Author: Jacques René Zammit

Categories
Politics

The riot acts

It’s all happening in Rabat it seems. At is-Serkin to be exact. Rabat pastizzi and tea places have long been the rage for an after hours sobering up. There was a time when you would throw in the Tarxien doughnut guy – that was when the guy would go to the doughnut before the doughnut began to come… everywhere. Turns out that at 5 a.m. this morning there was some form of altercation between an employee of PN Dar Centrali and the two renegades Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando and Franco Debono. Depending on which news source you read there was some form of provocation from one side and the Taghna Lkoll appointees who had shot to stardom under a nationalist administration are on record to have directed a barrow load of invective against anything “nationalist”.

Five a.m. in Rabat eh. We’re not exactly back to the Raymond Caruana drive by scenarios (God rest his soul) but by the look of it this morning you get the feeling that the PN side of the equation are dying hard to portray this event as a prelude of such things to come. (I mean we DO have a monument to Mintoff in the making – and displayed at Labour HQ to boot – Ghax Taghna Lkoll means tal-Lejber). On the other hand my facebook wall is already witnessing mocking comments by Labourite “supporters” of the young nationalist stalwart whose description of the action makes him sound like some Harry Potter being attacked by Death Eaters.

The tableau remains the same. Two politicians long past their sell-by date have engaged in yet another public performance that should in normal non-Banana Republic countries spell the end of their public commitments and engagements. A reluctant opposition still insists on referring to JPO and Franco without reminding the public of their roles – you get the feeling that the PN is (1) painfully aware of its limitations at this current junction and is not too eager to rock the boat and (2) quite tellingly the PN remains even more painfully aware that it was the springboard for JPO’s and Franco’s claim to fame. It was after all PN votes that got JPO into parliament (spin and all). And Joseph? What will he do this time round? Surely not another quip about something that ‘also happened under the nationalists” (it didn’t by the way).

These are the politicians of this Banana republic of ours. Now it’s down to brawls in nightspots. Oh yes J’accuse will express sincere solidarity with any victim of senseless violence. If punches were thrown then the aggressor must not only be condemned verbally but must be brought to justice. Things might be about to go out of hand thanks to the persistence of our dichotomous way of thinking. I look at the scene as it was reported and I do not see Nicky Azzopardi, Franco Debono and Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando brawling outside a pastizzi and newspaper joint.

I see the continuation of a race to mediocrity that is far from over.

Ghamilli te vojt u tlieta irkotta. Le… x’gazzetti? Ma tafx li ilni ghomor ma nixtri gazzetta?

Categories
Politics

Grabbing the iced buns

Iced buns are quite the talk of the town thanks to Muscat’s very unique interpretation of meritocracy. Norman Hamilton’s appointment as High Commissioner in Britain is the latest in a long line of appointments that have absolutely nothing to do with merit and much to do with “partitocracy”. Taghna Lkoll’s labour are not reinventing the wheel, we’ve been there before but never with such brazen partisanism. It’s as though the only reason Labour wanted to get elected was to dig its teeth in a huge cake and there seems to be a sense of urgency in all this – as though the cake might finish tomorrow.

It’s across the board. Across the boards actually. Nothing is spared. Justice, environment, diplomacy, culture… you name it the’ve got a board, directorship, charimanship or some other magic chair to fill. There is absolutely no direct correlation between the person nominated and the job in question – which is where Labour is actually going out on a limb. There is no attempt to colour the nominations with any semblance of competence or adequacy, the only justification spouting from the acolytes of the TaghnaLkoll creed is that “now it is our turn” or that “you can only trust our own”.

Such a parody of a political system defies comment through its very existence as a real life caricature. Everyone can see how naked the Emperor is it’s just that they still cannot get over how brazen he is about his nudity. Meanwhile the consequences of a more subtle iced bun distribution network gone wrong are being felt among the opposition. The horse-trading that went on behind the scenes in the nationalist party camp had already been partially exposed thanks to the Borg Olivier gaffes about his “barter” system. Businesses and commerce would have been quite happy with preferential treatment and a rather generous credit system “mal-partit” if their workings were facilitated by the party in power. Lose the power, lose the credit.

