Tag: François Hollande

Categories
Constitutional Development Politics

Article 42, ISIS and neutrality

article42_akkuza

There has been quite a flutter in Malta since Francois Hollande decided to invoke article 42(7)  of the Lisbon Treaty. Even without the eccentric shenanigans of former PM Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici, questions were being raised as to how and to what extent Malta would be committed thanks to this invocation. I thought of providing a little Q&A, just like in parliament, but without the nigi hemm u nifqghek bits.

1. First of all, what does Article 42(7) state?

Article 42 (7) TEU states:

If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.

Commitments and cooperation in this area shall be consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which, for those States which are members of it, remains the foundation of their collective defence and the forum for its implementation.

2. So. This means war right?

No it does not. At least not in the sense that the army blessed and formed in the image of Manuel Mallia will be sent to the front to stand shoulder to shoulder with peshmergas. Nor does it mean that we will have AFM troops patrolling the Champs Elysees any time soon. The emphasis in article 42(7) is on aid and assistance and, more specifically, on the fact that the “security and defence policy” of certain Member States should not be prejudiced. This means two things:

a) Firstly, it means that any state invoking article 42(7) can negotiate individually with any other Member State (and crucially without the need to use any of the EU institutions) any temporary form of aid and assistance.  Each Member State is responsible for determining its contribution on the basis of what they deem to be necessary, which does not necessarily mean the deployment of military assets.

b) Secondly, and more importantly in the eyes of many in Malta, the fact that the security and defence policy of certain Member States is clearly invoked is a direct reference to the ‘neutral’ status of states such as Ireland, Austria and Finland – to give an example of some others. What that means is that notwithstanding any interpretation of military intervention that might be given by states dealing under this article, this obligation stops when the security and defence policy of certain States does not allow it. The second paragraph referring to NATO commitments is a further reinforcement of this distinction.

3. Oh so we are not at war then.

That’s a nice one. Modern politicians of the Hollande mould have a tendency to slip quickly into the language of war once a terrorist attack takes place. This “tradition” is new to this century ever since Commander in Chief Bush declared war on Al-Qaeda. Unlike the 70s and 80s when a terrorist bomb attack or shooting never really translated to a casus belli the political psyche of the post 9/11 words seems to require such heavy handed references and we are living in an age where France will now even try to provoke the UN to declare a war on a state whose existence nobody beyond the self-declared caliphate acknowledges.

Still. In the microcosm of Muscat’s land,  we will first engage in a debate of “neutrality” clauses in our constitution. The significance of such clauses dwindles into nothing when one considers that they were intended to deal with a specific battle between superpowers (a battle that no longer exists) and that in any case they would be invoked in case of a war between states – and not neutrality in the face of the war on terrorism. Another thing, Muscat’s government spent most of its legislature whingeing about the fact that immigration problems are a common problem that should be faced and borne equally by all EU states.

Calling oneself out of the fight on terrorism by relying on an outdated and practically inapplicable neutrality clause is hypocritical to say the least. By saying this I am not advocating participation by Malta on military activity but rather that Malta’s attitude towards security and its contribution to ensuring that the borders of the European Unoion are impervious to terrorists leaves much to be desired. From the Algeria VISA scandal, laughed off by our Chief Salesman to the thousands of Libyan Residencies to the continued insistence of this government to transform Malta into one big trojan horse for entry into the EU… these are ample examples as to how Malta’s contribution to the war on terror could be vastly improved.

4. Where does that leave us?

Well it leaves us with an EU that is gearing up to battle the amorphic monster that is “terrorism” with a series of knee-jerk reactions. It leaves us with a government in Malta that ironically needs to wake up and smell the coffee for the reasons outlined above.

Most of the time, it seems, it leaves us reverting to the centuries old adage: si vis pacem, para bellum.

Categories
Mediawatch

Private Liaisons, Public Affairs

trianghollande_akkuza

Valérie Trierweiler has been hospitalised following revelations in the press that her companion – French President François Hollande – had been having an affair with actress Julie Gayet. This latest sex scandal in France involves an actress who had taken part in a promo video for Hollande during his 2012 campaign. A bit reminiscent of the “billboard favourites” in Malta, only this time, the video promoter found herself on the lap of the French President – incidentally another son of the famous ’68 ‘student rebel’ generation.

The French media is split controversially in two factions between those who see these revelations as a violation of privacy and others who went ahead and published the videos and pics that seem to confirm this liaison. What can or cannot be said in public about such affairs will remain a moot point for years to come – even certain corners of our own blogosphere seem to put much reserve in the “pinker” points of information that might please their readers.

It’s the moment when you drawn the line between what is merely ‘pink’ info worthy of your Paris Match and, on the other hand information about the private activity of a leader that might impinge on his public performance. To take the grotesque example, Italy’s Berlusconi met his downfall precisely due to his not too private activity that was deemed to have jeopardised his way of thinking. Closer to home we are beginning to be less shocked whenever that elephant in the room is mentioned – liaisons, trysts, betrayals. For some time you’d be forgiven to believe that much of what goes on in Maltese politics is the result of jealousies, rivalries and revenge processes worthy of cheap paperback novels.

Wives, lovers and boyfriends seem to hit the headlines more and more and have become part of the intricately woven web of power politics. Learning to deal with such reporting in the press is a delicate but important process. The word “nepotism” implies a familial link with the favoured and Malta’s current government will soon be able to display family trees in lieu of organisational charts. Reporting such appointments is paramount. Extra-marital affairs however? Well, the principle of “Caesar’s wife” can always be quoted as a measure. Voters might rightfully want to know whether fidelity forms part of the repertoire of their favoured candidate.

