Tag: George Vella

Categories
COVID-19

Monetizing Disasters the Labour Way

Minister Clayton Bartolo is not having a good week at the office. The tourism sector for which he is responsible is the playing ground for a huge dilemma that pits two different priorities of a nation against each other. On the one hand, the sector depends heavily on the free movement of persons into the island – an economic priority of the first order. No tourists means no money to go round. On the other hand, the current resurge of the pandemic menas that measures need to be taken to protect the citizens of Malta from another dangerous wave.

Health vs Economy should be a no-brainer. In his interviews the Minister repeatedly uses keywords such as “caution” and “responsibility”. Each time he is forced to toe the fine line between encouraging the tourist sector’s economy and reassuring the rest of the nation that all steps are taken in a way not to imperil the health of the residents of the island. As we watch the story unfold it is not always so straightforward. The rush to reopen the tourist sector, especialy the language schools, has had some negative results that may be even more painful in the long-term.

Take for example the case of the stranded and quarantined students. Malta’s language school sector has taken a definitive negative blow in Italy with the coverage of the quarantine conditions that the Italian students have been obliged to live in. Have a look at the title of this article on La Stampa which I am sure disgraced former PM Joseph Muscat would love to read:

Coronavirus, Dubai non è come Malta. Lo studente bloccato: “Assistiti da medici e infermieri. Per i miei 18 anni una torta dal ministero della Salute”

(La Stampa)

Lovely no? Malta is now the reference point on the negative end of the scale. Insofar as dealing with the pandemic is concerned, we have moved from top of the class in Europe to being the bad example that no one wishes to emulate. Incidentally, you would have thought that with all the talk the tourism sector has going about its importance they would have mobilized their resources better in order to avoid this kind of situation.

Labour’s rush to capitalise on the UK’s green-lighting of Malta was symptomatic on the eagerness to monetize as quickly as possible and make up for lost time. Disguised in terms of “assisting recovery” of affected sectors, such decisions are clearly a result of a twisted outlook that is not new in Labour’s vocabulary. This outlook is based on an unprincipled money-based approach to monetize on any disastrous situation.

Back in 2011 a Joseph Muscat in opposition would speak of the advantages that would accrue to Malta thanks to the instability in North Africa following the Arab Spring. At the time I had commented:

” … there is something wrong when a progressive politician suggests taking advantage of the Arab Spring to boost national tourism. It gets worse when the same politician lauds Italy’s heavy-handed nationalism on the matter of immigration.”

Pulse, J’accuse on the Malta Independent on Sunday

The Labour party approach to international disasters or events is as unprincipled as it is ruthless. Again back in 2011 George Vella (now President, then aspirant foreign minister) saw the troubles in Libya as a possible boon for Malta since they could end up solving the immigration problem once, as George Vella put it, Libya became a Dubai in the Mediterranean attracting investment (see Labour Loves Libya on J’accuse in August 2011). Now if you set aside the inconsistencies between Muscat’s hopes of attracting that investment rerouted away from a troubled North Africa and Vella’s hope that the investment (and the immigrants) goes to Libya instead you find the bottom line: Malta gaining economically on the back of other disasters.

The problem with the pandemic is that turning Malta into an economic hyena also risks damaging irreparably our reputation in particular sectors while also aggravating the health situation on the island. As the saying goes: Prosit Minestri.

Categories
Mediawatch

Words of Abduction

abduction_akkuzaWhat is predicted to be Malta’s hottest August for years has begun under the sign of Martin Galea and the images of his post-abduction and freedom interview. The story of the abduction itself  should have turned out to be quite a straightforward one of abduction and rescue yet Muscat’s government have managed to turn this into another web of fishy explanations, hidden motives and bungled communications – to say the least.

Context

Context, a lot of it, is required. This is Libya following the rekindling of  what Western media describe as tribal rivalries. Not too long before the conflagration the government of Malta was busy signing Memoranda of Understanding with whoever was sitting in the shaky seat of power in Tripoli at the time. Any suggestion to the government of Malta that the Libyan situation was not at all safe and that it was about to explode once again into the warring factions we had seen in the post-Colonel scenario would be shot down with the usual arrogant panache that has become such a trademark Labour method in the domain of communications.

In mid-July Malta’s foreign Minister insisted that the situation in Libya was “not very serious” and that there was no need to evacuate Maltese citizens. It would soon become evident that notwithstanding our proximity to the Libyan realities and all the talk of our common history and heritage and friendship (all is well when you are signing an agreement for cheaper fuel) we apparently had no bloody clue what was going on. While other states withdrew their embassies (by July 27 even the US evacuated its Tripoli embassy) we were busy playing musical chairs with out politically appointed ambassador (aren’t they all) to-ing and fro-ing like a headless chicken on crack.

