Malta's neutrality and American pitfalls

Our constitution, in the non-entrenched Article 1 (3), states that "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."

Neutrality has been one of the most important, significant and controversial points discussed in the light of the referendum and Malta's possible membership of the European Union. Its importance has however been over-estimated by the general public.

Its conceptual foundations lie within the existence of the Cold War between NATO and the former Warsaw Pact, to which neutrality per se is intricately linked.

However, it still figures in our most important and, so far (at least certainly until May 1, 2004), Supreme Law. It does not therefore reflect our contemporary social exigencies as a Mediterranean state within a globalised world.

Whereas before, Malta stood to gain by being neutral in all ways, today it stands to lose, and if it does remain neutral it may have to compromise Euro-Mediterranean security, a goal which should be at heart to all Maltese individuals.

After the Second World War, the world required a balance of power which maintained international peace and security throughout the Cold War period.

A superpower like the US, now that the former USSR has been fragmented, can only place at risk the international community at large. What's happening now that we are on the brink of another US-Iraqi war is a fair example of this state of affairs.

This is certainly one of the main arguments in favour of developing a European military alliance which functions within a federal European state. Who knows, maybe this is what the EU is gradually and persistently heading for!

The truth is that the EU can pursue peace by becoming a military union and not simply an economic and political one. Arguably, the only way the EU will attain international peace and security is by reconstructing a balance of power, a necessary ingredient for global stability, peace and security. Similar issues have been analysed by many experts, even in Malta.

For example, Professor Salvo Andò, general co-editor of The Mediterranean Journal of Human Rights, wrote, in a very detailed and interesting article in the journal's Volume 5 (double issue) of 2001, that the fundamental issue in relation to the Malta-EU relationship is that dealing with neutrality.

He asks whether neutrality has a future in a world of interdependence and integration. He notes that the future of neutrality cannot be read separately from that of the nation-state, and in the first place, the idea of sovereignty.

He adds, that "neutrality, already stripped of any value as a principle by an international security system entirely governed by the UN, is also rendered totally useless with the advent of the nuclear weapon.

"Since nuclear war cannot be contained beforehand within given parameters, within limited regions of the world and since its devastating effects are wide-reaching.

"Hence, neutrality constitutes only an impossible act of disassociation from international society, a sort of refusal on the part of one state to socialise with the other states.

"The process of European integration is not only a warranty of peace in Europe but is also a warranty of peace in the world. The fact that the European states, which have been the protagonists of so many wars, decide to create a single political institution changes the entire scenario of international relations."

Andò adds that "with regard to these objectives, the choice of neutrality appears to be a choice of real politique which leaves things unchanged.

"For this reason, in the world ruled by the right of peace of the peoples and of the duty of humanitarian intervention, the value of neutrality is an anti-historic value."

Reality dictates that Malta's declaration on neutrality (to be attached to the treaty of accession to the EU) doesn't mean much in practice. It is not a protocol as in the case of abortion. It is merely a non-binding declaration, and we all should be aware that it is more likely to be arduous to respect and implement it, than not to do so.

It also contains apparent contradictory dispositions. It states that "Malta affirms its commitment to the foreign and security policy of the European Union as set out in the Treaty on European Union.

"Malta confirms that its participation in the European Union's common foreign and security policy does not prejudice its neutrality. The Treaty on European Union specifies that any decision by the Union to move to a common defence would have to be taken by unanimous decision of the European Council adopted by the member states in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements."

This declaration needs clarification. What constitutes a common defence? The declaration does not provide a definition or interpretation of the term common defence, as in the case of Turkey in the Iraqi scenario.

In practice, possibly, this declaration connotes the following: If the EU moves to a common defence, Malta would veto such a decision and would be at loggerheads with all the other EU states and the EU itself, provided common defence may be understood to include military action; if Malta does not veto such a decision, this would be in contravention of its Constitution.

So Malta may, and probably will, find itself in an awkward position where it will have to decide either to veto such a decision or otherwise. This clearly will entail that Malta will run counter to either its own supreme law or the political will of all the other EU states.

Malta's behaviour, so far, attests to this via di mezzo (middle road). For example, Malta volunteered to participate in the Rapid Reaction Force with a platoon of soldiers.

However, it specified that it would only participate in humanitarian and rescue missions, and not in peace-making and peace-keeping missions.

So far Malta has struck the right balance. Will Malta be able to continue to do so in the near future without either violating its own laws or being the EU's black sheep (the one out of the 25 states)?

Even Professor Andò, back in 2001, concluded that "this being a very ambitious plan, no European state, independently of the level of the interest it harbours in joining the EU, can withdraw from participating hiding behind its anachronistic neutrality.

