Nuts? Definitely. Senile? Not at all…

Here is a simple age test you can all try at home. Ask someone – anyone – what they understand by ‘Iz-Zero’. Any answer that can be classified under ‘I don’t know’ will instantly prove the person in question cannot be older than (very maximum) 36. 

Anyone who answers ‘Renato Zero’ will inadvertently reveal not just their age – 40 minimum – but quite possibly other personal details, too.

Meanwhile, those who correctly identify ‘Iz-Zero’ as a term of endearment for a certain former Maltese prime minister… those will have been born mid-1970s at the very latest; and most likely to a Nationalist household to boot.

For those born later, and who still have no idea what I’m talking about… the prime minister who once went by that nickname is a certain Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici. ‘Zero’ was a reference to the precise number of votes he had attracted before being co-opted to Parliament, directly as party leader (thus, de facto, prime minister), by Dom Mintoff in 1984.

Naturally, it lost some of its currency after 1987: the first election Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici ever actually contested, though he had been Prime Minister for three years. But its use persisted all the same… with people justifying the continued habit as a reference to the precise amount of logic that went into practically everything he ever said.

One of the things Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici said recently – in the wake of last week’s Paris attacks, and France’s call for a concerted European response – was this: 

“If Malta allows French ships to enter its ports, then it must also allow entry to ships belonging to the Islamic State… If Malta offers humanitarian aid to France, then it must also offer the same level of aid to IS…”

Well, that’s what I call a blast from the past, and no mistake. And there is a crumb of comfort in there somewhere, too. The man who uttered the above absurdity is no longer prime minister. So he can be as utterly illogical as he likes, and it won’t make a jot of difference to anyone…

That, at any rate, was how I interpreted his words: I who am but dust and ashes… but who also remember the days when Karmenu wielded power in this country… more power, too, than is even possible for a prime minister to ever wield in Malta again.

But again, age plays a significant role in interpretation, in this great age of Internet discussion. Those with no actual memory of the 1980s immediately leapt to the conclusion that he must be ‘senile’. And the misinterpretation was incredibly widespread, too. 

Senile? Karmenu? No, no, no, no. Senile dementia implies a loss of cognitive faculties as a result of age. Mifsud Bonnici may fall into the sort of age bracket most commonly affected, yes… but there is no evidence of any loss of faculties. This is exactly the same Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici of 30 years ago, unchanged in any detail. Not only is the amount of logic in that statement exactly the same as it always was – zero – but the argument itself is indistinguishable from all other earlier remarks about Malta’s Constitutional neutrality.

That is to say: it tells us nothing at all about Constitutional neutrality itself, but a very great deal about the befuddled, half-baked and intrinsically flawed concept of ‘neutrality’ that exists in Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici’s mind… and, to be fair, the minds of many others in this country.

Inherent in that argument is the same absurd logic that defines Constitutional impartiality when it comes to political broadcasting. If TVM offered 2.38 seconds’ worth of coverage of the Labour Party’s press conference, then it must also offer 2.38 seconds to the PN’s press conference: regardless whether both those events were about as newsworthy as a crock of horseshit.

But let’s stick to Karmenu’s argument, and what it tells us about the country that appointed him prime minister. It is worth noting that Mifsud Bonnici claimed to have been quoting the Maltese Constitution at the time: both with regard to offering the same level of support to ISIS as to France, and also with regard to this:

“We cannot treat some countries as allies and others as enemies; we must either offer our services and facilities to everybody or to nobody,” he said. 

Erm… which part of the Constitution is he quoting, exactly? Article 3 is the one about neutrality. It is too long to reproduce in full, but here is the main thrust: “3) Malta is a neutral state actively pursuing peace, security and social progress among all nations by adhering to a policy of non-alignment and refusing to participate in any military alliance.”

There are five subsections, variously observing that: “no foreign military base will be permitted on Maltese territory”… “no military facilities in Malta will be allowed to be used by any foreign forces [with a number of caveats]”; “no other facilities in Malta will be allowed […] as will amount to the presence in Malta of a concentration of foreign forces”; “no foreign military personnel will be allowed on Maltese territory [more caveats]”; and “the shipyards of the Republic of Malta will be used for civil commercial purposes, but may also be used, within reasonable limits of time and quantity, for the repair of military vessels […] The said shipyards will be denied to the military vessels of the two superpowers.”

