Give peace a chance, just shut up

There is something almost touching about Prime Minister Robert Abela’s belief that his (Labour) government alone embodies Malta and its aspirations.

When he tells us that “we” are flirting with US President Donald Trump’s latest vanity project, he projects Malta. When civil society, on the other side of the coin, dares to protest Trump, suddenly they are nobody.

In the same breath, Abela managed to entertain an invitation to join Trump’s so‑called “Board of Peace”, and lecture Repubblika for protesting Trump, because – wait for it – they do not represent Malta.  In fact, they are a faction of the PN, turning opposition to Trump and support for him into a Labour/PN flashpoint in one fell swoop.

The cognitive dissonance is impressive.

Trump’s “Board of Peace” is not diplomacy or anything worth giving credence to. It is a loyalty club with a paywall, creating a lifetime chairman with veto power and no Nobel Peace Prize, with a concept of peace that looks suspiciously like a branding exercise with geopolitical consequences.

Europe knows this. Most EU states have reacted with visible discomfort. Only Hungary and Bulgaria rushed in, which tells you everything you need to know.

And yet Malta is “weighing” the invitation. Neutral Malta. Constitutionally neutral Malta. Neutrality‑as‑identity Malta. Apparently, neutrality now comes with a footnote: We’re neutral unless the invitation is shiny and comes from a “special” US President with authoritarian instincts and a fondness for icy strongmen.

Abela would prefer we believe this is statesmanship. It isn’t. It smacks of opportunism disguised as pragmatism. Malta is not being asked to mediate peace. It’s being asked to lend legitimacy. There is a difference, and Abela knows it.   Or should.

Repubblika, at the same time, announced a protest against Trump, specifically against State brutality, abuse of migrants, and the kind of strong‑arm policing that Abela’s government, one hopes, opposes.   Back in the 1980s, maybe not so much, but Abela wasn’t in charge then; he was just a child.

His response now, however, is not to engage with the substance and condemn the incipient fascism. Of course not. It is to delegitimise the messengers.  They “don’t represent Malta,” he snaps, they’re just the PN in disguise.

Interesting. When exactly did Abela acquire exclusive representational rights over the Maltese conscience?

When he courts Trump’s faux peace initiative, he represents Malta even though the move runs counter to EU caution, constitutional neutrality, and basic common sense. When he cosies up to a man who openly mocks human rights norms, he cannot but be seen as speaking for the nation.

And then, in the same breath, when citizens protest that same man, they are dismissed as partisan irritants.  Why?  Is it because your common or garden Labour supporter has this almost automatic forelock tugging deference towards authority and “we decide because we’re in charge”?  It’s forever been thus, those of my vintage know.

Abela does not object to Repubblika because they are wrong. He objects to them because they are inconvenient, and because most of his supporters object to them. Civil society that protests friendly autocrats is a problem. Civil society that keeps quiet is preferable. Civil society that claps the Boss is ideal.

And so neutrality becomes elastic. It stretches when Malta wants to sit at Trump’s table.  It snaps back when people take to the streets.

Abela does not merely think he represents Malta; he behaves as though Malta exists only when he is speaking. Everyone else is background noise: NGOs, protesters, critics, even constitutional principles.