Over the past few days the word on the Maltese net/blogosphere/press has been split between the eagles and the doves. It all boiled down to the position Malta seems to be taking with regards to the events in Libya – and in particular the emphasis being made on “Malta not being used as a military base“. Our foreign minister came up with specious phrase: “Militarily Neutral” while others (PM included) have been at pain to stress that Malta will not participate in the “military action“.
At the end of this post I am appending the full text of the controversial “neutrality” article in our Constitution. I would also refer readers to a brilliant article by Prof Richard E. Rubenstein (Maltese neutrality is still a brilliant idea) that appeared on the Times on the 11th March 2011.
Rubenstein argues that the notion of neutrality as entrenched in the Maltese constitution is “neither outmoded, contrary to Maltese national interests, nor immoral”. Rubenstein’s reading of this neutrality is one that “does not imply either passivity or immorality”. J’accuse is very much in agreement with this interpretation. We have argued for a principled approach by the Maltese government. One that does not send signals of yellow submissiveness and wait-and-see approaches.
Our line here does not mean we are plugging for a coalition base in Malta but that we expect a principled – moral even – approach in the development of our position in the international field. Taking Rubenstein’s theoretical approach of a neutral country that is not passive and that is geared towards participating directly by offering a credible platform for conflict resolution (a Guido De Marco revisited) it is not hard to see how the Gonzi/Borg reactive, passive and submissive approach fails even on this count.
The collective action of Malta’s political representatives gave out an impression – and a strong one at that – of a country that was hedging its bets. It was a Malta that still worried about its ephemeral commercial interests with Gaddafi and his government. One that seemed reluctant to condemn the dictator even when his final hour seemed so close. The signs we sent out were not confusing: they were actually quite clear. We gave an unconditional, unqualified message that we would step back and wait: and thank God for all the confusion of neutrality clauses behind which to hide.
Yes, an actively neutral Malta can be a desireable goal for future politicians. Not being on the active “military” side of the UN resolution enforcers is no biggie. Doing everything we can to send out the message to the world that we are actually hiding under a rock until it is all over – when we will crawl out again ready to do business with the next people in power – is a huge huge issue. It is that issue that leads us to conclude that our nation still lacks the balls and a set of clear beliefs.
***
Article 1 of the Constitution of Malta
(1) Malta is a democratic republic founded on work and on respect for the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual.
(2) The territories of Malta consist of those territories comprised in Malta immediately before the appointed day, including the territorial waters thereof, or of such territories and waters as Parliament may from time to time by law determine.
(3) Malta is a neutral state actively pursuing peace, security and social progress among all nations by adhering to a policy of non-alignment and refusing to participate in any military alliance.
Such a status will, in particular, imply that:
(a) no foreign military base will be permitted on Maltese territory;
(b) no military facilities in Malta will be allowed to be used by any foreign forces except at the request of the
Government of Malta, and only in the following cases:
(i) in the exercise of the inherent right of selfdefence in the event of any armed violation of the area over which the Republic of Malta has sovereignty, or in pursuance of measures or actions decided by the Security Council of the United Nations; or
(ii) whenever there exists a threat to the sovereignty, independence, neutrality, unity or territorial integrity of the Republic of Malta;
(c) except as aforesaid, no other facilities in Malta will be allowed to be used in such manner or extent as will amount to the presence in Malta of a concentration of foreign forces;
(d) except as aforesaid, no foreign military personnel will be allowed on Maltese territory, other than military personnel performing, or assisting in the performance of, civil works or activities, and other than a reasonable number of military technical personnel assisting in the defence of the Republic of Malta;
(e) the shipyards of the Republic of Malta will be used for civil commercial purposes, but may also be used, within reasonable limits of time and quantity, for the repair of military vessels which have been put in a state of non-combat or for the construction of vessels; and in accordance with the principles of non-alignment the said shipyards will be denied to the military vessels of the two superpowers.
