Editorial: See no evil, hear no evil

In March 2011, Malta found itself drawn into the drama unfolding just across the Mediterranean when two fighter jets belonging to Muammar Gaddafi’s regime landed on the island after their pilots refused orders to bomb civilians in Libya. Libya was in turmoil, western intervention was looming and Malta was geographically and politically exposed.

The next day, then prime minister Lawrence Gonzi addressed the country and made his position clear: Malta would not return the aircraft to Gaddafi’s regime and also stated that the Libyan leader’s departure from power was “inevitable”. It was a bold stance concerning a country on the brink of civil war on our doorstep.

Fast forward 15 years and a Russian gas tanker blows up between Malta and Libya, probably as a result of a military strike linked to the Russia-Ukraine war.

Within hours of the blast being exposed by the media (not the authorities), the political discussion quickly descended into a partisan argument between the government and the opposition over whether the incident took place in Malta’s search-and-rescue region or Libya’s.

There was no discussion over who could have been responsible for the attack or if the vessel was carrying any potentially dangerous material.

While the government and the opposition spoke to each other on the matter, within hours we saw a political ping-pong of partisan claims and accusations, some verging on infantile.

What we should have expected was a clear unequivocal statement of fact from the government when the fallout of war comes close to Malta. This is the second time it’s happened in less than a year.

Last May, a humanitarian vessel destined for Gaza was reportedly damaged by drones outside Maltese waters. While no one formally claimed responsibility, several sources pointed towards Israel. Once again, the government’s reaction was muted and largely limited to stressing that the incident did not occur in Maltese territorial waters.

It is true that small states must sometimes navigate the international diplomatic stage even more carefully. But that does not mean we lose our voice, become indifferent, or present a false image to our own people

One can understand the instinct for caution. Malta is the smallest EU state and constitutionally neutral. In an era of growing geopolitical tension, it is reasonable for any government to avoid rhetoric that could unnecessarily inflame matters.

It is also true that small states must sometimes navigate the international diplomatic stage even more carefully.

But that does not mean we lose our voice, become indifferent, or present a false image to our own people.

Drone strikes, cyberattacks and shadow fleet operations are reshaping the geography of conflict. And the targets are not just warships.

Had the Russian vessel destroyed been carrying oil rather than liquefied gas, the consequences would have been devastating, whether it was located in Malta’s search and rescue zone or not. It could disrupt vital infrastructure, including reverse osmosis plants that provide most of the country’s potable water, not to mention the potential blow to tourism.

Malta is fortunate to have a strong economy and healthy public finances, and the government has the capacity to cushion certain external shocks. But we do not have unlimited resources.

Instead of continuing to plunder taxpayers’ money on vanity projects, the government should assure its people that it is doing its utmost to identify and possibly thwart any threats, while protecting the environment and food chains.

For too long, we have comforted ourselves with the belief that neutrality (and subsidies) somehow insulates us from the brutal realities of modern warfare.

We are not advocating alarmism – no one is suggesting that the government should issue dramatic warnings of impending war. But citizens deserve honest assessments of the potential risks of the volatile world we are living in. We simply need to recognise that, even if it risks political comfort.