MLP needs a new foreign policy

The Maltese people will shortly be asked to vote in a referendum on European Union membership. In other words they will be called upon to decide on the future direction of Malta's foreign policy.

The Maltese at periodic times in their history have been asked to take a decision on their preferred relations with the external other. This normally happens at times when Malta seems to have reached a critical juncture in its international relations and requires a reassessment of it. It occurred when the Maltese spontaneously rose against injurious French rule in 1798 and helped to evict them from the island. It occurred in 1802, when a group of Maltese elites showed a preference for British protection, and again in 1919 when this preference was being reassessed and local riots indicated the shortcomings of the British presence in Malta.

On a more legal note the referenda of 1956 and 1964 asked the Maltese to decide whether they wished to integrate the island with Britain or whether they preferred and felt ready for the status of independence.

A country's chosen foreign policy of course depends on the requirements of the state at that moment in time. Part of the acrimonious debate that occurred in 1964 centred around whether the island was ready economically and militarily to bear the burden of independence. In the long run the island proved able to survive on its own, albeit not without financial aid from numerous sources and security reinforcement first from the British and then from Italy.

Malta's survival was also aided by the foreign policy it pursued post-1964. There is a sense of continuity and eventual consensus that takes us right up to the early Nineties, as both major parties endeavoured to harness their foreign policy direction to the needs of the state.

The Nationalist Party felt strongly that Malta's place lay with democratic and liberal Europe, and from the early Sixties sought a close relationship with the European Community, and even explored the option of full membership. However this path proved inappropriate at the time for a number of reasons, including the fact that Britain had been refused membership and therefore lobbied against Malta's entry. As a result Malta opted for an Association Agreement which included the possibility for full membership at a later stage.

The Nationalist government's European foreign policy however did not eschew developing relations with other parts of the world. Indeed the government tried to solidify its relations with North Africa and the Middle East as its nearest neighbours. It also looked to diversify its interests in the economic and social field looking as far afield as Russia, China and Taiwan.

When the Labour Party came to power in 1971 Malta saw a reorientation of its foreign policy towards a more neutral and non-aligned stance. This was very much in line with the foreign policy approach of newly decolonised states, including Cyprus, and much of North Africa.

These areas, having just emerged from Western domination and serving Western interests, sought a foreign policy route that would allow them to express their own world view, and pursue their own independent interests. As a result they did not wish to be tied to the coat-tails of the Western sphere, nor on the other hand did they wish to fall into the orbit of Soviet rule. In a polarised world of nuclearised superpower politics, the adoption of a neutral stance made sense, as did the creation of a non-aligned movement which attempted to develop and pursue its own interests.

The successful culmination of this policy was seen in Malta's stand at the Council for Security and Cooperation in Europe in 1975, where she insisted that the superpowers should consider not just their own interests, but also the security interests of all the Mediterranean countries.

As a result the Labour government developed very positive relations with the neighbouring countries of North Africa and the Middle East, and also diversified Malta's foreign policy portfolio to include the opening of embassies by the USSR and the People's Republic of China.

This policy however did not mean that the Labour government eschewed a European relationship. Though it borrowed a rhetoric that was highly critical of Western Europe and despite the fact that relations with the European Community stagnated, Malta still continued to view Europe as its primary partner. It was European countries that invested most on the island - Germany, Italy and Britain. It was to Europe and more specifically Britain that over 70 per cent of the island's imports and exports originated from and were routed to. It was to the likes of Italy and Britain that the country turned to for advice on diplomatic practice, education and cultural affairs. Finally it was to Italy, a core member of NATO, that Malta turned to in 1980 to guarantee the island's security.

In reality the foreign policy stance of the Nationalist and Labour governments did not differ that radically. Both realised the importance of Europe. Both stressed the centrality of the Mediterranean dimension, as is evident in the role the Nationalist government has played in the Eighties and Nineties in the Euro-Med, and in the strong commitment it has to the Middle East, as seen in its policy on Palestine. Both have supported the notion of a neutral foreign policy, as evinced by the agreement to incorporate it into the constitution in 1987.

