Mr President, and members of the Committee,
I thank the Oxford Union for this invitation, which gives me the opportunity to interact with the present-day representation of the group of students who in 1823 stood up for a policy of free speech at this prestigious Seat of learning, the Oxford University. I have to stress that the following is my own personal appreciation, reflections, and musings based on observations and readings, and in no way is it to be construed as being a reflection of the position of the Republic of Malta.
Nearly a century ago, on August 27th, 1928, dignitaries from fifteen nations across the globe gathered in Paris for “the Signing of the General Pact for the Renunciation of War”. They signed with a gold fountain pen, twelve inches long with an inscription which stated, “Si vis pacem, para pacem”- ‘if you want peace, prepare for peace’ – diametrically opposed to the previously unrebutted maxim of Roman military theory stating, “if you want peace, prepare for war.”
The Paris Peace Pact did not bring about universal peace. In a little more than a decade, it was followed by the Second World War, which subjected humanity to a more horrendous experience than the First World War. The League of Nations, and its successor, the United Nations, have not succeeded in eradicating war. The use of euphemisms, outlawing war, and substituting military actions by the term armed conflict, has only served to blur the stark reality of the Civil War in Sudan, the Civil War in Yemen, and Ethiopia, amongst others.
Perhaps one may pertinently enough raise the point that the Paris Pact only sought to abolish war as an instrument of policy between states, war recognised as a legitimate means for conflict resolution between and amongst states according to the Law of War and Peace under what is sometimes termed the Old-World Order. Hence, it is understandable, if in a sense, it is remarked that War does not, in its purest sense, incorporate the notion of national strife and unrest within the confines of national boundaries.
The notion of abolishing war as an instrument of conflict resolution has often been viewed with derision.
It is an undeniable fact that for seventy-five years after the end of World War II, international affairs saw an easing of political tensions. “Détente” was at the basis of international relations. Diplomatic negotiations helped to foster an acceptance of the necessity of control of nuclear arms, resolution of disputes by recourse to international courts and tribunals, and a general unwillingness to resort to escalation of arms.
Opinions exist that, the bitter experiences of the two World Wars brought about a New World Order – a subtle change, which apart from giving rise to attempts at regulation of world affairs notably through the United Nations and its agencies, instilled in the minds of humankind, an abhorrence for war and a hankering for peace. The fact that the Paris Peace Pact, sometimes also referred to as the Kellogg-Briand Pact, is still in existence and still being adhered to by states, by Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia as recently as 1994, is evidence of this hankering for peace in world affairs.
The advent of the Ukrainian Russian war and the Hamas Israel debacle, however, seem to be snuffing out the candle of peace, giving credence to a derisive evaluation of the notion of abolishment of war as an instrument of conflict resolution between and amongst states.
Article 1 of the UN Charter lays down the purposes of the United Nations. Significantly, in its very first sub-paragraph, the article declares that one of the purposes of the UN is “to maintain international peace and security and to that end to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace and for the suppression of acts of aggression …”
When seen together with articles forming part of Chapter 7, delineating peace keeping measures, a question arises: if the UN Charter seeks to enforce peace, can peace be enforced?
Any law is as strong as the acceptance accorded to it by those it seeks to regulate. This is as true among states as among individuals, and one cannot deny that on the surface, at face value at least, there is acceptance of the principle that war is to be abolished.
State plenipotentiaries, foreign ministries, functionaries, diplomats, the world over continually refer to a “rules based international order.”
Please forgive my scepticism when I say that I view this declaration as a mantra devoid of solid foundations and ask, what are the rules at the basis of this international order.
Sub-paragraph 4 of Article 2 of the UN Charter, lays down that all members shall refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.
These rules have, in international relations, been accepted as the basis of the international rules-based order and appear to be raised to the highest level of a hierarchy of rules – at a higher level than the considerations of basic natural and democratic rights.
I believe that current experience of war and armed conflict shows a departure even from the rules regulating war under the Old World Order governed by the Law of War and Peace. No regard is being taken of individuals in war-torn regions. We are witnessing atrocities on civilians, women and children, destruction of infrastructure, including hospitals and schools, and once agreements for cessation of arms is reached, the populace and the international community itself is then faced with a new war against the devastation inflicted – building a nation from scratch, injecting new life and stamina into individuals sapped of hope by reason of the strife endured.
I believe the time has come to stress that the interdependence in intra-state relationships is an asset, rather than a weakness. Realisation that this interdependence has got to be woven as a necessary characteristic of the psyche of international affairs has got to be transformed into a strength, it is a must if the world is to experience harmony.
Again, the UN Charter Article 2 Paragraph 1 declares that the United Nations as an organisation is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its members.
The United Nations has 193 members, the nearly absolute majority of states. A far cry from the number of state signatories of the League of Nations.
Why has the constitution and the composition of the operative instruments of the United Nations not evolved in line with this?
