One of the Times’ quotes of the week was by Prof Kmiec, the latest US ambassador to grace our shores. He kicked off with a provocative question regarding Malta’s Constitutional neutrality status:
While I respect how Malta values its neutrality, the question I ask is: neutral to what? Is it neutrality to peace? Is it neutrality to assisting those striving for peace?
First of all this begs the question as to what exactly Prof Kmiec is respecting since, by his own admission, he has no idea what the whole business of neutrality is about. I know that the business of an ambassador involves being diplomatic and all but this sounds hideously like diplomatic speak for “I respect the fact that you’re a country that loves to be neutral uselessly because there is nothing to be neutral about.” Prof Kmiec would have been better off directly questioning the utility of the neutrality clause that was framed in a different era with different realities.
There is an even more insulting inference to be made from Kmiec’s questioning. Essentially Kmiec provocatively implies that our neutrality prevents us from assisting nations on a mission for peace. The Times fell for the bait in its editorial egging for change, presumably to accommodate Kmiec’s requisites (sweetened with lucrative ship repair contracts for the peaceful US navy). The problem, Prof Kmiec, lies mainly in understanding whose peaceful whims and missions we would choose to accommodate in the future. Would it be a US quest to eliminate a future Saddam and uncover his plentiful hoard of “weapons of mass destruction”? (All those Rocks in Babylon). Or would we use it to assist the US intelligence agency in their peaceful mission to fly suspected criminals to areas of the world where Fundamental Human Rights are an expensive extra? Mr Ahmadinejad too has a peaceful mission of his (at least he likes to think so)- that of providing his people with nuclear power – how would the US read any Maltese efforts assisting Ahmadinejad in his peaceful aims?
In short, and avoiding caricaturised models of world peace, Prof Kmiec (and the Sunday Times Editor) would do well to note that our neutrality may be anachronistic and hard to define in today’s world but it has kept us out of more than a spot of bother. The day we need to redefine our neutrality in terms of peace I am quite sure we can do it in our own terms – particularly since peace and neutrality do not seem to be the best kind of US Premium Export.
4 replies on “Peace of Kmiec”
well said Jacques
I was also irritated at his statement. He should know perfectly what neutrality means. It means we do not make war and do not get involved. Does not mean we are not commited to world peace. Just that we don’t feel that war is the solution. And the middle east conflict is and will continue to prove us right. I hope Dr.Gonzi will not bow down to pressure…when I see our soldiers on TV with the latest tv series bravo I worry about this. To be fair we are not 100% neutral since we allow war ships in our harbour. Thanks
Mark
What Kmiec said sounds very Bushian to me. Very unilateral. You’re either with us or against us. Well what do you expect?
On the other hand Kmiec was pretty restrained. The neutrality clause is a lot of hogwash. And not because of it being an “anachronism” it was no better when it was enacted. Think of, for example, the requirement that no repairs be allowed on warships of “the two superpowers”. If there were to be say, a war between the US and Libya, a Maltese government would be acting constitutionally if it allowed repairs on Libyan warships but not US warships. Very neutral, huh?
Same goes for the ambassador’s complaint on peace missions. The Constitution severely constraints the hand of the Maltese government to afford facilities to third parties for whatever, be it active war or peacekeeping. Jacques, you raised the question vis-a-vis the Americans but think of EU-sponsored missions.
I also fully understand his perplexity (not incompatible with showing respect: think of the atheist who still shows respect of believers). We’ve had a good example here: Mark C who things that neutrality means that “we do not make war and do not get involved”. That’s his understanding which is not borne out either by the Constitution or international law.
As to your claim that neutrality has “has kept us out of more than a spot of bother” I’d be very happy if you were to list the instances. I cannot think of any.