Ultimately both parties have attempted to serve the interests of their country by adopting foreign policy measures that suited its needs. By doing so they were able to create some consensus over foreign policy direction. This consensus today however has been eradicated, and one cannot help but feel that it is a result of the fact that the Labour Party does not seem to possess a foreign policy direction suited to the country's needs.

This in large measure is due to the fact that Labour's foreign policy does not seem to have been adapted and updated to meet the contingencies of the present international scene. Much of what Labour harps on today seems antiquated and obsolete, using terms of reference not applicable within the present day scenario.

Let us view one by one the poles on which its foreign policy rests. Labour today insists that Malta would be best served by a policy of continued neutrality and non-alignment and a closer relationship with Europe, one however of partnership and not full membership, since it insists that the latter scenario would threaten Malta's sovereignty, limit its rights of jurisdiction, worsen its relations with its southern neighbours and worsen, rather than alleviate, economic hardship. These arguments seem hard to sustain in the light of the following.

The argument of neutrality

The Labour Party has been very insistent on protecting Malta's politics of neutrality, however it has done little to define and substantiate this policy. In reality complete neutrality does not exist. No state today can afford to pursue a policy of complete isolation. Even Switzerland, whose policy of neutrality known as Integral Permanent Neutrality, which goes back to 1515 and has been the most rigid, applied for EU membership in 1992, and became a member of the UN in 2002.

Secondly, as the Labour Party discovered for itself in the late Seventies, the luxury of adopting an independent neutral stance belongs only to the super powers. All other states require that their neutrality be guaranteed by powerful neighbours, or as World War II illustrated so clearly with regard to Finland, Norway, Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg, it becomes an empty boast. In the case of Malta, Italy, a NATO member, guarantees our neutrality. However our stance of neutrality is being further strengthened, as a result of its being recognised and guaranteed by the entire EU, as in the case of Finland, Austria and Ireland, neutral member states.

At the same time Malta would be able to continue pursuing an independent foreign policy line since foreign policy belongs to the second pillar of the EU; an Inter-Governmental organ, where the wishes of the nation states remain paramount, where unanimity in decision-making is required and where the option of opting out from any ruling is available.

Furthermore, the notion of neutrality is tied to Old Security Issues, it becomes nonsensical in the context of New Security Issues. It is however New Security Issues which have become of paramount concern, and are the greatest threat to nations today. These include drug trafficking, money laundering, illegal immigration, slavery and terrorism.

One can hardly be neutral when dealing with these issues. They are however, issues that require the consolidated resources and efforts of nations, since they do not recognise borders and threaten all. They can therefore be better dealt with as part of a unit such as the EU, rather than on one's own. To defend the present notion of neutrality simply by stating that it is inserted in our constitution is not good enough. After all a constitution is not set in stone; it is a living instrument that is meant to be readapted to suit the contingencies of the day.

The argument of non-alignment

Tied to the policy of neutrality is that of non-alignment introduced under the Labour government in the 1970s, which had then defined it as equidistance from the two superpowers. In the context of the cold war, nuclear threat, and superpower rivalry, the concept of such an independent stance, and the setting up of a non-aligned movement to support it, made eminent sense. However today, both the concept and the movement that supported it have become largely defunct.

In the first place how can we talk of equidistance between two poles, when it is no longer a case of hegemonic duality but rather the sole hegemony of the US? In the second place any threat from this hegemony today can only be counter-balanced by the presence of regional powers such as the EU, OPEC and ASEAC. A country can therefore hope to best deal with the situation by belonging to and strengthening the regional unit.

Ironically, this is exactly what the rump of the non-aligned movement is doing today. In 2003 the movement has become a regional body incorporating primarily African and Asian states. It is also endeavouring to strengthen its economic credentials by moving towards a customs union with plans for closer political and cultural co-operation in the future. In other words it is attempting to adopt the EU formula to better deal with it foreign policy concerns.

Finally the Labour Party concludes that its notions of neutrality and non-alignment make partnership with the EU a better option than membership, for the following reasons:

The argument of diminished sovereignty

The party argues that membership will endanger the sovereign status of Malta. However during the last century the countries that have most successfully defended their sovereign status have been the USA and the USSR, who have used the tool of federation to access and dominate world resources.

