What does neutrality mean?
Recently, I asked the experts assembled at a fine Mediterranean Academy of Diplomatic Studies conference to help me better understand the scope and applicability of the neutrality provision within the Constitution of the Republic of Malta. The discussion that followed has been helpful, civil, and revealing of a nation of admirable character that, because of certain turbulent aspects in its history, shares to one degree or another in the uncertainty of the current meaning of neutrality.
In asking the question, I noted both my genuine desire to learn the best understanding of neutrality held by Malta itself, and my assumption that neutrality could not possibly mean that Malta was "neutral as to the pursuit of peace". Indeed, it is not. Malta is identified in Chapter 1 of the Constitution as "a neutral state actively pursuing peace, security and social progress among all nations".
The turn of the year now prompts me to reflect upon this inquiry. Let me begin by emphasising that this is not written from the vantage point, as it might have been casually said by earlier American administrations, of the one remaining superpower. The concept of 'superpower' is at odds with the perspective of US President Barack Obama who sees America as a nation among other nations observing the human rights of all as it pursues new economic opportunity that is also environmentally sensitive.
The superpower label is anachronistic and inapposite in the 21st century since it disregards the obligation to find common ground among the family of nations. Viewed in this way, those Maltese citizens who have suggested that the origin of the neutrality provision was simply and plainly to keep Malta clear of the disputes between superpowers of a previous century were very likely illustrating its drafters' wisdom, not indifference.
Yet, no modern nation can remain neutral in the face of extraordinary threat to the civil order. When 43 nations of the world, including nearly every member of the European Union, have focused their attention on Afghanistan as central to the struggle against terrorism, it is not unreasonable for those very same nations to ask that the effort to secure peace be borne fairly by all who depend upon it. Those who would criticise the United States for having acted too unilaterally in the past, as regrettably we sometimes have, lose credibility if they close their eyes to the very real concerns of the present. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton observed: "Believing in human rights means committing ourselves to action. When we sign up for the promise of rights that apply everywhere, to everyone the promise of rights that protect and enable human dignity, we also sign up for the hard work of making that promise a reality."
Failure to thwart al Qaeda in Afghanistan would mean not only a return of the terrorist breeding ground that spawned the 9/11 attacks but also the loss of basic human rights for Afghanistan's women and minorities, and the further destabilisation of a region with nuclear weapons. Peace in Afghanistan depends not only on the number of troops but on the capacity to produce the web of culture that is found in few provinces of the country. Reached only after the broadest form of consultation, Mr Obama's plan combines the enhanced military presence with increased humanitarian assistance.
In answer to a thoughtful question from the Maltese press, I commented upon the generosity of the Maltese people and speculated about possible forms of assistance that those representing Malta might contribute. Malta needs no foreign ambassador, certainly not this one, to know how to react in the face of genuine threat to world order. The George Cross is to my knowledge the only distinction ever given an entire nation for valour. The courage of Malta as that "island alone and unafraid in the darkened sea" of World War II, as Franklin Delano Roosevelt put it, reminds this son of an Air Force man who flew in the perilous European skies to defend freedom in his day, that the present-day needs of freedom in Afghanistan will be evaluated by the representatives of the Maltese people fairly and consistently within Malta's constitutional structure.
For years now, America has stood with Malta as an equal sovereign. The general concept of sovereignty in itself entitles Malta's national judgment to respect, whether it is decided to act in concert with all other EU nations or to lead those nations and the world independently. Geographic size does not determine the deference due sovereignty, but if it did, surely Malta would be among the first rank for its generosity in risking the lives and comfort of her own citizens for the lives and well being of the immigrant stranger in a vast and often turbulent region of the sea. The US has been privileged to assist your noble efforts by supplying training and equipment to support the Armed Forces of Malta's capability to search and rescue, interdict weapons of mass destruction, track terrorist figures, and stop the illegal trafficking in humans or drugs. We must not allow an interpretation of the scope of a constitutional neutrality provision to be taken advantage of by those who might wish to use a Maltese port to unleash a future terror plot, whether in London, Madrid, on a flight bound for Detroit, or for that matter, may the good Lord forbid, Valletta.
