Freedom Flotilla and Europe’s moral abdication: NGOs step in where states fail

The moral vacuum left by states

Governments are bound by different rules of engagement than NGOs like the Freedom Flotilla, whose symbolic actions are meant to expose the moral failure of state actors such as the EU.

But why have state actors left the moral imperative to NGOs in the face of the genocide unfolding in Gaza?

Gazans are being starved, denied access to food, water, and vital supplies in a military tactic reminiscent of medieval siege warfare.

The Geneva Convention (Article 54, Paragraph 2 of Additional Protocol I (AP1)) explicitly forbids starvation tactics: “It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove, or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as foodstuffs, agricultural areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops, [and] livestock.”

Also, the founding treaty of the International Criminal Court (Article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the Rome Statute of 1998) classifies starvation as a war crime when civilians are deliberately targeted as a method of warfare.

Starvation as a weapon of war

The United Nations has repeatedly warned that catastrophic famine and mass starvation are already a reality in Gaza. According to UNICEF, 9,000 children have been admitted for treatment of acute malnutrition since the beginning of the year. Hundreds more children in desperate need of treatment are unable to access it due to insecurity and displacement.

Despite this being in breach of international law, Israel acts with impunity, doubling down on a war that has left 55,000 people buried under the rubble.

Yet, no state actor has intervened to stop this genocide, and the EU’s mild criticism remains shrouded in a discourse that still refers to Israel’s “right to defend itself”. While the 1948 Genocide Convention calls upon signatories to not only punish but also prevent genocide, the EU has so far taken no such step.

A tale of double standards

It is worth recalling that in 1998, NATO undertook military action—including bombardments of Belgrade—to stop Serbia from committing war crimes in Kosovo, at a time when Serbia accused Kosovar armed groups of terrorism.

The EU’s (justified) military support for Ukraine is similarly grounded in the language of humanitarian interventionism.

No one is calling for armed intervention to stop Israel from attacking civilians. But neither has any EU member state suspended diplomatic relations with a rogue state acting with such disregard for human life. Countries like Malta continue to equivocate on recognising Palestine as a state.

At the very least, one would expect a concerted European effort to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza. One way to achieve this is to send aid even if Israel refuses its entry. Dispatching a peaceful fleet to Gaza would be a strong moral statement from a Europe that claims to be a humanitarian voice and a moral leader. Blocking it would only expose Israel’s disregard for humanitarian values. But clearly, this will not happen.

The freedom flotilla’s moral stand

In this vacuum, it is the Freedom Flotilla that is acting on a moral imperative to provide humanitarian assistance to those in desperate need.

Given the scale of the crisis, the Freedom Flotilla’s actions are symbolic and political. They aim to expose the inaction of state actors, including the EU, and to provoke a response from Israel—even at the risk of repeating the deadly outcome of 2010, when nine activists were killed during a flotilla raid by Israeli commandos. In this sense the aims of this movement are necessarily distrustful of state actors. 

One of the greatest merits of liberal democracies is that they recognise the role of NGOs in pushing boundaries, even if done through non-violent direct action. In this sense, activists like Greta Thunberg inherit a long-sustained tradition of civil society activism dating back to the movement against slavery in the early 19th century.

But this freedom is under siege amid a broader drift towards authoritarianism. Clamping down on NGOs has become a badge of honour for chest-thumping, strongman-style politicians in the EU, such as Viktor Orbán in Hungary and Giorgia Meloni in Italy. The prevailing narrative frames NGOs as agents of a globalist agenda that undermines the national interest. And while Maltese Prime Minister Robert Abela may be obliged to err on the side of caution, his stand-off with the NGO stood in stark contrast to his restrained language regarding the likely perpetrator of an attack just off our shores.

Europe’s silence on drone strike

The EU’s complete silence on the recent drone attack on the flotilla—despite it occurring just outside the territorial waters of a member state and within the flight information region of three EU members—fits the general pattern of condoning Israeli impunity.

While a full and transparent investigation is necessary to establish responsibility, as the UN has requested, the contrast with the EU’s reaction to alleged Russian sabotage of gas pipelines in 2022 is stark.

After the Nord Stream pipeline explosions, EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said any “deliberate disruption” of the EU’s energy systems would provoke the “strongest possible response.” Several member states, including Poland and the Baltic countries, pointed fingers at Russia. Yet, curiously, the results of national investigations into that incident were never published and have been kept secret.

Malta’s response and responsibilities

When asked whether the flotilla attack changed his stance against increased defence spending, the prime minister said the incident only reinforced his view. “It’s crucial that our country promotes peace and not weapons and war.” He is right in the sense that our active neutrality from military alliances like NATO gives us more freedom in calling a spade a spade.  He is also right in denouncing Roberta Metsola for her soft touch on Israel, but this criticism can easily backfire on him in view of his caution.

Perhaps he should also have added “justice” and “human rights,” because no peace can exist without justice, whether the victims are Ukrainians or Palestinians.

Malta’s active neutrality does not bar it from taking a clear stance, as it did in the 1970s when it aligned itself with the Palestinian cause. In fact, moral support for Palestinian sovereignty has long been a defining aspect of Malta’s neutrality and foreign policy. 

Nor does neutrality preclude investment in surveillance of the airspace. While the drone attack occurred outside Malta’s territorial waters, the country also has economic interests in the surrounding area—for example, recent plans to develop renewable energy infrastructure beyond national waters, where Malta intends to proclaim an Exclusive Economic Zone.

What Malta can still do

Admittedly, the Maltese government is bound by international conventions and cannot simply mimic the actions of an NGO. The challenge of bringing a de-flagged vessel to port is a logistical and legal dilemma, solvable only by granting the vessel a flag—an act that would bind the country to its fate.  One also has to recognise that by accepting to repair the boat and allow it to proceed to its destination, Malta is to some extent endorsing its actions. 

However, Malta could still have called on the EU to issue a firm statement condemning the sabotage so close to its shores. Demanding a full investigation does not preclude summoning the Israeli ambassador and making it clear that Malta considers any military action near its waters as hostile.

But most importantly, Malta must break with the EU’s silence—it must immediately recognise Palestine and raise this issue at every high-level meeting. Otherwise, we cannot blame NGOs for doing everything in their power to expose the hypocrisy of a union which is turning a blind eye to genocide.

READ ALSO | Maltese government will repair vessel out at sea