Pause Or Pauses? Robert Abela’s Stance On Gaza War Is More Confusing Than Ever
It may seem like one simple letter but it appears to represent a major policy shift by the Maltese government on the Gaza war or an act of political self-contradiction.
Yesterday, the United Nations Security Council passed a Malta-drafted resolution calling for “urgent extended humanitarian pauses for a sufficient number of days to allow aid access” to Gaza, as well as the release of all hostages held by Hamas.
The resolution, the first UN resolution on the Israel-Palestine conflict since 2016, passed with 12 votes in favour and three abstentions (USA, UK and Russia) and has been praised internationally, including by the UAE and EU Council President Charles Michel.
It has been criticised by both Israel on the grounds that it didn’t explicitly condemn Hamas, and the Palestinian Authority on the grounds that it didn’t call for a ceasefire or condemn the deaths of civilians and humanitarian workers.
However, in an institution where five powerful countries wield a veto, Malta’s ability to pass a resolution about such a contentious issue was undoubtedly a diplomatically shrewd move.
Yet it also seriously contradicts Prime Minister Robert Abela’s recent comments about the crisis.
On 30th October, in response to a question by Lovin Malta at a Budget press conference, Abela hit out at European Parliament President Roberta Metsola for her stance on the war and specifically criticised the EU for proposing “humanitarian pauses” as opposed to a single “humanitarian pause”.
“I disagree with humanitarian pauses and I agree with a humanitarian pause,” he said. “I made this position clear at the EU Council, even though the final text spoke about pauses in the plural. Pauses imply that the war will stop today but start again tomorrow, then stop again and start again.”
The fact the Prime Minister made such a distinction between the two terms shows there is significance in Malta calling for “pauses” as opposed to a “pause”.
Abela also stressed that he wants a “ceasefire” – ie. a long-term suspension of fighting while warring parties engage in dialogue, as opposed to a temporary cessation of hostilities purely for humanitarian purposes.
“I’m one of the few EU leaders publicly calling for a ceasefire,” Abela said. Others, for their own reasons, are scared to use that word but I will once again appeal for peace,” he said.
However, Malta’s UNSC resolution made no mention of a “ceasefire”, which is the reason Russia abstained.
Again, I have to stress that this resolution is a major diplomatic achievement for Malta, its Permanent Representative to the UN Vanessa Frazier, and Foreign Affairs Minister Ian Borg.
However, it once again shows that there really is no major policy difference on the Gaza war between the stance taken by the Maltese government and that adopted by the EU and Roberta Metsola.
The Prime Minister and other politicians may speak one way at home but when it comes to actual international negotiations, their position aligns with that of mainstream EU diplomacy.
Do you agree with Malta’s stance on the Gaza war?
READ NEXT: Just A Reminder That PL And PN Councillors Were All In Favour Of Mosta Tree Chopping