Permit me to conclude by expressing the gratitude of my fellow Americans for the high regard European citizens have for Mr Obama as he completes his first year. Having stabilised an economy jeopardised by an avarice that undermines the very freedom of a free market, having thoughtfully evaluated an intractable war from the standpoint of both military and non-military approaches, and by continuing to persevere to extend healthcare to those who have previously been left out of this basic human right, Mr Obama has achieved greatly in his first year.
There remains much to do in the new year opening before us, of course, including most prominently addressing the continuing security threat and humanitarian injustice that persists in the Middle East so long as a two state solution is needlessly delayed or equivocated.
May both of our nations, and all those genuinely working toward peace on earth, be blessed in the new year.
Prof. Kmiec is the US Ambassador to Malta
Popular Stories
In Discussion
16 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Evarist Saliba
Jan 5th 2010, 14:36
@lgalea What I wrote about the use of Malta by Libya and the IRA are NOT allegations. They are facts. If other nations also abused our neutrality status, that goes to strengthen, rather than weaken, my arguments. Did I write anything which remotely implies that I favour Malta being used as a military base by any other nation? NO. Why must you misinterpret what I wrote? Your spin does you no honour.
Dr Francis Saliba
Jan 4th 2010, 11:26
@Igalea
Your circumlocution and your personal opinions do not conceal the following hard facts:
a) Malta’s neutrality clause was imposed arbitrarily as an act of political blackmail by an MLP that did not represent the majority of the Maltese electorate. It was grudgingly accepted by the NP in a last ditch attempt to restore the democratic principle of rule by the majority as expressed in fair elections. The NP at that time, and for most of the time since then, undoubtedly enjoyed, and still enjoys, the support of the majority of the electors.
b) Malta’s “neutrality” was a sham anti-West “neutrality” as was generally accepted and as mentioned in the comment by Mr Evarist Saliba.
c) If and when the neutrality clauses are changed that will be done as a free expression of the will of Malta’s duly elected representatives in our parliament. This occasion is not any good excuse to give vent to anti-Americanism by those who are so inclined.
lgalea
Jan 4th 2010, 10:31
Joseph Cauchi
How do you know that it was imposed against the wishes of the Maltese citizens?
Were there any calls for a referendum at the time including by the PN? NO Cauchi.
Then how about the imposition of the eu constitutional treaty and then the Lisbon Treaty without the people being consulted by the politicians? Were the people consulted through a referendum in spite of continuous calls by many people and organizations throughout the EU? NO, the only exception was Ireland due to their Constitution where they did not approve
If you and any USA and NATO kowtowers want to serve in their illegal wars and invasions then go fight their wars because we do not want to be involved in their military adventures and neither should we change our Constitution because they and their kowtowers do not agree with the neutrality clause.
Joseph Cauchi
Jan 4th 2010, 09:55
I concur absolutely with Dr. Francis Saliba’s comment.
The “Neutrality” clause was imposed on the Maltese citizen without ever being asked in a REFERENDUM!
I believe such an important matter in one’s constitution, deserves at least the decency of an absolute approval by the electorate in a REFERENDUM.
Unfortunately, this basic human right was denied and the Maltese citizen was cornered and hoodwinked in being lumped with this “farcical” neutrality clause by the M.L.P.; this against the wishes of the absolute majority of the Maltese people.
I believe that Malta should have a REFERENDUM on this clause to determine what actually the Maltese electorate desires and until this is still pending, then our “neutrality” is a FARCE!