The European Community was indeed a response to the success of these new federations, as the nation states of Europe realised that in order to protect sovereignty against the incursions of these new superpowers they would have to pool it. Only in this way would they be able to provide the resources to make them worthy competitors of these new federations.

In the same way Maltese sovereignty is strengthened rather than weakened by European Union membership. Malta's access to resources; be they territorial, monetary or educational are largely enhanced. At the same time the island gains a voice in the governance of Europe through its membership of the Council of Ministers, and participation in the decision-making processes, through membership of the Commission, Parliament and the other constituted bodies of the EU.

It is after all for this reason above all else that all European states with the exception of Norway, Iceland and Switzerland are either members, or on the track to membership. In the case of the latter three, membership in the near future is on the cards, since these countries find themselves closely effected by the global requirements of the single European market, have had to adopt community law in order to participate fully in the market, and yet have no say in the decisions that dictate this market.

As Professor Peter Xuereb rightly states (The Sunday Times, February 9) it is those countries that stay out of the EU, but who are forced into some form of partnership, since they can hardly ignore this huge economic unit on their door step, who surrender sovereignty. For by participating in the market, but having no say in the decision making, they are in effect transferring their sovereignty.

The argument of worsened relations with southern neighbours

The MLP argues that by joining the EU we risk injuring our relations with the countries in the southern Mediterranean, in North Africa and the Middle East. In the context of recent developments this is rather a strange argument. Over the last ten years through the process of Euro-Med, a multilateral arm of the EU, these countries have striven to improve their relations with the same organisation. Indeed a number of them have even formally requested whether EU membership would be possible in the future.

In addition, North African countries including Algeria, when questioned on Malta's imminent membership of the EU, responded by stating that not only did they find no problem with it, but felt that it would enhance Malta's position in the region. That as a member the island might be able to help North African states improve their relations with the Union, and grant them easier access to some of its resources, including the ear of the Common Foreign and Security Policy, which has always been more amenable than the US in considering North African concerns, primarily Palestinian demands.

The argument of increased economic hardship

Most important of all, from the perspective of everyday living, the Labour Party argues that EU membership will bring increased economic hardship to the island. This argument rests primarily on the basis that being full members of a customs union will require us to dismantle all forms of protective levies, and will leave our previously protected industries exposed to the exigencies of the global market.

Again, this argument seems hard to sustain in the light of the free trade agreement with the EU that the Labour government in 1997 was in the process of constructing. For this agreement once finalised would have done exactly that, but without the advantages of full membership, that is, a say in the decisions that formulate the market, freedom not just of goods, but of capital, labour and services, and access to funding and expertise to help one cope with the negative aspects of the global market.

Indeed it is above all in this latter argument that one realises that the MLP has really missed the point of what the EU is really all about, and in so doing has been incapable of constructing a viable foreign policy.

For the EU is ultimately Europe's last defence against the most negative and destructive forces of globalisation. As a regional power it can muster the resources to challenge the great multinationals, who with trans-national organisations with funding that exceeds that of national treasuries, are no match for single nations.

Very much as the welfare state of old provided a bastion against the dark side of capitalism, today the EU, with its democratic requirements, its policy of redistribution from rich to poor states, its stringent labour market and environment regulations, and its support of a robust social policy is the new bastion against the new forces of capital: unleashed multinationals.

In an era where politics is being modelled in the image of the New Right, the EU attempts to protect and keep alive the old values of social democracy. It is therefore a union that has been supported by the Social Democratic parties and the trade unions of Europe, as an institution that has furthered the voice of the New Left.

The MLP was once a force of change and progress in the area of international relations. Today it is holding on to an antiquated and redundant philosophy, and as a result is out of step with its ideological peers in the rest of Europe. New ideas in foreign policy, ones that will bring consensus once again on the island, however do seem to be emerging from those who inhabit the margins of the party.

It is high time that these people are brought to centre stage, and allowed to rejuvenate the MLP, so that it can once more take its place either in government, or as the main opposition and provide the critical judicious expertise that is required by a nation in transition.

Ms Calleja is a lecturer in the Department of International Relations of the University of Malta.