Let's talk about it

Malta's membership of the Partnership for Peace (PfP) brought about a welcome debate on neutrality and the relevant provisions in our Constitution which have become obsolete.

The Times leader (April 14) was right in taking up the debate and contributing by calling for the Constitution of Malta to be amended to reflect "the reality of where neutral Malta stands today".

For too long the issue of neutrality in this country has been taboo. No one quite understands what neutrality means, still less in today's world. But no one questions it either.

Our Constitution defines our neutral status as one whereby we should actively pursue peace, security and social progress (whatever that has got to do with it) among all nations by adhering to a policy of non-alignment and refusing to participate in any military alliance. The Constitution also makes reference to the "two superpowers" and provides that our shipyards "will be denied to the military vessels of the two superpowers".

Let's take it bit by bit, starting with the only point where there seems to be a solid consensus, namely our non-participation in a military alliance. Hands up all those who do not want us to join a military alliance. Good. If our neutrality had to mean just that, then we are home and dry. And we can agree to keep it that way.

But does it mean just that?

No, it does not. Our Constitution goes on to speak of defunct notions such as "non-alignment" and "superpowers". And it also appears to severely restrict foreign military personnel from visiting Malta, making even friendly - and commercially lucrative - visits of foreign naval forces to our ports appear constitutionally dubious.

On all these three issues then we should seriously rethink our constitutional provisions. And I trust that we should have no major difficulty on that. But while we are at it we should also have the courage to debate neutrality proper. Redefining it. Or should that be, quite simply, define it? At least to define it in a way that means something that everyone can understand. And, why not, of questioning whether we should continue to stick to it.

The truth is that neutrality is difficult to define, let alone understand, in the context of today's world.

So let's ask a few questions.

What does neutrality mean in today's world? And neutrality from what exactly? Given that the superpower era has long gone, neutrality from which country?

Is it neutrality from the United States, which is the only major world power left? But would not an arm's length approach from the US risk jeopardising our own interests?

Or should it also be neutrality from China or India, which are today's global emerging powers? Or Brazil and Russia, which are also asserting themselves on the world stage?

And what of the European Union? How will our neutrality sit with our eventual participation in the framing of a future common European defence policy? Surely our definition of neutrality cannot prejudice our status as members of the European Union. On the contrary, it must reflect it.

Even if we had to leave specific countries aside, the notion of neutrality placed in the context of today's real global and regional challenges still presents difficulties.

Again the question is "neutrality from what?"

Should we, for instance, remain neutral on the challenge of illegal immigration, even if immigrants landing in Malta are leaving uninhibited from Libya, our long-time friendly neighbour?

Does our involvement in the Frontex missions in the Mediterranean compromise our neutrality? And what will our participation in PfP do to our neutrality?

Or take terrorism. How can we proclaim to be neutral in the face of the global threat of terrorism? Should we be neutral on issues such as the allied attacks on Taliban terrorists in Afghanistan? Or the toppling of Saddam Hussein and the invasion of Iraq? Or the nuclear programme of Iran?

And should we be neutral only when other countries are under threat but promptly renounce neutrality when the threat faces us?

Of course, these questions are deliberately provocative, to stimulate debate. But not all the answers are obvious.

The fact remains that our notion of neutrality has not only been overtaken by events but is also difficult to define in the context of today's world. We should therefore have the courage to admit it, to debate it and - as The Times rightly proposes - to proceed to amend the Constitution accordingly. It will be interesting to see how the new government - but also the new opposition - will handle this.

Questions to be answered in this column should be sent by e-mail to contact@simonbusuttil.eu or through www.simonbusuttil.eu.