Given voter’s trends and shifts don’t blame them when the unfaithful politician becomes even more popular. Sic transit gloria politici.

 

Categories
Mediawatch Values

Conscience, liberally speaking

François Hollande has found himself in quite a fix. His government is currently pushing the kind of law that is very easily labelled as ‘liberal’ (and consequently carries all the baggage that you might identify with the word these days). It’s France – the epitome of laïcité – and you’d expect the citizens of the republic to be either enthousiastes or at the most nonchalantes about the adoption of a law that has been dubbed “Marriage pour tous” (marriage for everyone). Yep. The biggie in France right now (apart from the herd of elephants in the corner called Angela Merkel, the Economist and the failing economy) is the new law that finally legalises same-sex marriages.

The debate is not so simple. Protests this weekend led to up to 100,000 catholics hitting the streets. In some cases we had violent scenes against the French version of FEMEN who had bullied the protesters in their usual topless garb with the words “IN GAY WE TRUST” writ all over their angry boobies (like angry birds but sexier) and spraying “Holy Sperm” out of cannisters. The religious organisations – still unable to get to grips with the very basis of laïcité are vociferous in their criticism. It’s not just the Malta of Tonio Borg that has obvious trouble coming to terms with certain concepts.

What was really intriguing were François Hollande’s declarations yesterday. Faced with a backlash from the mayors of many municipalities who found the idea of having to bind two persons of the same sex in marriage appalling he came up with a controversial solution. We still have freedom of conscience. He said. They are free to step back and nominate a delegate in their stead. He said. The possibilities of delegation can even be widened. He said. (In the likely scenario of a whole commune of representatives – from deputy mayor to cleaner of the Hotel de ville – refusing to preside over a lay marriage he is suggesting that they nominate “a valid outsider”).

Really François? How bloody socialist of you. Seems to me that the socialists of the 21st century are all bla and no substance. The proverbial men without balls (and women without…. oh you know… balls). What is the bloody point of asserting a right within a lay constitution only to say that there is a freedom of conscience involved and that the official person appointed by government to sanction that right might step out because he does not like it? Is the socialist movement asserting that it is a right or is it not? I’d love to see the gay mayor of Juan-les-Pins (disclaimer I don’t know whether he really is gay) refusing to sanction a heterosexual marriage… claiming that his conscience dictates otherwise. Where does this stop? What civic rights and duties could we thenceforth forego on the basis that we are conscientious objectors.

You know Monsieur Hollande, my conscience does not see paying exorbitant taxes in too good a light. I think I’ll take a pass and leave the tax form empty…. In today’s jargon messy Hollande deserves to have one big WTF? tattooed across his chest and paraded all along the Champs Elysées.

***

So while Hollande was busy crafting an escape vehicle for all the officials in his country whose conscience barred them from performing certain duties within their “portofoglio”, his colleagues within the European Socialist Party were taking a vote with regards to whether or not back that great Conscientious Politician Tonio Borg. In the end the Nays had it. Sure, socialist leader Swoboda seems to have quite a fancy for Tonio (not that kind Mr Borg) but for two-thirds of the grouping, Tonio had not provided enough guarantees. What guarantees I hear you ask? Well, the socialists in Europe expect Tonio Borg to never raise a conscientious objection to whatever projects the Commission embarks upon based on the laws of the treaties.

At the end of the session Maltese Labour MEP Edward Scicluna had this to say on facebook (where else?):

“An hour long humiliating experience I, as a Maltese, could have done without in group meeting today. Irreparable damage to our reputation. […] Condescendingly Malta pigeon-holed as the most backward and intolerant in Europe. This as a positive reason why EP should approve Borg.”

Apart from the fact that we have yet another example of garbled nonsense from yet another politician it is hard to decipher whether Scicluna is angrier at the fact that the Socialists were being condescending to Malta or whether he is angry at the fact that they seem to be intent on rejecting Borg’s nomination. Scicluna is a socialist himself so it would not be too big a deal were he trying to give the impression of both. They’re a strange breed these socialists – and they’re about to do another of their “free conscience” moves by allowing their europarliamentarians a “free vote” : which basically translates into “we cannot make head or tail about what we really want so best leave it to the disparate group to send a garbled message”.

***

Finally yesterday was also the day when the Church of England’s synod session continued. Hot on the agenda was the introduction of female bishops in a church that has already embraced the concept of lady priests (that’s not a cross-dressing father but an honest-to-god female with a dog collar). The “House of Laity” (The synod is tricameral, consisting of the House of Bishops, the House of Clergy and the House of Laity) fell 6 votes short of approving the motion that would allow women to be appointed Bishops. Both the House of Bishops and the House of Clergy had obtained the 2/3 majority necessary for the motion to pass but this fell at the final house – the one where the lay members of the church are represented.

The vote against women bishops included some women’s votes and this was a huge disappointment for the outgoing Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams. The new Archbishop Justin Welby has also described the vote as a disappointment. Interestingly, the Bishop of Christchurch (New Zealand – where female bishops have been ordained for decades) Victoria Matthews described the result of this vote as “the product of fear”.

***

21st century Europe might be afflicted with economic problems. Beneath these problems lies a deeper moment of crises that is shaking the foundations of our moral and political compasses. Much of what happens around us today is a result of this struggle that is afflicting or effecting the collective conscience of the Old World.