The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants against Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu and the former defence minister, Yoav Gallant.
The ICC declares there are “reasonable grounds to believe” they are guilty of crimes against humanity and war crimes committed in Gaza between October 8 last year and, at least, until May 20 this year. The EU’s High Representative, Josep Borrell declares the warrants are binding; EU states cannot pick and choose.
The warrants oblige members of the ICC, like Malta, to arrest Netanyahu and Gallant if they enter national territory. How did Malta respond? It mumbled something about respect for the ICC but evaded saying if it would arrest Bibi. Malta says it needs to see if the EU develops a common position.
This stance is so wrong it needs explaining.
Spain, the Netherlands, Ireland, Italy and Belgium have all declared they would comply. France said nothing direct about arrests but indicated it would comply with the ICC statutes. Austria scoffed at the charges but acknowledged it would be obliged to comply. Hungary’s Viktor Orban went against the grain: he invited Netanyahu to visit after declaring he’d defy the ICC.
Unlike Malta, all those countries responded by making up their own mind. Even Germany, which says it needs to examine the implications, isn’t looking to anyone else for leadership.
However, our government, which brags of Labour’s record in making Malta’s decisions free of foreign influence, is looking at Brussels, hoping a decision on Netanyahu will be taken out of its hands.
This is bizarre behaviour given Malta’s longstanding, bipartisan foreign policy. In the past, Malta consistently resisted international pressure to trim its position on Palestinian rights and statehood. It was not afraid to be awkward. It was among the first to give diplomatic recognition to Palestinian representatives.
A peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is in our national interest. Anything less would continue to destabilise our region, setting back Malta’s own development.
Likewise, we have a vested strategic interest in the rule of international law. It’s our best protection against the brute muscle of bigger states.
Yet, look at the mixed messages we’re sending now. With one breath, Malta boasts of its current work on the UN Security Council: “Look! We’re taking the lead on initiatives to secure peace and prosperity!” With the next breath, we’re hoping someone else will take the ICC decision for us.
We’re tongue-tied about a decision that affects our neighbourhood directly. We’ve never been tongue-tied before.
Why? There are two possibilities: the weakness of the case or external pressure.
Does Malta doubt the merits of the ICC’s case? It charges Netanyahu with depriving Gaza’s population of the right to life and health, by disrupting healthcare and supplies of food and water, with no clear military justification.
We have a vested strategic interest in the rule of international law. It’s our best protection against the brute muscle of bigger states- Ranier Fsadni
At this stage, the ICC cannot put up all the evidence it has for fear of witness tampering. But journalists and human rights organisations have provided enough evidence to give “reasonable grounds to believe” the charges.
If Malta thinks the evidence is flimsy, why not say so? Austria calls the charges “ludicrous” while saying it would carry out the arrests. Weak evidence would lead to the accused being acquitted or the charges vacated. It’s happened more than once in the ICC’s short history.
Netanyahu says the ICC is “anti-Semitic”. The Economist magazine has made short shrift of that. It’s the first time the ICC has charged Israeli officials. The ICC’s focus has mainly been African warlords and despots.
More recently, the ICC has charged Russian officials. Here, Malta has not been shy. Last year, Malta walked out on an informal UN Security Council briefing by Russia’s commissioner for children, Maria Lvova-Belova, since she is indicted for war crimes. What a contrast with Malta’s behaviour now.
If it’s not the strength of the case, or doubts about the ICC, then it must be external pressure.
Earlier this year, there was great surprise when Malta didn’t join Spain, Ireland and Norway in recognising Palestinian statehood. It would have been a small logical step for Malta, since it already recognises Palestinian ambassadors.
At the time, it was suspected the US was exerting pressure on behalf of its ally, Israel. The US had helped Malta get off the FATF grey list and the rumour was the US was cashing in. But how long can you keep cashing in? There’s another possibility. It’s not about a past debt but a future prize: membership of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, which Malta has been striving for since 2005. A year ago, the foreign minister, Ian Borg, announced Malta was to apply formally in the first months of this year.
Coincidentally, Malta began to backtrack on its longstanding policy on Palestinian rights and statehood at around the time it was revving up its OECD ambitions. It just so happens that Israel, already an OECD member, can veto our membership.
Is Israel holding us to ransom? And is Malta meekly giving in, sacrificing its own long-term national interest? Perish the thought!
I’m positively sure we have far-sighted lions for national leaders. Their principled respect for all victims at home fills me with confidence: they are striving to put Malta at the heart of OECD decision-making so that, the next time anyone slaughters over 40,000 people, of whom 16,500 are children, everyone will pay attention when Malta stands up to lecture them on basic human decency.