And… nope: that’s the extent of it. Somehow, I must have missed the part which said that “Malta must play the part of referee in other countries’ wars, ensuring that both sides get equal assistance and fight on a level playing field.” Maybe it’s in the extended remix, or director’s cut…

This brings me to the truly bizarre aspect of Karmenu’s latest outburst: which, incidentally, is no different in substance from any of his former contributions on this subject. If anyone in this country should know the Constitutional neutrality article by heart, it is the man who was prime minister when Malta became a neutral and non-aligned country. It was his own government that actually entrenched Article 3 in 1987, for crying out loud. Those subsections were debated in Parliament. I even remember Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici himself discussing them one by one.

Yet all along, the man on whose watch Malta’s neutrality clause was actually hammered out had a different concept of neutrality entrenched in his own head. And because he was prime minister at the time – a position thrust upon him, and certainly not achieved – practically half the country automatically adopted his own, flawed interpretation of ‘neutrality’… instead of the one actually inscribed into the Constitution.

This in turn explains why so many people here seem to think that Malta is indeed a neutral, non-aligned country… when in fact we are nothing of the kind. 

Countries do not become ‘neutral’ just because their former Prime Minister thinks they are. Nor do they even become ‘neutral’ just because their Constitution says they are. Neutrality is the product of international relations: you are as neutral as other countries recognise you to be neutral, no more, no less. 

And in Malta’s case, our neutrality is recognised by no one but ourselves… according to the terms of a former prime minister who doesn’t even know the meaning of the word.

If you look at the clause again, you will realise that not a single one of those subsections actually binds any other country apart from Malta. The Constitution sets limits only on what Malta can and cannot permit in terms of military presence on its own territory. It tells us nothing about how other countries are supposed to react if Malta is ever invaded (in which case, the precise meaning of ‘neutrality’ would become rather important, don’t you think?).

The original intention behind the 1987 Constitutional amendment was to get Malta’s neutrality guaranteed by Italy and Libya (this at a time when the two countries were as close to open war as they’d ever been… Ustica, the Lampedusa missile strike, Gaddafi, Bettino Craxi, etc.)

It didn’t actually happen. Libya never provided any guarantees… and even if it did, the country now lies in tatters, unable to agree on a single government… so any former agreements are null and void in practice.

As for Italy, my understanding is that there is a military defence agreement, concluded in 1983, obliging the country to intervene if Malta’s sovereign territory is violated. But Italy is a NATO country. It also has obligations to support other NATO members… while Malta’s constitutional neutrality explicitly prohibits membership in a military alliance 

So what would happen if Malta were invaded by a NATO country? 

Karmenu Mifusd Bonnici, the architect of Malta’s neutrality, doesn’t have an answer to this question. And it’s not the only detail that is entirely absent from his imaginary neutrality concept, either.

Speaking of ‘other countries’: since when does the term apply to ISIS? Last I looked, the organisation styling itself ‘Islamic State’ was actually a motley assortment of homicidal maniacs: advertising itself as a recruitment service for all the world’s psychopaths. They just killed 170 people in Paris alone… on top of the tens of thousands of people they’d already slaughtered: the overwhelming majority of whom have been other Muslims.

That’s stretching the definition of ‘country’ slightly, if you ask me. As with neutrality, the status of ‘country’ is not there just to be conferred upon oneself. It must be recognised by other countries, if the status is to have any meaning at all in the real world.

And this is true even for relatively harmless organisations with aspirations to statehood. To extend the honour to a bunch of murderous brutes like ISIS is not just absurd: it is downright repulsive. 

By Mifsud Bonnici’s reasoning, Italy should regard the Mafia on the same footing as the forces of law and order. So any assistance given by the Italian government to the police or Carabinieri, should be balanced out by equal contributions to organised crime. 

That’s the thing about being a Zero, I suppose. You can add, subtract, multiply or divide all you like... but a Zero it will always remain. 

And yet, illogical and unsound as his arguments are, Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici is nothing if not 100% consistent all the way. His concept of ISIS as a ‘state’ – to be placed on par with France, no less – is logically akin to his own concept of neutrality for Malta in every detail.

ISIS is a ‘state’ in exactly the same way as Malta is a ‘neutral country’. It simply decided one day to call itself that… and to hell with all the usual international formalities.