata da Supersega Balotelli nel secondo tempo. Da rimarcare la grinta di Chiellini e Caceres, la mancanza di convinzione di Diego e un Felipo Melo che deve ancora crescere. Buffon … madonna che furia. Ferrara voto sei e mezzo – un piccolo passo in avanti. Per ora godiamo.

In which J’accuse hopefully brings to a conclusion this week’s open discussion on the selection of a new Commissioner and tries once again to draw a number of conclusions and read a few signposts that have been dropped inadvertently by all concerned. read on… it’s a long one so coffee or tea is advised as a beverage of accompaniment.

In which J’accuse steals a guest post from The Running Commentary where Patrick Tabone offers an ex-employee’s apologia pro Joe Borg and his work as a Commissioner. Patrick Tabone, a former employee of Joe Borg in Brussels and at the Foreign Ministry offers a different perspective of the outgoing Commissioner that might force some people to think twice before insisting with the ‘gravy train’ allegations.

Read on for Patrick’s open letter to Daphne.