It is important to follow the trail of government speak in this story – especially when weighing who its real interlocutor is. When the government does seem to want to address the media (not only the selected media as on the China trip), it seems to have a second interlocutor in mind – one to whom it is intent on delivering a pleasant message.

Step back again to the days prior to the return to battle on Libyan territory. A few other incidents stick out like a sore thumb. First we had the mysterious Libyan being provided Malta state security in a Saint Paul’s Bay flat. Following some probing prompted by early questions raised on Caruana Galizia’s blog, the government was forced to comment on whether or not a Libyan national was being provided with state-funded security. It turned out that Libya’s former Deputy PM Sadiq Abdulkarim had fled to Malta. No confirmation was forthcoming from the government as to whether or not this was the same person being provided security. They had this to say:

Libya’s Deputy Prime Minister Sadiq Abdulkarim is living in Malta, this newspaper has learnt.A government spokesman would not confirm or deny it, simply saying it “would not comment on matters of national security”.Mr Abdulkarim, who was also Libya’s deputy PM while Ali Zeidan was prime minister, is living under heavily armed guard on the island. […]

Over the weekend, the government was quick to deny media speculation that Mr Zeidan was living in Malta. Government spokesman Carmelo Abela reiterated during a press conference on Tuesday that the man seen under heavy escort in St Paul’s Bay was not the former Libyan premier but said he could not give further details because of national security.

Eight days after the above quoted report, the Times of Malta reported that Zeidan and Abdulkarim had returned to Libya (June 20th). Mr Zeidan returned to the city of Beida where he “made an attempt to reclaim his premiership”. It was Garibaldi all over again. A short rest in Malta before returning to retake the country – or so they thought. As for the Maltese government it stood by its “national security” dictate.

A second interesting development before the fighting began again in Libya was the accusation that Malta or some Maltese were involved in the smuggling of fuel from Libya.Tellingly this allegation surfaced on June 18th in the Maltese press – following its first appearance in a Reuters report. Here’s the Times:

Meetings are being held between senior security personnel in Malta and Libya to verify allegations of fuel smuggling from Libya to Malta and take all decisions necessary to curb such activities, the Foreign Ministry said.

It said the latest developments would also be discussed between Minister George Vella and his Libyan counterpart later today.

The ministry was reacting to a Reuters report that large amounts of fuel were being smuggled from Libya to Malta – even as angry motorists queued in Tripoli and the state oil firm struggled to deliver due to a lack of security at petrol stations

“This phenomena is a threat to Libya and affects national security,” the government said in a statement after Prime Minister Abdullah al-Thinni met Malta’s ambassador.

This time it was Libya’s government ranting away about “national security”. Curiously these events take place on June 18th, two days before Zeidan and Abdulkarim leave Malta to “reclaim the premiership”. On June 20th we have Libyan PM Abdullah Al-Thinni meeting the Maltese ambassador to voice his concerns while Foreign Minister George Vella met his counterpart in Al-Thinni’s government. There is something very confusing about the Maltese government’s dealing with Libya as a whole. On the one hand it is presumably (strong evidence backs this presumption) providing safe harbour to the deputy of the claimant to the “throne” in Tripoli but on the other hand it is also negotiating with (and therefore clearly recognising) the man occupying the coveted “throne”. 

Of course you are entitled to think that in this way the Maltese government is on “friendly terms” with all sides in the fractious break up of Libya. There is a high probability that the Maltese government is hedging its bets and hoping that whichever side is victorious then it can quickly cosy up and resume its agreements regarding oil procurement and immigration problem solving. Aside from the moral implications of this kind of foreign policy, one question remains to be answered? What weight does the Maltese government carry when push comes to shove in Libyan matters?

There’s one final piece of the context puzzle before moving on. This time we go back to May 2014 – a month before the events began to precipitate. Consul Maria Farrugia is called back to Malta on allegations of VISA fraud. Another piece of the network of foreign representatives being replaced by Taghna Lkoll Government appointees crumbles. This time, rather than simply recalling the diplomat we have charges of VISA fraud. Whether such allegations turn out to be substantiated or not is another story – what is important here is that our man in Tripoli is another political appointee who, as it turns out, becomes useless in the moment of need. Farrugia would be recalled at the time of Galea’s abduction and – if you were to take the abductees word for it – would be fundamental for his release.

