Boycott ta’ Gasan u Tumas? X’inhi l-mira?

target1

 

L-iskop ta’ Martin Scicluna u Edward Mallia li jħeġġu boycott tas-servizzi u prodotti li joffru l-kumpaniji fil-gruppi ta’ Gasan u Tumas għandu intenzjonijiet tajba.  Imma l-boycott avolja għandu l-merti tiegħu hu arma qadima u biex ikun effettiv irid jitħaddem sewwa fuq tul ta’ żmien.

Hu iktar għaqli li l-familja ambjentalista tpoġġi fil-mira l-proċess tal-finanzjament tal-proġetti nfushom.

Fil-mira għandu jkun hemm il-bonds li jridu jinħarġu, il-bank u l-istockbroker li jieħdu ħsieb is-sejħa għax-xiri tal-bonds.

Azzjoni ta’ din ix-xorta tista’ tkun iktar effettiva għax l-impatt tagħha ikun direttament relatat għall-proġetti tat-torrijiet tal-Imrieħel u Townsquare infushom.

Advertisements

5 comments on “Boycott ta’ Gasan u Tumas? X’inhi l-mira?

  1. It would seem that bonds, bank and stockbroker constitute a better target than goods and services in general. But how exactly are they to be targeted? By a boycott I presume. Fine, So bonds will not be bought by objectors; objectors will also boycott e.g. by removing deposits the bank backing the issue; and also the stockbroker looking after the issue. This last is hardly likely to have much effect given that most objectors do not make regular use of stockbrokers. The bank providing the necessary loan (and yesterday Dr. Alfred Sant express some skepticism about the willingness of banks to lend money on projects of this type with “sham” EIAs etc) is going to suffer from withdrawl of deposits by objectors but will still go ahead; and the bond sale itself is unlikely to be seriously affected going by the fate of recent bond issues.
    A boycott of goods and services, while more difficult to make effective, will strike at the fundamental activities, with a far larger spread of customers and so a better likelihood to comprise a larger number of objectors. Of course there is no objection to using both approaches.

  2. There is is further point connected with the original writing. There is a principle in the conduct of “guerilla warfare” that the guerillas should not seek set piece battles against an opponent which is much stronger militarily as they are bound to loose. They should carry out small attacks under conditions of local superiority and then vanish until the next time. Whenever guerillas have ignored this principle, they suffered serious set-backs. So a “services” boycott is likely to have a better effects than JUST a set-piece battle at the bond stage.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s