Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1543837
8 maltatoday | WEDNESDAY • 11 MARCH 2026 OPINION WE often look for simple answers in a world that rarely offers them. More often than not, the truth re- fuses to fit neatly into a slogan or a single line in a newspaper article. International politics, in particu- lar, rarely offers the comfort of simple moral binaries. It is a world of competing interests, imperfect choices, and outcomes whose consequences only become clear with time. Consider the extraordinary cap- ture of Venezuela's president, Nicolás Maduro. Maduro presided over the sys- tematic dismantling of Venezue- la's democratic institutions. Under his rule, a country once among the richest in Latin America, thanks to its vast oil reserves, collapsed into economic ruin. Millions fled the country. Democratic checks and balances were hollowed out. Elections lost their meaning. When Venezuelans attempted to vote him out, Maduro simply refused to leave. Power was main- tained through repression rather than consent. So, when the United States ul- timately intervened and brought Maduro into custody, the reaction across Europe was cautious. Many governments avoided endorsing the method through which it hap- pened. Yet few mourned the out- come. That ambiguity reflects an un- comfortable reality. One can question the legality or motiva- tions of such an operation while still recognising that the removal of a corrupt authoritarian lead- er may open the door to a better future for his country. The fact that Venezuela might now have a chance, however uncertain, to re- build its economy does not auto- matically vindicate the means by which that moment came about. It illustrates a broader truth. That history rarely offers clean verdicts. International interventions, however dramatic, do not always produce the outcomes their ar- chitects intend. Sometimes they stabilise a situation. Sometimes they make it worse. Often, their consequences only become clear years later. Morality and international politics This ambiguity runs through nearly every major crisis shaping our world today. Take Gaza. When Gaza was devastated, I was among the most consistent voices in Malta describing what was happening as a genocide. I said so publicly and repeatedly, despite considerable pressure and criticism. I argued that Benjamin Netanyahu allowed the conflict to escalate in part to appease far- right coalition partners whose support he needs to remain in power and shield himself from le- gal consequences. I also named the ministers in his cabinet who have openly advocat- ed policies that amount to the an- nihilation of Gaza and its people. At the same time, I criticised those in positions of authority who should know better but have chosen instead to tiptoe around Israeli and American actions. Even at the highest levels of Euro- pean leadership, the response has often been hesitant and cautious. I profoundly disagree with that hesitation. I know first-hand the pressure that comes with taking these difficult positions, especial- ly when doing so carries conse- quences. But there are moments when conscience must prevail over convenience. I will never compromise my principles, or the dignity of fellow human beings, for the sake of personal advance- ment. If that comes at a cost to my career, it is a price worth paying. Yet moral clarity alone does not make the world simpler. Even when the right position appears obvious, the realities of inter- national politics rarely allow for straightforward responses. International politics is shaped by alliances, dependencies and strategic calculations. Govern- ments often act not only accord- ing to moral considerations, but also according to security inter- ests, diplomatic relationships and domestic political realities. That does not excuse moral failure but it helps explain it. And explanation matters if we are serious about finding solu- tions. The same complexity applies when discussing Iran. The Iranian case For decades, Iran's regime has violently suppressed its own pop- ulation and projected instability throughout the region. I don't subscribe to whata- boutism, nor to the idea that ac- knowledging one injustice some- how diminishes another. I have spoken clearly and repeatedly about Israel's actions in Gaza, and I stand by those words. But recog- nising that reality does not require intellectual blindness elsewhere. Condemning the suffering of Pal- estinians cannot mean remaining silent about the suffering of Irani- ans. Protest movements have repeat- edly erupted across Iran, often met with brutal repression. Tens of thousands of protesters have reportedly been killed in recent protests, and over the years count- less others have been imprisoned or executed. Iran remains one of the states in the Middle East still defined by a rigid system of religious authori- tarianism. While countries such as Saudi Arabia and several Gulf states have begun cautiously pur- suing economic modernisation and social reform, Iran continues to look inward, maintaining a sys- tem that suppresses personal free- doms. In my role within the European Parliament's delegation responsi- ble for relations with Iran, I have spoken with many young Iranians, from students and activists to pro- fessionals. They dream of a differ- ent future. They want freedom. They want dignity. They want to build a modern future. Of course, they do not represent the entire nation. Iran is a diverse society, and the regime still com- mands support in parts of the population. But the persistence and scale of protests in recent years demonstrate that dissatis- faction with the status quo runs deep. And yet here lies the fundamen- tal dilemma: How does the inter- national community respond to regimes that repress their own people but remain firmly en- trenched in power? What mechanism exists to re- move leaders like Maduro or Aya- tollah Ali Khamenei? In truth, there isn't one. Inter- national law places strict limits on external intervention in sovereign states. Institutions such as the United Nations often lack both the authority and the political consensus necessary to act deci- sively. I would argue that technol- ogy is making it easier for dicta- tors to remain in place. As mass surveillance systems fuse with artificial intelligence, the ability of dictatorships to maintain control will only grow stronger. As a result of all this, the world is frequently confronted with a painful paradox. The internation- al community recognises injustice and repression, yet lacks the legal tools or political will required to address them effectively. No one welcomes the sight of bombs falling on cities. War is Demanding simple answers in a complicated world Daniel Attard Labour MEP Photo: US Central Command