JC.
lgalea
Jan 4th 2010, 09:14
Dr Francis Saliba
With due respect that was the Constitution at the time where the number of seats constituted a majority to form a Government. The PN had used the same provisions and wanted to continue to use the same provisions and would have governed in 1971 had it got what must be the most famous seat from the Qormi/Zebbug district as evidenced by the number of counts that it had demanded. This is further confirmed by the PN Government changing the number of seats in the districts having some districts with more seats than others in an attempt to continue in power notwithstanding having a minority of votes. When the Constitution was amended to accept the neutrality clause it was through bargaining, but it seems that the PN only accepted the amendment to get into power notwithstanding that they had previously availed themselves of the previous Constitution. This is hypocrisy at its best.
As for the neutrality clause, we are not kowtowers of the USA or any other foreign country and they and their kowtowers should stop interfering in our internal affairs.
lgalea
Jan 4th 2010, 08:47
Evarist Saliba
Notwithstanding your allegations about Libya using Malta it is not in our best interests to be again a foreign military base to serve the USA and NATO fleets and Air Forces. Apart from this, can you exclude the possibility that Malta and any other nation's territory has not been used by the USA and other countries spies and secret agents to carry out subversive actions against other countries as the USA is extremely well-known to do? Have a look at http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa02.html
The constant harping by the US Ambassador to question our neutrality clause in our Constitution certainly smells fishy, apart from the Ambassador interfering in our our internal affairs when he should NOT as a diplomat engage in such discussions. No wonder the Vatican did not accept him as the US ambassador.
Dr Francis Saliba
Jan 3rd 2010, 22:20
@Igalea
I lack your political expertise to propose a Maltese solution that would be prophetically applicable to all the problems that could possibly arise in the future “between every nation and not only to the superpowers”.
The type of “neutrality” that was foisted on the whole Maltese nation by Mintoff’s MLP was not “seen in good light” not only by the USA but also by more than half the Maltese electorate at that time and since then. That farcical “neutrality” had to be grudgingly accepted by the NP because that was the only way that the MLP would accept to amend the electoral law so as to ensure that any political party that polled an absolute majority of votes would be allocated a majority of seats in Parliament.
Evarist Saliba
Jan 3rd 2010, 19:50
Some comments are rather puerile. They have nothing to do with neutrality as clearly defined in our Constitution. They also ignore that, in spite of our neutrality, Malta was used as a base by the IRA to receive weapons bought from Libya to carry out their murderous attacks. Libya also used us as a transit post for a terrorist leader who was supplied with a false Libyan passport. And as the legal position stands today, Libya also used us to bring down PanAm flight 103. In spite of our neutrlity (and rightly so) Mintoff did not hesitate to seek international support when Libya stopped us from drilling for oil in waters which it also claimed. This is not a defence of USA policies, whatever or wherever they might be. It is a realistic assessment of our outdated concept of neutrality as spelled out in our Constitution, which to some, means that we ignore the plight of others, while expecting the world to respond to ours, should we so desire.
Dr. John Zammit
Jan 3rd 2010, 19:14
With Malta's neutrality or not, the USA is surely going to lose the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan! So please Mr. Ambassador leave our constitution alone or else go back to your country!
lgalea
Jan 3rd 2010, 18:05
Dr Francis Saliba The only way our neutrality clause could be improved is to make it applicable to every issue between every nation and not only to the superpowers. Our neutrality was never seen in good light by the USA and others who always wanted us to be involved in their illegal wars and invasions as evidenced by the US Sixth Fleet and NATO in the 1960's using Malta as their public convenience. See the quotes from an ex-USA President Dr Saliba.
Dr Francis Saliba
Jan 3rd 2010, 17:45
@Local anti-Americans If a re-appraisal of the "neutrality" sections of our Constitution now appears to be on offer by the LP to the PN - doubtlessly as a bargaining chip - why are you so intent on maintaining the status quo? Apart from blinkered ani-Americanism, of course.
