The announcement by the government of its decision to rejoin Partnership for Peace (PfP) raises a number of questions. That Malta might wish to form a part of the PfP programme is not the issue. The issue lies in the manner of its announcement to a country only recently emerging from a bruising election campaign in which the government came out victorious by a whisker.
Given that the benefits of rejoining PfP formed no part of the election campaign or, indeed, of the 353 promises made by the government in its electoral manifesto, and given, moreover, that in 1995, PfP had split the country down the middle, it would not be an exaggeration to say that this decision came as a bolt from the blue.
The advantages of Malta rejoining PfP stand on their own merits. What is striking here, however, is how the Prime Minister, who made it the central tenet of his electoral campaign that his would be "a government of all the people", transparent and accountable for all its actions, can, within a few days of being returned to office, make a unilateral decision without in any way consulting the opposition on a subject that divides large sections of our population, irrespective of whether that is justifiable or not.
This is worrying to say the least as it lays the Prime Minister open to the accusations of arrogance to which his first Administration was so prone. While it might be argued that the opposition is in disarray and the need to deal with the issue was timely, it still remains a strategic decision taken opportunistically without broad consultation in an area of politics - foreign affairs - where there has recently been remarkable consensus between the government and the opposition. The impression that the new Minister for Foreign Affairs might have been bounced into this decision does not help the overall perception that it was taken precipitately without the necessary public debate so fundamental to the workings of a healthy and mature democracy. Neither was it communicated effectively to the people.
It cannot be disputed that the decision to withdraw from PfP in 1996 was wrong-headed and did much damage to Malta's standing in Europe at the time. Since then, Malta has made a seismic advance by joining the EU. That pivotal decision has altered the whole landscape against which the government's present wish to reactivate PfP should be viewed. Whereas in 1996 withdrawal from PfP could be seen as being at one with the then Labour government's even more wrong-headed decision to freeze Malta's application to join the EU, today the circumstances are totally reversed. Malta is an intrinsic part of Europe and, within the natural constraints of its size, the country plays a full and committed part in all its counsels.
Among these are the need to be able to participate fully in the ongoing debates on defence-related and foreign affairs matters where, it has been stated, Malta's non-membership of PfP has handicapped its access to documents and information.
Being in PfP would enable the island to participate more fully in discussions of European security and defence policy alongside the other neutral countries in Europe.
The subject of Malta's neutrality should not be allowed to cloud the question of whether or not it should join PfP. It is a non-issue. Austria, Finland, Sweden and Ireland, all prominent members of both the EU and PfP, find no irreconcilable difficulty with this. Why should Malta's neutrality be any different? It is not and it is simply mischievous to pretend otherwise.
While participation in PfP is politically important, the key benefit lies in the training and military exchanges which the Armed Forces of Malta will enjoy as a result of cooperation with 38 PfP and Nato countries, focusing essentially on humanitarian and crisis management activities, which lie at the root of the PfP project.
The initiative to reactivate PfP is commendable but the cack-handed manner of its presentation is disappointing.