The concept of self-determination of peoples eroded the old-style colonialism, but the power of the United Nations, is still firmly entrenched in the 5 Veto-wielding permanent members of the Security Council, the “victors” of the Second World War.
This Veto often kills proposals put forward by smaller and less influential states.
The time is ripe for a review of the voting powers of the UN so that there is a more equitable geographical distribution of these powers, and a less stifling of the voice of majority consensus.
In certain instances, the United Nations has contributed to the generation of notions beneficial to the collective of human kind. A concrete example of this is the concept of the common heritage of mankind.
In 1967, when at the General Assembly, Malta enunciated the concept of the Common Heritage of Mankind regarding the Seas, at a time when colonialism, particularly in Africa, was being dismantled, and peoples were effectively exercising their right to self-determination, this was a victory for all states still in their infancy, since it signalled that the wealth and resources of the globe are not to be grasped and monopolised by the potent nations.
During these fifty years, this concept of Common Heritage of Mankind is being extended to include other resources; space, resources beneath the oceans, protection, and sustainability of resources beneficial to all humanity without distinction.
Where the benefit of humanity is concerned, in 1988, Malta proposed a resolution in the United Nations General Assembly which resolution brought to the fore the problem of climate change. As a result of this resolution, this problem is being taken seriously by the absolute majority of states and steps have already been taken with regards to important international treaties.
This scenario, particularly the way in which during this last month, the centre stage in international affairs has been hijacked, cutting out the hardest hit interested parties, gives cause for concern.
Certain declarations from certain quarters sometimes accompanied by snide remarks are not helping to foster trust. There is no place in key speeches for a big bang syndrome which only serves to attract momentaneous headlines but erodes much needed trust.
Certain remarks are divisive and encourage hardness within regional groupings which groupings of themselves can be positive instruments encouraging and assisting unity and cohesion in international affairs, provided they are not pushed into acquiring a siege mentality.
The sceptre of Realpolitik is again raising its head and this, in an excessive manner. This can give rise to attitudes of everyone for himself; national supremacy is being raised to a level above ethical and ideological considerations, begetting big brother attitudes, harking back to the time when the world was split between two super-powers.
Equitable rules of trade and commerce are also essential to peace and security.
Wealth has to be shared and State Aid must not result in subjugation or domination, a new form of colonisation, but it must take into consideration the right of self-determination.
Religious systems do not necessarily coincide, and religious norms may impinge on the interpretation of individual rights. I have always personally believed that a divide between the religious and the secular is essential for a proper functioning of democracy. Morality in a wide humanistic sense, does have an important function in democracy. Religion is essentially part of the private domain, although from a public standpoint, it is based on the right of the individual’s enjoyment of freedom of worship, and its concomitant rights of freedom of expression and freedom of choice.
This poses the question whether tying state aid with the imposition of a democratic system of government interferes with the right to self-determination, especially since acceptance of notions viewed as intrinsically tied up with democracy need the passage of time to be assimilated by certain cultures.
As a system of government, based on equality of rights, ensuring equal opportunities, freedoms and participation, democratic rule still remains the most equitable form of government.
The good and wellbeing of individuals, and the good and wellbeing of humanity are one and the same thing. What harms the individual is also harmful to the collective of humanity.
In between the status of the individual at national level, and the status of the individual at international level, there is the authority of the State. Both systems of regulation, national and international, have to have, and uphold, precepts rooted in the rights which emanate from natural law, ethics and morality; these standards cannot be divorced from the qualities that make life meaningful and fruitful for human beings.
It is important that, at State level, there are safeguards in place to maintain standards of governance. However, one must always stress that standards of good governance do not rely solely on the existence of legal safeguards, but they have to be intrinsically woven into the characters of both leaders and followers.
The availability of food, water, and adequate medical care, strengthens the wellbeing of citizens of the world at the individual physical level. To these basic elements, one cannot underestimate the addition of a holistic approach to education in order to nurture a good and prepared pool of potential future leaders and citizens.
Character formation, with its emphasis on the thinking, critical and analytic faculties, is just as important as academic preparation. The distinctions between right and wrong, honesty and dishonesty, respect for discipline and authority, as long as discipline and authority have their roots in the rule of law, and respect for human rights, are the foundations of good governance.
Human rights do not only refer to the basic human rights, but they also include the creation of the right atmosphere and climate within which individuals can realise their full potential. Hence, arises the importance of the eradication of all forms of discrimination, particularly gender-based discrimination and discrimination based on sexual orientation.
The world is still caught in the throes of discrimination in many forms and variations. In various parts of the world women are still treated as secondary creatures.
Family rights based on patriarchy, militate against female emancipation, placing women and girls under masculine tutelage, either as unmarried daughters, or as wives. Female children are not even entitled to their own body, whilst in some countries, women are still denied property rights, family rights, and free citizen rights. Access to education and the labour market for female children in certain cultures is still not at a par with that for males. This is a far cry from the situation in Western or western style democracies.