This is not an abduction

So there you have it. This is the context in which we can better see the news behind the abduction of Martin Galea. Galea was abducted on Thursday July 17th while working for private company NAGECO as a health and Safety advisor. The government of Malta had to wait for his release, his return to Malta, his medical examination and finally for the incontrovertible truth explained in a TMI video interview before it finally conceded that this was an abduction. From the 17th of July till the end of the month, the governments’ handling of the issue begs more questions than it provides answers. With the above context in mind the questions that can and should be asked are the following:

Once the government was apprised of the fact that Martin Galea was missing and possibly abducted how was this information processed and prioritised? We are told that the government was informed of the abduction on Sunday 20th (Joseph Muscat statement in Parliament) and that it started working with the police and diplomatic service to contact the abductors. As late as July 30th statements by Civil Service head Martin Cutajar still insisted that the government never used the word “abduction” – adding that “it was the media who called it an abduction.

It was not just Cutajar, OPM Communications Head Kurt Farrugia also added that “the exact sequence of events was never clear, and the government never had direct contact with whoever was holding Mr Galea”.  In an interview with MaltaToday, a Libyan militia leader (Ayman Al Madani) also denied that Mr Galea was ever abducted. Saying that he played a role in securing Galea’s release he insisted that the Maltese national was not abducted, but taken in by a Warshafana militia when fighting broke out on the road he was travelling on.

Al Maydani has a Libyan contact in Malta – Khaled Ebrahim Ben Nasan who had asked him to enquire about Galea’s disappearance. Ben Nasan seems to have been brought into the picture by Malta’s ambassador to Libya Mannie Galea who, according to the MT interview ” asked him to intervene in the rescue of Galea on midnight of Saturday 26 July, the day after news broke that Galea had disappeared.” This last statement is interesting because it shows a lapse of 6 days between when the government knew of the abduction (20th July) and when Ambassador Mannie Galea contacted possible intermediaries. Did Ambassador Mannie Galea only get to know on the 26th July? It does not sound reasonable.

Also, what is all this concern about toning down the “abduction” and describing it as a case of being secluded for his own security? Which counterparts in Libya are being accomodated by this version of events? Does this in any way have anything to do with the hedging of bets with the internal situation in Libya? If a militia had indeed abducted Martin Galea was somebody making sure that no toes were stepped upon and no feathers were ruffled in case this militia transforms into a “government counterpart”? Whose security was being given priority?

Much has also been made of Ambassador Galea’s absence from the scene – he was nowhere to be seen at the victorious set-up at Luqa Airport upon Martin Galea’s return to Malta. Instead we heard Martin Galea say that he owed his life to Marisa Farrugia, the supposedly disgraced consul who had been whipped back in action by the government to bring back the person who had (according to the official line) not been abducted by one of the militias vying for power in civil war torn Libya. Complicated?

There are other questions of course. The government, through its spokesman Cutajar, insisted as late as the 30th of July that “‘competent authorities’ are still putting together the circumstances of what happened to oil worker Martin Galea who was held by Libyan militias for 12 days and brought back to Malta on Monday evening.” Cutajar also stated that Martin Galea “was given different versions of who the group who took him were”. Meanwhile Kurt Farrugia confirmed Cutajar’s statement adding:

“the government never said it was an abduction. “We chose our words carefully to protect Galea’s life especially when we didn’t have the full picture of the situation. We were still evaluating the situation, and the word ‘abduction’ was used by the media. We always made it clear that the government never had direct contact with whoever took him”. (MaltaToday, 30 July)

As I mentioned earlier it would take Martin Galea’s Independent interviews to get the government to ‘admit’ that it was an abduction. There are more telling points in Farrugia’s statements. There is the admission that the government was rarely on top of the situation. Notwithstanding that this was a country with whom an MOU had been signed earlier that month and that this was country where there was ‘no reason to worry’, the government proved to be rather inept at reacting properly on the ground.

Why not use the term abduction? For whose safety exactly? How exactly does an abduction get worse by calling it an abduction? One possible explanation is that the government wanted to ‘legitimise’ the abductors. A line similar to that sold by militia leader Al Madani would explain this. Theirs was not an abduction but Galea was simply kept aside for his own security. Of course none of this makes sense once you hear about Galea’s ordeal but for a government that puts much weight in the power of persuasion through words, not calling an abduction an abduction must have made a lot of sense.

Also, on the 30th July, the OPM Communications Chief confirms that “the government never made contact with whoever took him (Galea)”. Interesting. So essentially we have clear evidence that notwithstanding all the fanfare with Muscat and Manuel Mallia at Luqa airport, the government had little or no say in negotiating the release of the abductee Galea. So how and why was he released? How are we to interpret his words that it is to Marisa Farrugia that he owes his life?

