Changing times

This week saw an important development in European politics – the formation of the Juncker Commission. Meanwhile, Simon Busuttil declared that the Opposition will be supporting Karmenu Vella’s nomination at the European Parliament – proof once again of the Opposition’s positive contribution.

The Opposition’s support comes notwithstanding the fact that Prime Minister Joseph Muscat failed to inform, let alone consult, and totally ignored the Opposition prior to making this nomination public. Things worked out differently in Tonio Borg’s case and Joseph Muscat should have known better – it is he who had been consulted by former Prime Minister Gonzi prior to making the nomination public.

In any case, the Nationalist Opposition is in it to make things different, to contribute even if it had been treated otherwise.

Scotland’s yes or no

You see, history does not always repeat itself. In Mel Gibson’s film, Braveheart, a production favouring Scottish independence, the King of England marched in on the Scots to regain lost territory by force. Earlier this week, British Prime Minister David Cameron visited Scotland in a much less arrogant way, trying to persuade, but close to begging the Scots, to vote against independence.

His visit, accompanied by Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg and Opposition Leader Ed Miliband, seems to have been an orchestrated last minute attempt to persuade the majority of Scots.

In truth, Scottish independence will come at a price. The European Union has already stated in no uncertain terms, that an independent Scotland would need to reapply for EU membership. On the other hand, an independent Scotland with the British pound could create far-reaching sovereignty problems. I will not be dragged into whether Scotland should be independent. This is a matter for the Scots to decide.

With a few days to go for Scotland’s independence referendum, the pressure is on as for the first time the Yes campaign seems to have surpassed those against. If anyone thought the British Empire’s collapse was over, they ought to think again. That is, if this referendum makes it through.

The threat is still on

This week marked the 13th anniversary of the September 11 attacks – an event that ended the lives of 3,000 people. The threat of terror has transformed from Al Qaeda into a new group – Islamic State. For a moment, it seems our world can never settle down in peace.

President Obama has pledged to train and arm friendly rebels in Iraq and Syria, where it is reported the ISIL have made substantial gains. What is worrying is the fact that a number of European and American extremists have joined ISIL. This is a new concept for the way in which terrorists have worked so far.

The engagement of western nationals with ISIL makes the penetration of terror in Europe and America much more plausible. It will certainly prove to be more difficult to hunt down and pinpoint terrorists, as now they have become one of us, with unrestricted travel rights.

While Obama has pledged to eradicate and destroy ISIL, his will probably be a mission that extends beyond his current presidency mandate. This mission has authorised the targeted bombing of terrorist posts in Syria and Iraq. While its primary target will be that of undermining ISIL, it will have other secondary effects.

In Syria, it will help the rebel forces in securing their positions, halt the advance of the Assad regime, and possibly pave the way for an advance. Syria’s civil war has now entered its third year, with the United Nations declaring a death toll of almost 200,000, mostly civilians and rebels opposing the Assad regime.

Obama’s authorisation of targeted military strikes in Syria is thus in a way, a departure from his previous policy strategies. We have seen him reluctant to act against the Assad regime, when the latter was backed by Russia and following evidence that the regime had used chemical weapons of mass destruction. Obama kept a step back then, but did not hesitate to act now. One reason for this escalation in policy could relate to the fact that Assad did not offer perhaps a direct threat to international and American security, as did ISIL.

When the subject of terror crops up, I cannot understand how many associate or assimilate ISIL terrorists’ actions with Islam. If the terrorists are Muslims, they certainly do not represent the Muslim religion. Some basic form of knowledge on the Muslim religion, or perhaps having spent some time in the company of a Muslim friend, would suffice to appreciate the distinction between the two.

This is essential for the Western world to understand. We all believe in a day when all the citizens of the world can live together. For that to happen – hopefully some day it will – it is necessary to put aside our misconceptions and prejudices based on religion. At the same time, we cannot be naïve – surely this will not suffice as long as there remains some form of evil.