But the future in this area is not bleak. A cursory glance at the situation in various countries, particularly Arab countries, shows that, these last twenty-five years, restrictions on women’s freedom, as human beings with societal rights and freedoms have been, and are, being eased.
However, I think that it is not a coincidence that the countries where women in spite of cultural and religious backgrounds have made headway regarding basic rights, are nations which in certain ways, have experienced Western democratic influences.
It is important that, tomorrow’s generations, our youngsters, are imbued with a sense of responsibility towards others, and a realisation that whatever their own personal circumstances, they have a duty towards the rest of humankind, to see that their decisions and actions do not result in adverse repercussions on others.
Certain individual rights, or even pretentions of individual rights, give rise to discussions and disputes at state level and in this regard, the impact of civil society cannot be underestimated, in order to ensure participation in decision making and taking by the populace.
With reference to participation by the populace in decision making and governance, one has to positively acknowledge the establishment by the U.N. General Assembly in September 2011, of the “Open government Partnership”.
The fact that at the present time seventy-seven states have adhered to its declared purposes of transparency, accountability, as well as participation, and inclusivity in governance, manifests an acknowledgement by states, that these are desirable characteristics of good governance.
This acknowledgment by the community of states that individuals are the ultimate recipients of governance is a significant appreciation of the importance which should be attached to humankind, individually and collectively, at citizen status.
Moreover, the open Government Partnership is open to affiliation by local authorities and local government structures. This is a tangible recognition by the international sphere, that ultimately, the central figures in governance are the individual members of society, whose everyday lives are impacted by decisions, supposedly to be taken on their behalf, by the powers that be.
Sovereignty is of the people, no people delegates its sovereign power to representatives with an authorisation to depart from the precepts of good governance, and the standards of morality, based on the common good, which underlie power systems. It is inconceivable that the people as electors condone standards of bad governance.
As I had occasion to remark, in other fora, the representatives of the people, democratically entrusted with representation by universal suffrage, are duty bound not only to foster and incorporate regulations in the statute books aimed at upholding standards of good governance, but these peoples’ representatives have to scrupulously follow the moralistic values of good governance, which values are, engrained in the psychical make-up of the population, the conscience of the people, who delegated to their representatives, the powers to represent them and govern on their behalf.
As a general rule, unwillingness to encourage civil society participation and transparency are indicative of the cancer of corruption.
Tied up with this theme of participation by the populace, one also has to refer to the Warsaw Human Dimension Conference, last convened in September 2024, organised by the OSCE, Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, its guiding principle being that human rights and fundamental freedoms are intrinsically linked to peace and security. Civil society at this conference was represented by 115 civil society associations and networks, with over 1,460 delegates.
Undoubtedly, the media, in the exercise of its functions, the primary one, of giving correct and factual information, and added to this, assisting in the dissemination of certain desirable attitudes and images, can bolster democracy, especially, if it also provides an added element of scrutiny. If the media is conscientious in the exercise of these functions it deserves to be considered the fourth estate, a pillar of democracy.
However, the media is as much a billion-dollar industry as arms production and at times, at certain instances, these interests converge.
Do we need a new World Order? The world cannot have a new order unless social activism, democratic and humanistic principles, and above all, the values of justice and the common good, do not dominate humankind’s intellectual and physical faculties. These are the qualities which need to permeate society at both the national and the international levels.
Politics with a capital P at both national and international levels must be centred on the creation and furtherance of the common good.
Politics must help in the fostering of protection for our common home and its resources, the globe humankind inhabits, its sea, its air, even outer space, and other planets, so to say, the totality of the universe. The threat posed by climate change should not be sidelined, especially by powerful states, because of monetary considerations.
Money and politics cannot be made bedfellows.
Money is a commodity, from the Latin commoditas in its purest, classical sense. In politics, it should only be viewed as a utility to be manipulated solely for the benefit of humankind.
It is important that humankind does not add the scourge of ecocide to its sacrilegious sins of genocide.
The world has just commemorated the eightieth anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau. One hopes this signifies an eternal and universal condemnation of the Holocaust; and similar hardness and harshness of heart, atrocities inflicted by humankind on humankind. The world has to say, never again, the to the displacement, forced settlements and above all, the annihilation of races and peoples.
Peace is not merely the absence of war. Twinned with security, it is security of body and mind born out of a just equitable sharing so that humankind’s basic needs are provided for, and needs denote embracing of the other.
As I remarked last week, during my intervention at the Defence and Security Strategy of Unity, Action Plan Conference, hosted by Ukraine on the third anniversary of Russia’s aggression, “History has shown that, where peace is concerned, appeasement does not work. A lasting peace cannot be imposed. Europe and the United States shar a strategic interest in securing peace. It is key that Europe and the US remain united and stand steadfast in ensuring that no country succeeds in redrawing borders through coercion or the use of force.”
We can only sow the seeds of a new world order if each and every one of us, whatever our station is in life, commits our physical, mental, and spiritual energies and potentials, to serve the common good of humankind. And, of course, the higher one’s station, the heavier the onus.