Before you know it l-istamperija is history. You know, the stamperija is the kind of place that allows the PLPN parties to conduct multimillion print and poster campaigns without batting an eyelid. Obviously right now the Labour side of credit must be basking in sunlight. No closing time for the Labour equivalent of stamperija yet because Labouris now in the driving seat of the iced bun business. Sure, Labour will bumble it much faster than any amount of PN sugary pastry scheme could – simply by way of the inability to moderate its hunger for power – but yes we are still very much in the field of same, same but different.

The biggest problem with Labour’s idea of managing the iced bun business is that Labour seems to have even less of an appreciation of the fragility of the whole power system. The Labour Horde of pretenders to iced buns have been unleashed on a Castille Palace that must seem to them what the witche’s Candy House seemed to Hansel and Gretel. The tentacles of the Labour orgy have spread into sensitive areas such as justice and diplomacy. That is very dangerous territory. Meanwhile a civil service that was very much constructed to work the EU machine is being slowly dismantled to allow inexperienced pretenders to take their places in various directorships… expect a ticking time bomb there – not because of any sabotage by nationalist civil servants but simply because the lock stock change being imposed by the iced bun brigade is simply unsustainable.

In short, the Iced Bun system is simply a progressive increase on what was already there in another form. That does not make the new Iced Bun system any more acceptable than the previous one. But it seems that in the world of PN vs PL all that it takes to be ahead is to be “same, same but different”.

Thank you very much PLPN.

Categories
Values

Hagi’s Brave New World

In 1994 we took to watching some of the World Cup matches at La Grotta nightclub in Xlendi. I don’t remember whether the Romania v. Argentina fixture was late enough to be broadcast direct during clubbing hours or whether it was the repeat of the goals on Eurosport that we watched while dancing to the latest tunes. What I do remember is the magnificent performance of Gheorghe Hagi and Co and how they outshone the Argentinians with some of the best football of the tournament. The second Romanian goal, skillfully envisioned by Hagi and masterfully executed by Dumitrescu remains one of the classics of the tournament – as will the whole Romanian team that would go on to lose its nerve against a cynical Sweden in the quarter-final.

An interview in French sport magazine So Foot with the mastermind behind that team brought these memories of football and clubbing back to my mind. Hagi remains an institution in Romanian football history and nobody since has shone the way he had in the mid-nineties. Not even the meteoric Adrian Mutu. The interview might have struck me for many an insight that Hagi had about football in his heyday, about his moves from Madrid to Brescia to Barcelona, and about how his great Steaua succumbed to a physical Milan in a pre-Champions League final but what really struck me is the sense of saudade that Hagi seems to feel for the communist system that produced his team of greats.

The 1994 national team was a product of Ceausescu’s Romania – a project that had been selected from the villages and towns of the Carpathians and centred around Bucharest’s two dominant teams : Steaua and Dinamo. Plucked away from their regional haunts, different generations of players were disciplined into one system in central Romania and learnt to play together, to live football together and go through an educational system together. From Prunea to Belodedici to Munteanu to Dumitrescu, they all pased through a strict “Eastern” development system that we now only know to relate to the Communist heavy handed “discipline”.

We’ve all heard stories about the pumped East European women for the Olympics. Stories abound about how the successful football teams from behind the Iron Curtain were little more than playthings of the different secret services and police. Descriptions of such systems are normally painted with brushstrokes of oppression, dehumanisation and deprivation of basic rights. Yet here was Hagi expressing a nostalgia for those times and obviously pining for those days when the communist machine made footballing men out of undisciplined boys. There is something about this streak of nostalgia that cannot be ignored. Obviously this is not an appeal for the return of communist regimes and their dark methods of “preparation” but one does have to ask whether the moral fibre of the golden teams such as Hagi’s Romania can ever be replicated again.

This was Hagi who would quit Madrid for Brescia simply to play under the guidance of one of his gurus (Mircea Lucescu) prior to returning to Barcelona (where he played with – hold your breath and kneel down – Stoichkov and Romario). He may have had a fiery character but he did not break down to the vices and greed that seem to be so common with today’s footballers. Did I hear you say Mutu?

In an awkward twist of serendipitous reading I switched to this week’s Economist to find two articles about Raul Castro’s managed shift from Communism to a sort of free trade. The byword in Cuba seems to be to allow small businesses to work but just about that. The government still seems to be intent on ensuring that nobody gets “too rich”. For how long that can be controlled is anybody’s guess. In the meantime I understood why accounts by recent visitors to Cuba jarred so much with my own first-hand witness of Cuba in 2006 (just before Raul came into power). I remember being impressed by the lack of any free-market activity but also by the good-naturedness of the people.

