Neutering neutrality

We may not revere our Constitution like the Italians do theirs. Carlo Azeglio Ciampi, their former head of state, calls it "our civil bible". But ours too remains the supreme law of the land. It is not perfect. Born in controversy in 1964 and suffering further controversy later, it has persevered, but we would fail ourselves if we did not see it as a living entity to be updated from time to time.

We should do that because we, as its owners and servants, come to believe that it is time to do so, not under any external nudge as offered recently by the US ambassador.

As a private individual, the gentleman is held in high regard for his intellectual prowess. He is also not without controversy. He adheres to the position adopted by President Barack Obama - who rationalised abortion - in his gripping testament of belief The Audacity of Hope. The ambassador's stance left eyebrows fixed in a raised position, but that is up to his conscience to reconcile, not ours to query.

What I do query is his early incursion into our internal affairs. He is free as an individual to comment about us and our constitutional trappings, as much as I am free to comment about those of his country. He does not have that freedom as a diplomat. The fact that he chose to raise doubts about our constitutionally enshrined neutrality must mean that, as a diplomat, he felt it was high on the list of priorities of his country to try to wean us away from that position.

Strangely, the Labour Party was not impelled to as much as murmer about the blatant intrusion. But then, the PL remained silent when the Nationalist government sold the US a chunk of Maltese land to be turned into an ambassadorial bunker.

Our concept of neutrality deserves to be seen in a rounder light than selectively chosen by the US's man in Malta. In pronounced condescension he told us that neutrality should not be viewed in isolation - one should ask, neutrality from what? The simple answer is contextualised in history.

For centuries Malta was a military sex slave or at least a willing military prostitute servicing the interests of the mightiest power(s) in the Mediterranean. Dom Mintoff pronounced neutrality in the 50s (Malta, a Switzerland in the Mediterranean) as a bargaining chip for filthy lucre. Later he and others saw it as means of gaining self-respect by undertaking never again to let Malta be used as a military base.

The neutrality amendment to the Constitution was inserted as a counter valid in political currency when, early in 1987, Labour at last saw sense and agreed that administrative power should go to the party which garnered an absolute majority of valid votes - a condition, by the way, not yet recognised in the US, as seen in the Bush vs Gore outcome.

If there is anything which now needs to be reviewed it is the link to non-alignment in today's world military model, and to ship-repairing, and not the reference to military bases or other military use of our island. The clause in the Constitution stems from a definite preference for non-military peace, unless there is a United Nations decision to the contrary. It was a deeply thought-out provision. If it is to be revisited, it should be because every document needs updating, including for references to the 'Roman' Catholic faith which is now passé.

To offer a proper basis for discussion on why neutrality should not be neutered, I am reproducing below the Constitution neutrality provision in full. It is far from being a loose leaf unrelated to any tree....

1(3)Malta is a neutral state actively pursuing peace, security and social progress among all nations by adhering to a policy of non-alignment and refusing to participate in any military alliance. Such a status will, in particular, imply that:

[a] no foreign military base will be permitted on Maltese territory;

[b] no military facilities in Malta will be allowed to be used by any foreign forces except at the request of the government of Malta, and only in the following cases:

(i) in the exercise of the inherent right of self-defence in the event of any armed violation of the area over which the Republic of Malta has sovereignty, or in pursuance of measures or actions decided by the Security Council of the United Nations; or

(ii) whenever there exists a threat to the sovereignty, independence, neutrality, unity or territorial integrity of the Republic of Malta;

[c] except as aforesaid, no other facilities in Malta will be allowed to be used in such manner or extent as will amount to the presence in Malta of a concentration of foreign forces;

[d] except as aforesaid, no foreign military personnel will be allowed on Maltese territory, other than military personnel performing, or assisting in the performance of, civil works or activities, and other than a reasonable number of military technical personnel assisting in the defence of the Republic of Malta;

[e] the shipyards of the Republic of Malta will be used for civil commercial purposes, but may also be used, within reasonable limits of time and quantity, for the repair of military vessels which have been put in a state of non-combat or for the construction of vessels; and in accordance with the principles on non-alignment the said shipyards will be denied to the military vessels of the two superpowers.