by Raphael Vassallo
There is a scene in Joseph Heller's Catch 22 which "like many scenes in
that novel, come to think of it" will always survive in my memory because it
so poignantly epitomises the shabby little world we inhabit. For those
unfamiliar with the book, I'll just outline the basic moment... (most of
which, I feel I have to add, comes directly from memory, and therefore might
be slightly inaccurate in the details.)
We are in a bomber flying somewhere over Avignon at the height of WW2.
The plane has been hit, and the rear-gunner, Snowden, lies dying on the
floor, the lower part of his body literally blown to smithereens. He is
still conscious, but shell-shocked and unaware of his precise condition.
Meanwhile, the co-pilot (and main character), Yossarian, crouches next to
him in an attempt to ease his passage to death by mumbling all the usual
platitudes ("Everything's going to be OK," etc.)
Suddenly, Snowden grabs him by the arm and says: "It's starting to hurt."
Panic. Snowden had until that point been impervious to the pain. However,
he is now about to die in excruciating agony, and the only thing that can
help (remember this is war, folks) is a fatal dose of morphine. Yossarian
frantically rummages through the first aid kit to find the vial... but
instead, all he finds is a note with the words: "Whatever's good for the
syndicate is good for the country."
Had Joseph Heller stopped there, he would have done little more than make
a small point with which many of us can relate through personal experience.
The "syndicate" in question is the brainchild of another character, Milo Minderbinder
- your classic entrepreneur, whose wheeling and dealing
succeeds in turning everything into a personal profit for himself. In this
instant, his "confiscation" of the morphine for his own nameless purposes
results not only in a profit for his syndicate... but also in a ghastly
death for innocent little Snowden. The innuendo is inescapable: a logic
whereby everything is justified in terms of profit and loss, is also a logic
which knows little and cares less about the lives it crushes along the way.
However, Joseph Heller did not stop there. He made a tiny, barely
perceptible addition to the above observation, which in many respects
changes the thrust of the entire novel. For the point here is that all of
the company, including Yossarian and Snowden himself, were actually
shareholders in this syndicate. This is because Milo Minderbinder had
earlier succeeded in persuading everyone that what he was doing was for
their own good, and everyone - even Snowden - genuinely believed they were
somehow profiting from the transaction... even though they were, in reality,
being exploited.
It is a truism we should all instantly recognise, as it is as accurate a
reflection of ourselves as it was about corporate America in the 1950s. In
Catch 22, "whatever is good for the syndicate" is a motto used to justify
any excess, no matter how cruel, senseless or absurd, so long as it keeps
the corporate machine ticking over. To give another example, Milo even uses
it to justify bombing his own squadron... resulting in the death of another
innocent character, Nately. (Afterwards, rather than face court martial, the
very people whom he himself had deliberately bombed defend him. Does that
sound familiar to you? It should.)
All things told, then, it is hardly surprising that this novel also gave
us the unforgettable maxim: "You have the right to do unto others what
others can't stop you from doing." Neither is it particularly surprising
that, in order to make these and other points, Joseph Heller chose to set
his novel on a tiny island in the Mediterranean sea.
Apply the above to 21st century Malta, and the similarities are
overwhelming. One small example should suffice. A couple of weeks ago, a
handful of farmers, who for generations have tilled the earth in a quiet,
unspoilt corner of Malta, were given their marching orders by a certain Dr
Edward Fenech Adami. You might remember him, he was the one who claimed he
would be a President "for all the people of Malta and Gozo." He is also the
same man who, before the last election, had paid these selfsame farmers a
personal visit to reassure them all that they "would not be adversely
affected by EU membership". So much, then, for the word of our venerable
President.
But what gets to me is not the downright dishonesty concerned. After all,
we should be used to that by now. No, what gets to me is the fact that we
are falling for the same trap like Snowden, Nately et al. We seem to be
accepting the claim that this is being done in the name of some kind of
higher good.
In brief, we are defending the right of others to destroy us.
I won't wade too far into the endless environmental reasons why the
proposed golf course at Xaghra l-Hamra is such a monumentally bad idea.