"The choice is not between neutrality and participation in the construction and protection of the European strategic design, but between the affirmation or the negation to achieve a foreign policy which has a precise European value."

Finally Andó states, and we concur, that "it would be too great an error to refuse to participate in the elaboration of a strategic identity and a European military policy in the name of a neutrality which is devoid of any practical purpose."

Remaining neutral is thus useless within the contemporary international political sphere. It is also, at least in theory, rather impossible, just as much as it will be, probably, for the British to retain their own currency.

Our government, and all its lawyers and experts in European affairs and international relations, should know this and should never have felt the need to negotiate this issue with the EU, which after all, is indeed a dynamic international institution.

It should have had the courage to propose, in the preliminary stages of negotiations with the EU, a constitutional amendment before our House of Representatives.

Our Opposition should desist from using it as a stumbling block for EU accession. It is anything but a good reason to justify non-membership. Both parties should concur to amend our Constitutional provision on neutrality, because our Constitution, no matter how old it may be, should reflect, as a supreme law, the exigencies of a country which is, as it has always been, a part of this global village.

The issues stated above, dealing with national sovereignty and neutrality, can be interwoven with all that is happening around us today, particularly in relation to the US-Iraqi confrontation.

If the US attacks Iraq alone, or else bilaterally with the UK and thus without a UN Security Council Resolution, this will set a very dangerous precedent in international law and affairs.

Admittedly the evidence produced by the US through Secretary of State Colin Powell is convincing, true and undeniable, but this does not give the right to the 'policeman of the world' to attack pre-emptively.

The attack may not be justified for many reasons, even though the proof of a material breach of Iraq might be sufficient. On the other hand, although most states seem to agree that further additional inspections are desirable, not to say required, a Security Council Resolution would, obviously, legally strengthen the US stand in justifying a pre-emptive attack, especially in the light of the American contention that the US is fighting an international war against terror since September 11, 2001.

These reasons range from basic international law principles to other concepts connected to international political affairs. Invading Iraq could possibly disrupt the war on terror.

Political correspondents argue that US foreign policy may be considered to be arrogant, to say the least, while President Bush, arguably, may be considered to have ulterior motives.

Time magazine has just reported that "a startling number of Europeans (75 per cent of the French and 54 per cent of the Germans) suspect Bush of disguised motives: he may be targeting US control of Iraq's oil, he would prefer a quick war to enhance re-election prospects in 2004, and he may symbolically want to avenge his dad."

And to complete his dad's unfinished task of defeating the Hussein regime. No doubt all the world, including the Iraqis themselves, would be delighted to experience the downfall of a dictator like Hussein.

But the end does not justify the means. In pursuance of this objective, the killing of innocent Iraqis, including soldiers, would in this sense never be justified.

We should by now know that even Iraqi soldiers fight against their own will. The Iraqi refugees in our country, whom one of the writers has met in person, are evidence of this.

Therefore, even if a war is declared, killing Iraqis, both belligerent soldiers and civilians, would be inhumane; and all this after that UN sanctions have resulted in the death of thousands of Iraqi children without getting rid of the real problem of Iraq - Saddam Hussein.

However, the US is a war economy, and war to the US is as indispensable as the sun to planet Earth, and this explains why the country of the FBI and CIA would never really want to eliminate Hussein from the international political scenario.

Bush preaches that the US is the land of freedom and democracy, and yet the US seems to condone, till this very day and after so much bloodshed in Israel and Palestine, the Israeli attacks on Palestinian territory, committed allegedly to eliminate the Palestinian terrorists who may be considered, after all, the prime movers of the war itself.

Again, the principle of "the end does not justify the means" applies also to the Palestinians, but Ariel Sharon, like Slobodan Milosevic before the ICTFY, may possibly be facing charges of serious crimes under international law before an ad hoc international tribunal, or the International Criminal Court, a Court which the US itself has opposed so much.

Yet the US President, after failing in his promise to capture Osama Bin Laden, speaks of others as those "who hate liberty" without realising that even his political ally Sharon seems to disregard the supreme values of justice, liberty and the right to self-determination.

To conclude, Andò's words fit like a glove in today's global situation: "to impose peace with arms is useless, if in the territory on which this armed intervention occurs, the conditions for the peaceful cohabitation and economic and social development are not created."

To a large extent war today, even for the best of causes, is not a right of states any more but a crime under international law. Can one really argue in favour of a just war?

If only so many statesmen, presidents, dictators, prime ministers and other government leaders could recall Pope John Paul's simple and significant words: "In guerra si perde sempre!"