True, there was an in-your-face lack of materialism and absolutely no familiar reference points for anyone coming from a liberal democrat background. But there was also an inexplicable joie de vivre that you could not read about in international reports. It was almost as though the resourcefulness of the people compensated for the limitations imposed by an oppressive regime. It was a contradiction that was hard to swallow. Here was a people who fail on many standards of the liberal democrat scale but then their cultural, health, educational and sporting values shot through the limit. Deprived of the outlets of senseless materialism the Cuban people did what they could do best – improvised and worked on other values.

Is this what Hagi misses? A sense of disciplined approach? Will Cuba produce its Sotomayor’s and little sporting miracles when the barriers to free market and laissez-fairism fall? I don’t have the answer to that one but for a few moments just savour the magic of the other boys in gold who almost conquered the world back in 1994.

Categories
Immigration

The other boat people

The agreement between Australia and Papua New Guinea (PNG) regarding the treatment of Australia’s waves of boat people made the breaking news early this morning. Australia, it was announced, would be forwarding any refugee (asylum) seekers to PNG for processing and should their application become valid these asylum seekers would be resettled in PNG and not Australia. The arrangement is valid for twelve months and is subject to an annual review. In Rudd’s own words:

“Our expectation … is as this regional resettlement arrangement is implemented, and the message is sent loud and clear back up the pipeline, the number of boats will decline over time as asylum seekers then make recourse to other, more normal UNHCR processes to have their claims assessed,” Mr Rudd said.

No sooner had the news made the world wide web that repostings of the BBC report were being made on social networks by Maltese users – with such illuminating comments as “food for thought”. No doubt they believed that this move vindicated Joseph Muscat’s push-back ploy, and a cursory look at the facts behind the deal show that they there is no doubt that this is not a similar scenario. Let’s see why.

1. Human Rights

Yep. You have to begin there. The agreement means that the refugees are shifted to another point to have their asylum request processed. They are not shepherded onto a plane (with the added trauma of separating the healthy from the weak), they are not denied access to a lawyer or HR institutions and above all their entitlement to have their request treated is not prejudiced. Papua New Guinea is a signatory to the UN Refugees Convention – not an unstable country in the process of reconstruction. Here’s Rudd again:

“I understand that this is a very hard line decision,” Mr Rudd said. “But our responsibility as a government is to ensure that we have a robust system of border security and orderly migration, on the one hand, as well as fulfilling our legal and compassionate obligations under the refugees convention on the other,” he added. (9msn)

It’s not exactly a “stamping of feet” or “wake up and smell the coffee”. The Australian PM is aware that no matter how hardline you may get the combined duty of compassion and international obligations must and will be respected. A far cry from bluffing to break the law.

2. Promised Land Delayed.

It’s not all hunky dory. Australia is the land of promise for the people in that region. Not PNG, not Nauru. That however is what Rudd is banking on. His plan is a disincentive to smugglers who thrive on these illicit tours and mortal trips across the seas by sending out a message that the final destination will not be the land of Oz. It plays perfectly into the hands of recent “atavistic fears” aroused among the Australians – angry above all, at the lack of effort by recent arrivals to assimilate to the Ozzie culture. Settlers will instead have to adapt to New Guinean (Papuan?) culture since PNG has accepted for the refugees to be resettled within its borders.

A few notes on PNG will show that this is a growing democracy which is still plagued by a poverty gap with vast swathes of unexplored land. Fair game? So why did PNG accept the deal?

3. Money talks.

Well the PNG deal follows up on an earlier deal with Nauru. In both cases asylum seekers heading for Australia are (will be) rerouted to an asylum processing centre based on PNG or Nauru. The asylum centres are set up and maintained by Australia. That means that the money to pay for, monitor and run the centre comes from Australian coffers. Earlier centres were heavily criticised by the UNHCR for their conditions (a familiar story?) but Australia has pledged to build a new centre in PNG. That’s not just it… PNG needed more than a spanking new asylum centre to sign the dotted line and this is what it got:

In exchange for PNG’s agreement, Australia will fund further aid initiatives. These include redeveloping a major referral hospital in Lae, PNG’s second largest city, and assisting with its long-term management. Australia will also supply half the funding to reform PNG’s university sector and in 2014 implement the recommendations of an Australia-PNG education review. As well, it will support professional management teams in health, education and law and order. “And Australia, prime minister, stands ready to assist PNG further with other development needs in the future,” Mr Rudd said to Mr O’Neil. “That’s what friends are for.” (9msn)

International Cooperation

So Australia’s Rudd does get to shake the waters in the field of immigration policy. He admits that the PNG-Australia agreement might be challenged in the courts but also hopes that this will open the way for new global discussions on the treatment of immigrants and asylum seekers. The agreement exploits what Rudd seems to treat as a loophole in the international convention. The convention prohibits repatriation of asylum seekers but, according to Rudd’s reading does not prohibit resettlement in a different country – such as PNG.