Were there parallel efforts by different entities all doing their damned best to liberate a person who for all official intents and purposes had not really been abducted? There is evidently much that we are not being told. Muscat’s government has tried to minimise the escalation of troubles in Libya and it is evident that it has much at stake (as a party as much as a government) in the outcome of the troubles. Galea’s abduction was a major inconvenience for the official line that had hitherto attempted to understate the extent of upheaval happening to the south of our Republic.

A network of interests, dues and counter-dues somehow keeps trying to surface while Muscat’s government seems more and more inept and unprepared to take a clear line vis-a-vis Libya. More importantly it becomes more and more evident that the main interest for Muscat’s government when dealing with Libya is not the much vaunted “national interest” but rather a web of party and individual commitments and investments.

One last evident victim that comes out battered from such an experience (notwithstanding what increasingly seems to be the fortuitous liberation of Galea) is the whole branch of the foreign ministry and network of diplomats. When push comes to shove the real damage of privileging political appointments over meritocratic and technocratic employment of trained personnel is dangerously exposed in such situations.

In such situations, Muscat’s hypnotic hold over popular thought using his “Magritte technique” and calling something what it is not (or denying something is what it is) begins to show huge cracks and signs of breaking.

Ceci n’est pas un enlèvement!

(This is not an abduction).

 

 

 

 

Categories
Campaign 2013 Uncategorized

The Hidden Hand, Fundamentalist Liberals and other tales

Something strange happened in parliament yesterday. George Vella meant to congratulate Tonio Borg for his appointment to the post of Commissioner and apparently did so. In doing so though he came up with some weird theory about a “hidden hand” that could have been behind John Dalli’s resignation (so he did resign?) and the opposition to Tonio Borg. I have developed a pavlovian reaction to any kind of conspiracy theory that involves “hidden hands” or “evil cliques” or “axis of terror” so George Vella does not kick off to a good start with me on this point.

It gets worse though. I am not about to speculate on whether or not the “hidden hand” really exists and what the purpose of this veiled limb might really be because I’d rather concentrate on the metamessages that filtered through before and after Tonio’s victorious vote in the EP.

Labour’s National Interest

George Vella’s “hidden hand” theory was wrapped in the sweet progressive packaging of a collective Labour message dubbed “Fl-Interess Nazzjonali” (in the national interest). There was some interesting reading to be had there. Leader Joseph had committed the pack to backing Tonio while explaining that it would not be an easy affair – presumably because he had some insider info as to what would be happening to Tonio Borg’s CV in the run up to the vote. Which can only mean one thing – that Labour’s men knew of the ideological baggage problematics that would surface during the grilling and in the run up to the vote.

So what did progressive labour do? It is not a given fact that Labour should have joined the wolves baying for Tonio’s blood simply because it is supposed to be “progressive”. That definition of progressive plays into the hands of the “liberals are intolerant bigots” crowd in any case. There had to be a reason though why Labour actually wanted to back Tonio Borg’s nomination. It could have been easier after all joining the sceptic wing of the socialist grouping who kept requesting commitment after commitment from the nominee. Instead Labour joined the Borg Backers. They claimed to be ashamed of the belittling of Malta and its portrayal as a backward nation – not too clear whether they were disappointed because this was the stark reality or simply because calling Malta names is just not done.

So when it came to saying why they backed Tonio they came up with what Wilfred Owen called “The Old Lie” – national interest. Mintoff must be applauding in his tomb. In other words Labour does not have a principled position on Tonio Borg. Labour just wanted Tonio Borg’s vote to go through “għax Malti”. A bit like the rush to get likes for some obscure international competition simply because we should back people who are  Maltese you know.In the end Labour just showed that it has absolutely no clout within its europarliament grouping and that once again it is a party that is unable to stand up for a principle whenever necessary.

Free votes. Thank God they don’t cost money.

The Nationalists and Fundamentalist Liberals

While the Labour party hid behind the “babaw barrani” or as he is to be known henceforth “the hidden hand” to hide their spineless antics, the nationalist party upped the ante in an area in which it is an expert. We witnessed over a few weeks the demonisation and character assassination of anything remotely liberal. By grouping the bungling idiots who upstaged Tonio Borg’s “grilling” with misinformed questions with those who are genuinely concerned with Tonio Borg’s suitability the nationalists adapted their “zokk u l-fergha” campaign to the present set of circumstances.

