Here we go again - July 25, 2004

The M.L.P. has pledged to pull Malta out of the EU's Euro-pean Defence Agency (EDA) if elected to government. Here we go again. Without giving the agency a fair hearing the MLP has already condemned it to death. We think that this is rash and that such serious matters should not be tackled in this way.

Granted that it is perhaps fair to say that the Government should have encouraged a thorough discussion before committing itself. But then the significance of this decision can only be weighed properly if all the information about the EDA is allowed to pour out and if this is discussed objectively. If we have to pull out of the EDA eventually, it should be for the right reasons.

The Foreign Minister, Michael Frendo, has defended the decision by reference to a few points, which should not be discarded. Firstly, all the neutral states of the EU including those with a much longer neutral tradition than Malta's, have joined the EDA. Is there a reason for Malta to adopt a holier-than-thou position?

Dr Frendo has also stressed that, by joining, Malta, which has no armaments industry, can keep itself informed on what is happening. We add another reason: outside EDA Malta has no influence whatsoever on the agency but it can have some influence if it forms part of it.

If neutral countries desert such EU fora and agencies they will have no influence whatsoever and they will only have themselves to blame if EU policies take a turn which makes them more uncomfortable.

Europe needs a co-ordinated armaments industry if it is to strengthen its independence in this domain. It needs to strengthen its defences and security as well. During the cold war neutral states were forced to allocate a bigger share of their resources to their defence.

That is because although they were neutral they understood that a neutral policy on its own would not be enough when push comes to shove. Neutral states like Malta have every interest to ensure that, if any part of the EU is threatened, Europe has the autonomous capacity to respond.

Participation in the EDA is a far cry from agreeing to participate in military operations. According to the treaties, Malta still has the right to say "no" in such cases. But even in this case we have to be very careful.

Since the end of the Second World War, neutral states have participated in numerous peace-keeping operations in various parts of the world. Let us suppose, for one instant, that the EU had to decide to send a force to the Sudanese province of Darfur, where Arab gangs recruited and instigated by the Sudanese government have displaced millions of defenceless and helpless people who are now threatened by starvation and killed thousands more in the process.

Now, what will the MLP's response to that be? Surely not "Let them perish". The European Movement (Malta) appeals to all political forces to engage in a proper debate that would help crystallise the meaning of Malta's neutrality to help us navigate through certain decisions when they arise.

The MLP's stand on the EDA may also have resulted from the conditioning to which the party's spokesman on Foreign Affairs, Leo Brincat, may have been subjected recently by extremists within his own party who are still living in the 1950s and who are hell-bent on making the MLP unelectable.

Was he accused of sinning against neutrality by proposing that Malta apply for NATO membership? By perhaps praising the George W. Bush doctrine of preventive war? Perhaps by denigrating Malta's neutrality in public? No, nothing of the sort. Only for attending a reception on board an American aircraft-carrier which brought 5,000 crew members to spend $12 million in Malta.

By the way, apart from Mr Brincat, there were a number of other MLP stalwarts present for the reception. We suggest they be rounded up as well, punished and made to repent for being naughty.