Australia also plans to convene an international conference of transit and destination countries to consider how to improve global arrangements for refugees. The conference would consider the adequacy of processing arrangements and how Australia, the US, Canada and other countries could deal better with the resettlement issues.

So, no real stamping of feet. No threat to break international rules. The Australian PM gave his reassurances of compassionate treatment of the asylum seekers while setting up a framework the compatibility of which remains to be tested under international obligations. Having said that the way Rudd moved is diametrically opposed to what happened in the Maltese scenario.

That essentially is the difference between a statesman and a tantrum thrower fanning the flames of nationalistic fears. So, yes, food for thought indeed.

Categories
Immigration

Murder they wrote

The jury seems to still be inexplicably out as to whether Joseph Muscat’s bluff about the pushback strategy was commendable or otherwise. I say inexplicably because it does not seem to me to be a matter of opinion but of fact. Yet, there are plenty who would advocate that Joseph did the right thing and that his waterfall of badly mixed clichés – from “stamping of feet” to “waking up an smelling the coffee” are the necessary ingredients to get Europe going. The sad part is that it is not only your usual set of suspects who have swallowed the Taghna Lkoll happy pills but even persons who you would expect to have a critical mind. Let’s look at some facts:

1. The ECFHR is not the EU

They keep repeating this mantra that the European Human Rights Court decision is part of some conspiracy and that we should stick two fingers up at them and send the migrants to Brussels. Idiot’s guide to the EU number 1: The Court in question is part of the Council of Europe – an organisation based in Strasbourg with 45 member states including Russia and Turkey. Not the EU then.

2. The Illegality of the act

When Muscat chose to prep the planes and get the engines of forced repatriation running he was doing so knowing that he is in full violation of European law on Human Rights. Not EU Law. Not just that. His bit of sabre-rattling actually meant he was jumping onto the world stage by threatening to do something illegal. Let me put it into perspective for the slower among you. Think Saddam Hussein using human shields to prevent US bombing of targets. Think threatening to unleash Sarin Gas on protesters. Think threatening to drive with tanks over protesters. Think shooting border crossers on sight. Yes. That kind of illegal.

Does it matter that Muscat claims to have been bluffing? Hell no it doesn’t. Imagine I walked up to you and threatened to kill you if you did not hand over your cash. Then once you hand over the cash I tell you – “Hey, I’m only bluffing, but that got you to wake up and smell the coffee”. Right? And don’t give me the “ends justifies the means” bullshit. This government has proven to be so inept at understanding the boundaries of the rule of law that it is enough to give any ordinary citizen the creeps.

3. That Muscat’s Mental

It’s not my words. It’s the gist of the international press. His “bluff” had one effect and one effect only. He is being seen as an insane nutball who is willing to resort to illegal threats to try to get what he needs. Think Ahmadinejad meets Hussein meets Bush. While you were busy harping about some trumped up “national interest” your prime minister was busy flushing our national reputation down the drains. I can’t wait to see what the Economist’s side columns will make of this.

And another thing….. it’s not about saving face with the neighbours. Our reputation abroad is important because we work in a community of nations and should bear that in mind before we torpedo it with some ridiculous tantrum.

Don’t feed the animals

It’s a sign you see most time in the zoo. Our government needs some sobering up after this fiasco caused by its not being half as clever as it imagines itself to be. Right now the last thing the government needs is applause from the inane movement that cannot be made to understand why respecting human lives and dignity is at the basis of 21st century civilisation. You cannot pick and mix which lives to respect. You cannot selectively apply dignity. Just as you should never ever think about separating the healthy for the weak in some nightmarish remake of a nazi concentration camp simply because you wanted to “stamp your feet”.