Suddenly requesting a commitment from Tonio Borg with regards to certain points which remained open to doubt after his grilling made someone “a liberal bigot”. Rubbish. They were entitled to request whatever commitments they deemed necessary. Once Tonio signed them they should have also got on with it and voted him in. They had his written word after all. That Tonio still has to deal with his conscience in those particular circumstances where he will be working on programmes that are not compatible with his beliefs is neither here nor there. So long as he does the job it’s fine. At most he can hold his nose while dealing with the shit. Or resign. Either that or he should have done as Eddie Fenech Adami advised him and never signed that list.

But back to the nationalist’s new chimera. They are fast transforming the image into one reminiscent of the baby-eating communists of the early post-war. Liberals, they’ll rape your children and sleep with your pet cat if you’re not too careful. Liberals, they’re intolerant and don’t know where they left their manners. We know it’s a load of rubbish but the PN machine is in full swing to shoot down these upstarts who might differ from them on more than one point of principle.

The funny thing is that ideally many of these liberals who are in a silent minority potentially form part of the critical mass of swing votes. Even funnier is the fact that no matter how much of a battering they will get from the PN, come election day they will be faced with the usual “wasted vote” dilemma and before you know it it’s a nice number 1 next to Manuel Delia et al.

Middle Fingers

You’ve got to admit. It’s a weird political world that we inhabit. Our progressives are busy warning us about the foreign hidden hands that militate against our national interest. Our conservatives are busy accusing those of a mildly more liberal opinion of being intolerant and fundamentalist. As all this goes on the parties agree to bury the hatchet to pass a very conservative IVF law, still have not got anywhere on the question of same-sex marriages and will be darned before they admit that their house is not open to the normal sort of liberal democrats.

Meanwhile the spin machines will easily oblige with a few articles here and there balancing the need to shoot at Labour with the need to emphasise at how useless the bunch of wishy washy liberals is. All the while they fail to get the joke.

And the joke is on them.

note: attached image is an early one from the notorious shtf collection that has suddenly become topical again

Categories
Jasmine

Labour Loves Libya

George Vella, Malta’s possible future Foreign Minister has drawn his own conclusion about the best possible outcome that could result from the toppling of Gaddhafi. The Times online title says it all: “Libya can boom and ‘absorb’ immigrants“. Nothing wrong there really is there? I mean surely we cannot criticize George for hoping that Libya gets on its own two feet economically and thus act as a magnet to all potential North African emigrants. Let’s see how George put it (our highlights).

Libya could become an investment hub, “the Dubai of the Mediterranean”, and it could also capitalise on its white sandy beaches and crystal-clear waters to become a front-runner in the tourism industry, he said. Throwing into the mix its oil riches and small population density, if Libya opened to free trade it was bound to begin “absorbing” immigrants rather than remain a stepping stone into Europe, Dr Vella argued.

Right. I guess in the world of Realpolitik this is definitely much nicer and presentable than a plan to round up immigrants and send them back into the welcoming arms of deranged Colonel Gaddhafi (Gieh ir-Repubblika et al). When we remember Labour’s last pronouncement with regards to the Arab Spring  though, it tends to bring out an unpleasant truth about the party that is suddenly become (at least according to some ) the bastion of Civil Liberties. Do we not remember Joseph Muscat’s gaffe that the troubles in North Africa might bring about an economic boost to Malta’s ailing tourism industry?

Joseph was busy holding an “Iftar” with the Muslim community so he might have missed George’s latest solution to Malta’s immigration woes. Pity. It would be good to know whether this reflects general Labour thinking or whether it is just a frijvowt issue – where opinions are like genitals… to each his own.  Here is what Joseph said at the Iftar…

Dr Muscat said he expected that the PL would be criticised  for its initiative to hold this ceremony, but this strengthened the party as an organisation which wanted to bring down barriers and believed in a society which respected everyone.

Respected everyone? Sure. So long as the dregs of the earth and the hapless immigrants find some other economy to drain. Who knows.. if Libya booms and absorbs well enough there might be no one to attend PL’s Iftar come a few years time… I wonder… would that be a bonus or a minus? Don’t ask me.

Ask George.

Or Joseph.

 

***

Addendum: other interesting George Vella observations:

  • not too in favour of NATO (old habits die hard)
  • Western countries had always been motivated by their own interests, including personal political interests and the economic interests of their countries. Malta, throughout history, also had to look after its interests, he said (Malta. L-ewwel u qabel kollox)
  • “Malta did not choose its neighbour. Love or hate Gaddafi, we had to do business with him. No one ever agreed with his politics. We are democrats not dictators,” he said. All administrations had to remain close to the Gaddafi regime. (realpolitik revisited)