Non-alignment and neutrality

While I fully endorse the comments by Jason Azzopardi (May 5) on the implications of Malta's neutrality as it is spelled out in our Constitution, I would caution lawmakers not to update the existing wording to meet the present world situation. Any such attempt would inevitably carry the risk of new faults similar to those of the present formula, and it could again become anachronistic in due course.

The traditional concept of neutrality in international relations has always been associated with situations of war.

It is true that if we elaborate the concept of war to include other conflicts and disputes, we also give a wider dimension to neutrality. On the other hand, the concept of non-alignment, as defined by the founders of the Non-Aligned Movement, involved interests rather than conflict. It implied a non-military alliance of economically developing states to counter the political and economic pressures which they were facing as a result of the rivalry between the two superpowers and the alliances led by them. Muammar al-Gaddafi's comment, which was directed at Dom Mintoff's concept of neutrality on the basis of non-alignment, was that a country could not be non-aligned and neutral at the same time. Food for thought!

As a member of the United Nations (and other similar international bodies) Malta cannot opt out of its responsibilities by invoking its neutrality, when transnational issues are discussed. Prominent among these are international terrorism and crime organisations, migration by whatever adjective one might wish to define it, peace-keeping operations, and humanitarian assistance. This list is far from exhaustive, and new issues are bound to crop up as globalisation makes the furthest state on the globe our close neighbour.

If we have to retain the concept of neutrality in our Constitution we should keep to basics. I would rather not mention neutrality and non-alignment, and limit myself to basic positive aims.