So the next time that you think of praising our “gutsy” Prime Minister think of the human shields in Iraq at the time of Hussein and ask yourself: Would I have applauded Saddam for his gutsy standing up and being counted to the American forces?

I guess you know who should be smelling the coffee now.

 

Categories
Immigration Values

Civil and uncivil society

The Muslim Brotherhood will be turning out in large numbers in Cairo on Sunday to protest the abrupt removal of what was after all a democratically elected government. The Maltese hapless clone of the British National Party will also be demonstrating in Valletta – voicing their support for what they interpret as the Prime Minister’s strong stand against Europe and in favour of the ill-fated push-back policy. These too are manifestations of civil society. The right to express one’s opinion is sacrosanct, there’s no two ways about that, and even the most abominable of ideas can be voiced – to a certain extent (let’s not forget it is not legal to incite people to commit violence or to be violent).

The freedom of expression is a victim of gross misinterpretation in Malta though – as has often been documented in this blog. All too often the right to have an opinion is confused with “being right”. Having an opinion, no matter how maladroitly it has been constructed, seems to be the one and only “right” that counts. Critics of opinions are themselves labelled as “intolerant” and it all goes rather awry when the subject is tolerance itself – as in the case of immigration. Muscat’s Labour has built a lot of mileage on the concept of “the right to have an opinion no matter how wrong” and continues to fan this twisted logic while in government.

I am not sure how pleased Muscat can be with the Sunday demonstration in his honour. He must have failed to calculate the long-term effects of his clumsy bluff. Demonstrators will be hitting the streets in Malta on Sunday practically clamouring for the PM to insist on flaunting international rules and fundamental human rights. Our modern progressive Prime Minister must not have seen that coming. Diplomatic and strategic short-sightedness is a clear trait of the Taghna Lkoll arsenal – and many seem to be finding that out now.

Which brings me to the rest of civil society. We have seen in the past few days a sort of sectorial backlash to Muscat’s proposed push-back policy (or bluff). First the lawyers, then the academics and now the authors were reported as taking a unified stand against the whole idea. To begin with there is nothing more reassuring than seeing sectors of civil society putting their money where their mouth is. I do sense though that the obsession with partisan division still sticks like a limpet with the majority of such initiatives.

It’s not a question of being a wet-blanket but if I set aside the authors’ declaration I look at the “academics” and “lawyers” joint positions and all I see is a smokescreen for a party stunt. The most blatant of the two was the 65 lawyer judicial protest.  Aside from the fact that in certain quarters suddenly lawyers became a force to be reckoned with the names on the list were not exactly an across the board petition gathered at one of the drink-holes where lawyers tend to agglomerate. “65 lawyers active directly or indirectly with the nationalist party” would have been a better label.

As for the academics and as Maltatoday put it “labour intellectuals” there was again a selective exercise going on. That common position was not circulated at the University Canteen for anyone who agrees to voluntarily append his signature. It was an exercise in “look our party allows dissidence” – which really rang foul when you put it in the perspective of the “elaborate bluff”. Why? Because if you were Joseph Muscat and you really had hoped that your bluff were called you would also need a way to distance your party and its credentials from what you knew deep down to be a nefarious position. What better way than have your token liberals and academics yell their disapproval?

The strongest messages came from an all too different milieu. Those NGOs who quit the LGBT forum clearly explaining to the hapless government that you cannot pick and mix in the world of fundamental rights. A government that has no qualms to send human beings to their doom (and separating families in the process) cannot be serious about other fundamental rights. Aditus and Drachma did the only possible thing and quit the forum. You cannot engage with a bluffer and with a government that uses rights pragmatically for vote-gathering purposes.

To conclude, the minefield of immigration policy cannot be “un-politicised”. It is as political as it can get. The discerning citizen must be able to distinguish between the genuine movements and the smokescreens set up by the parties to cover what has hitherto been a hopeless record in the field of immigration. In the post 9/11 world we have to come to terms with this realignment of civil society and bear these truths in mind while taking an active role.

Unfortunately, the genuine movements (for or against certain policies) operate in the same field as the political parties who have a strong grasp on the ultimate decision taking seats of power. The end result of such a concoction is as unpredictable as we can allow it to be.

If there is anyone who should stand up and be counted then it is that part of civil society that harbours values for values’ sake and stops thinking in the “us and them” dichotomy. It will be hard. Judging by the history of Maltese politics…. it will be nigh impossible.