After all, that's the job of scientists and environmental experts, and one
by one the arguments are all coming to the fore. But I must say I find it
infuriating that the very people who would be most adversely affected by
this giant blunder, are the same ones to defend it tooth and all. I refer to
us, the ordinary citizens of Malta and Gozo, so many of whom are now
actively encouraging the government to press ahead with an idea that will,
in the first instance, ruthlessly crush a tiny, defenceless group of Maltese
farmers... not to mention change utterly one of the very few areas of
countryside to have so far resisted development.
And yet, we, the ordinary citizens, are the ones who stand to lose most
as a result of this transaction. On an environmental front, we will lose an
irreplaceable part of a natural heritage... but like I said earlier, others
can make this point far better than I. More importantly, we will lose
precious open space... which, on an island the size of Malta, should really
be valued higher than its equivalent weight in oil, gold or platinum.
But by my count, the greatest loss by far will be the loss of our peace
of mind. Finally, the last nail will be driven into the coffin of that
hopeless myth: the myth that we, the citizens of this wonderfully democratic
country, are somehow "protected" by law.
Do I even need to illustrate by means of additional examples? Is it not
visible to all and sundry by now, that the moment a law comes into direct
conflict with either a) some contractor's God-given right to make millions
at the expense of others, or b) some politician who has foolishly shot his
mouth off, and now runs the risk of "losing face"... then you can rest
assured that the law in question will be flung out of the window at the
earliest opportunity, and that the affected citizens will be left with no
recourse but to "go and irrigate the lettuce-fields of Marsa."
And in case you think I'm exaggerating... well just look at what happened
this week. It is now official: the Environmental Impact Assessment for the
impending golf course has begun. Please note, however, that so far there has
been no specific planning authority application for a golf course in that
area. In true Catch 22 fashion, we have turned the entire process on its
head. Rather than apply for the permit, await the EIA results, obtain the
go-ahead and then evict the farmers, we have done the exact opposite. We
have evicted the farmers before there was even a viable, workable plan for a
golf course in the area... then we commissioned an Environment Impact
Assessment (which, for all we know, might actually find that the area is
unsuitable for golf), and, worst of all, we have entrusted the Malta
Environment and Planning Authority to do the government's dirty work, and
identify the area itself. And what will happen next? Will MEPA then process
the application of a permit for a golf course... when it was MEPA itself
that technically applied in the first place?
And do you why all this is taking place? Because some months ago, the
Prime Minister made a public declaration on Radio 101 to the tune of: "I
want a golf course in Malta! I want a golf course in Gozo!" While he was at
it, he may as well have added: "And I don't give a damn how many Maltese
families are brutally evicted from their homes, or how many plant and animal
species are wiped out from the face of this island as a result. This is My
Will, and it will be done, OR ELSE."
And look at them all now, the brave and supposedly autonomous authorities
of Malta - you know, the same ones who treat ordinary citizens much like
local developers treat 19th century Sliema townhouses. All falling over
themselves in a mad scramble to do their master's bidding. Yes, sir, yes
sir, three bags full. Honestly, how utterly revolting.
And for what? For a golf course which (for all we know) might turn out to
be a complete failure. For a golf course which we are told will attract
30,000 tourists a year... although, when asked a simple question (E.g., can
anyone show the research which led them to this specific figure?) nobody in
the catering/tourism sector appears capable to answer.
But, again in true Catch-22 fashion, it will be us, the net losers in
this entire transaction, who will now fight for it tooth and nail. Why?
Because it's "good for tourism", we keep repeating (And as we all know, if
you repeat something often enough, it becomes de facto true.) Because we
have minds which think only in slogans... Slogans like "all progress is good
progress." That's right, no matter the cost, no matter the price. Even if it
means changing an entire way of life that has passed from father to son for
generations; even if it means that children born today might grow up and
never know what Malta's natural landscape once looked like (for make no
mistake: with the abovementioned logic firmly entrenched in our minds, every
last square inch of these islands will inevitably be developed), we will
obstinately persist in the dogmatic belief that "anything that's good for
tourism is good for the country."
Yes, probably even years after the last tourist has abandoned Malta for
somewhere more unspoilt.
Elephants • The Myth • Garigue in Malta • Not Viable • Golf Logic • The Debate • Med Flora • Sacrifice • Who Pays? • Broken Promises • Building Starts • Suspicious • Wide Angle Alternatives • Good for the syndicate • Constitutional right to enjoyment of environment • Talking Point • Asking the right questions • Golfcourse Blues • A sign of things to come • Protect our open spaces