Robert Callus
Jan 3rd 2010, 14:28
@Prof Kmiec
You don't seem to get it don't you? We, the majority of the Maltese DO NOT believe that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have anything to do with peace. Far from that. Iraq was in a mess, the US just made it worse. At least, before the people could pretend to clap and hail Saddam and be safe. Now they are in constant terror. The Afghans were terrorised by the Taliban. Now they are terrified of BOTH the Taliban and YOUR troops.
Even if we say, hypothetically, that these wars are being waged for peace, how could neutral Malta support the heavy financing of the US to Israel. Or is that war in pursuit for peace? Are the children of Gaza, the humiliated workers who were stolen from their homes and land? The moribond waiting hours in checkpoints with no access to a hospital? Are they the enemies? If that's the case, sorry, we don't want to fight them.
THanks but no thanks Prof Kmiec. Stop wasting your time and ours
wenzu vella
Jan 3rd 2010, 14:16
Mr Ambassador,
By your own admission your cauntry cannot hack even a tiny country like Malta not being subservient to your couse, because that's why at your first opportunity you had to attack Malta's Neutrality. This has been a very sore point with your country since, you were not allowed to keep a naval base and NATO was told to leave Malta.
Mr ambassador it is common courtesy for a true diplomat to respect a sovereign country's internal affairs.
Mr ambassador please stop preaching about human rights, your country is the champion violator of human rights. Look at the state of Israel what it is doing to the Palestinians human rights, and this is done with your country's full blessings.
Jesmond Micallef
Jan 3rd 2010, 13:34
The concept of Neutrality. A Perspective.
Consider the Geographical "Centre of Continental Europe" - Switzerland. It is not an EU member state !!! Why is this so ? Does this concept of "Neutrality" have a direct relation to its very secretive but very successfull banking system ??
Jugding from historical facts, economic hardship has led to very brutal and devastating wars.
But I do have to ask "Are there financial dimensions to neutrality" ?
Personally, I am not neutral to the difference between say, the Poor and the Rich, the Sick and the Healthy, the Educated and the Uneducated, and off course the Powerfull and Powerless.
lgalea
Jan 3rd 2010, 12:33
"When 43 nations of the world..."
And what about the remaining 155 nations who do not want to be involved in your illegal wars and invasions Mr Ambassador? Why should we join the USA and those 43 nations and be the enemies of the remaining 155 Mr Ambassador?
Let me tell you Mr Ambassador that the more you mention Afghanistan and our neutrality the more we become determined to continue following our neutrality and not be involved in the USA and other countries military adventures.
Perhaps, as your own Thomas Jefferson had said,
"Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto."
"Friendship is but another name for an alliance with the follies and the misfortunes of others. Our own share of miseries is sufficient: why enter then as volunteers into those of another?"
"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none."
"War is an instrument entirely inefficient toward redressing wrong; and multiplies, instead of indemnifying losses."
And as the saying goes "he who sows the wind reaps whirlwinds".
lgalea
Jan 3rd 2010, 12:18
Yes Mr Ambassador. We can remain neutral and not get involved in your illegal wars and invasions of other countries. http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa02.html
Who is saying that Russia, China and other countries are not superpowers? If they are not, why is there a need for NATO to still exist and for the USA illegal wars and invasions of other countries? Why this sudden urge to examine our neutrality Mr Ambassador? Why the constant references to us and Afghanistan Mr Ambassador?
"We must not allow aWe must not allow an interpretation of the scope of a constitutional neutrality provision to be taken advantage of by those who might wish to use a Maltese port to unleash a future terror plot, whether in London, Madrid, on a flight bound for Detroit, or for that matter, may the good Lord forbid, Valletta."
You reap what you sow Mr Ambassador. We do not need your and your country's interference in our internal affairs. That is why we want to remain neutral and not be involved in your illegal wars and invasions. You are doing a great disservice to the diplomatic corps with your constant interference and questioning of our neutrality.
Please choose the reason of your report below: