They’ve done it again. Just when you thought that the Bush administration couldn’t get any more anal retentive about what they term “security” they go and introduce new legislation empowering the authorities to indefinitely confiscate the laptops of individuals crossing the border into the United States even if there is no actual suspicion of wrong-doing.

This little gem representative of the new dark ages within which we live and which was ushered in in no small part by the American government (through the staging of or, at best, aggravation of September 11th attacks on the Twin Towers of the Trade Centre and Trade Centre 5) can be added to other hot little coals in the ‘road to democracy’ such as the so-called Patriot Act (The spy on Americans’ communications act), the finger printing of all travellers (since we’re ‘all’ a threat), the Guantanamo bay detention camp where individuals of various nationalities have been held for years without so much as a real trial, let alone a fair trial, with no end in sight, several intercontinental wars under its belt past and present, and a lot more trash that simply goes too far beyond the scope of this fragment. To cut a long story short here, the forces at play in America make the local MLPN phenomenon look like a mere nuisance. Sure we have a president who wasn’t voted in by the Maltese people and sure the two parties are as intricately separate from each other as melted butter on toast but aside from having a relatively pitiful wage-to-price ratio we haven’t actually got it all that bad.

Just look at the United States (of America i.e.). Who cares if security policies have resulted in the American public being subjected to a degree of insularity and selective information that superpowers, both previous and emerging, have been accused of in the past? Who cares if the next big economic crash has been set into motion and who cares if a very select few, not necessarily Americans themselves, have booked themselves front-row seats so as to exploit the immediate and ensuing ripples? Who cares if the American people are being masterfully shepherded to the economic slaughterhouse and who cares if the republicans and democrats are puppets to the same economic interests? And for those such as myself who do find the gut fortitude to care, what is the point of remaining isolated in our thoughts? It is not like the most well-intentioned of mere individuals can make much of a difference in the face of a well-greased and formidable adversary of a level of power and organization sufficient to make the Mafia look like small-time players.

Benjamin Franklin had words to say during his lifetime. “He who would trade liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety.” The citizens of America – those who trust their government as blindly as many follow their faith, failing to realize that the government is not God – they should reflect upon the words of one of their founding fathers. They should not need to have to feel the need to act, but they should at least be aware of the treachery of the forces at play. It is not unpatriotic to question the structures of government within a country. The loyalty of a person should be to the self, then the family, then the community, then perhaps the nation. That is the structure of loyalty that nature inspires within us and nature does not have an ulterior motive beyond being.

This is the third segment in a three-part series recalling different facets of the Bulgarian crisis back in 2007. Focus shall finally placed upon evaluating Malta’s role, supposed and actual, in this crisis as well as the reflections that should be made following the conclusion of this saga.

Throughout the Bulgarian saga the diplomatic machinery of the Maltese Islands remained idle. Hardly any prominence was given to this heated controversy which had been unfolding mere hundreds of kilometres south of our shores. This while six persons, five of them citizens of the European Union, were struggled over through all legal and diplomatic channels in order to spare them a fate of death by firing squad within the North African nation of Libya. Very little pressure, if any at all, came from the Maltese Islands and this, in the opinion of myself, would have been a tarnishing stain upon our name had the crisis not been resolved and the lives of the medics been lost.

There are undoubtedly a number of arguments that support Malta’s actions, or lack thereof, throughout the crisis. One could say that it was not the responsibility of the Maltese to enter into diplomatic haggling over individuals who were not Maltese citizens. After all, we are to be loyal to our own. One could also say that Malta was in no position to throw its weight around on the issue, placed hundreds of kilometres north of Libya’s shores and exposed as a military target. After all, it is unwise to talk the talk if one is unable to walk the walk, to bastardize some contemporary pop culture.

However Malta’s non-action has thrown it in a negative light very unfitting of its rich past. Ever since Malta’s entry into the European Union in 2003 it officially became the closest EU member nation (Lampedusa is a colony) to Libya’s shores. While the ‘not our problem’ mentality may have been passable prior to 2003 it no longer remained the case following entry. Upon entry the Maltese Islands became a crucial strategic position for asserting pressure during the crisis and yet the Maltese authorities failed to do so with little more than the odd cursory minimalistic comment passed within parliament on the matter, weakly whispering a hope for a positive resolution. And this remained true even when the last in the legal appeals were exhausted.

Strangely it had to be non-government sources to recognize and act upon their ethical and circumstantial responsibility in the crisis, such as Moviment Graffiti earlier on and individuals supposedly from the opposite end of the political spectrum at the 11th hour.

A more legitimate concern was that of repercussions upon the Maltese for speaking up during the crisis – but such would have been a very unflattering reason for the Islands to remain silent. Indeed one might suggest that non-action was an act both in disowning the efforts of our forefathers in their efforts to uphold their virtues in the face of hostilities as well as denying our grandchildren something to feel proud of within this age where pride is spoken of in the past tense.

A final possibility is that the Maltese authorities secretly believed that the medics were guilty and that they deserved the death penalty. The absolute truth of the machinery at play may never be confirmed with full clarity but in the meantime the Maltese effected by this third instalment can take heart in the fact that no blood was spilled to their inaction. It is my hope that we as a nation will know better in future and not be afraid to actively offer our voice to such dilemmas that may yet unfold.

This is the second segment in a three-part series recalling different facets of the Bulgarian crisis back in 2007. Focus shall now be placed upon the claims and the accusations, the evidence and the circumstances surrounding the controversy. In doing so the intent is to demonstrate the innocence of the previously detained medics through this re-examination.

Firstly we shall look upon the nature and the timing of Libya’s accusations levelled against the five Bulgarian nurses, and Palestinian doctor. The medics were not the first to be accused of deliberately infecting over four hundred children. Such dubious honour was reserved for the Israeli Mossad and American CIA jointly, both secret service outfits. It was only subsequently that the focus was brought upon the medics.

Secondly, dubious is the Libyan authorities’ claim that the Palestinian doctor was responsible for masterminding the infections. It would have been extremely unlikely for a Palestinian to work with Israeli secret services to pull off such a stunt.

What was the motive? The Libyan authorities claimed that the children were deliberately infected in an experiment to find a cure for AIDS… In a country where there is no shortage of children suffering from AIDS.

Thirdly the Authorities claimed that the Palestinian doctor had not only masterminded the plot but had also succeeded in enlisting at least five Bulgarian nurses in assisting him in carrying out the plot.

Let us pause here for a moment and reflect upon this point. Not only was this Palestinian doctor able to mastermind a plot to infect children with HIV, for the Israeli Mossad, in order to try to find a cure for AIDS, but he apparently managed to achieve a 100% enlistment success rate with the Bulgarian nurses, never mind that it went completely against the training and instincts of each one of them.

Ok… so perhaps the Palestinian doctor duped the nurses into assisting him unknowingly… and yet not a single such accusation was levelled against him by his fellow detainees. And then there is the small matter of not a single other Bulgarian nurse coming forward with claims of being approached by the doctor. Startling indeed.

Fourthly the Authorities claimed to have found bags of HIV-infected blood in the apartments of the medics. Damning evidence indeed except for the small detail that the HIV virus can only last several hours outside a host body, and this only within laboratory conditions. Therefore there was practically no point in collecting infected blood from the hospital for use later in transfusions.

As if this article of evidence weren’t shot full of holes already, on two separate occasions international scientists and scientific bodies had testified or published findings indicating that the infections were not only far more likely due to poor hygiene and the reuse of syringes at the Benghazi hospital, but the the strains of HIV within the infected children concerned suggested that it had been contracted before the Bulgarians started working there. Such evidence was conveniently barred from subsequent appeals.

It would be a little easier to understand this tangle if one were to consider that Benghazi has historically been the venue for a number of anti-regime uprisings. Perhaps the Libyan authorities genuinely felt that the mass infections were too much of a coincidence… but within the context of relative ostracization from the Libyan state in terms of public spending, as would be the likely result of needing to suppress uprisings within the region, spending in healthcare would also have had to have been hit badly.

Also, within this volatile region over four hundred families were clamouring for the blood of the perpetrators who had terminally sickened their sons and daughters. Hence it is not beyond speculation that Libya needed somebody to take the fall and the implication of a Palestinian doctor and Bulgarian nurses, gaining confessions through duress, might have been an attempt to do so. They were to be sacrifices to be made in exchange for the relative satisfaction of the Benghazi population.

Fortunately history decided otherwise.

This is the first segment of a three-part series reflecting upon different facets of the Bulgarian medic crisis back in 2007. It is appropriate to recall the event as we approach the first anniversary of the conclusion of this chapter. This first segment shall focus upon the chronological progression of events.

Back in 1999 five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor were taken into Libyan custody and detained as part of an investigation over the infection of over four hundred children with the HIV virus in a hospital within the Benghazi province. Charges were levelled against them, their guilt was declared and they were sentenced to death, so the medics spent the next eight years of their lives in imprisonment as they exhausted their options in appeal. All this was in vain and on the 11th of July 2007 their final appeal was rejected.

On the 16th of July 2007 an agreement was reached between the European Union and the Libyan government, paving the way for victims’ families to waive their legal right to seek the death penalty in exchange for a financial compensation package from the European Union adding up to four hundred million dollars to be divided amongst the families. As a result the death sentences upon the six medics were commuted to sentences of life imprisonment.

Throughout this saga protests worldwide had for the most part fallen upon deaf ears; Libya and the European Union had remained locked in stalemate. It was ultimately only through the timely intervention of France’s then freshly-elected prime minister Nicholas Sarkozy and his then first lady, Cecilia Sarkozy, that a positive progression of events began to unfold. Through a series of diplomatic visits and negotiations the then couple were able to come to further agreements with the Libyan leader Gaddafi, including treatment for the surviving infected children within France, sponsored improvement of the Benghazi hospital, grants for Libyan students studying within the European Union and even, for a time, flirting with the idea of permitting Libya to invest within nuclear energy.

In late July of 2007, eight years after the medics’ saga began, it ended and Libya finally arranged for their release and immediate air transfer to Bulgaria, whereupon who’s arrival they were promptly pardoned by Bulgarian president Georgi Parvanov. And this is where the chapter closed almost one year ago.