The comments on Malta's neutrality by Douglas Kmiec, the US Ambassador to Malta (December 5) prompt some important remarks.

The ambassador asked whether Malta's neutrality meant the country was also neutral to peace efforts around the world. He continued: "Neutral to what? Is it neutrality to peace? Is it neutrality to assisting those striving for peace?"

Today, the whole world knows that the US and Nato waged war against Iraq over oil and not over the inexistent weapons of mass destruction.

Nor did the US bomb Fallujah in 2004 with toxic white phosphorus in order to introduce democracy and peace in Iraq. Were this the case, the US and Nato should bomb Saudi Arabia, this being an extended-family dictatorship regularly condemned by Amnesty International for gross and widespread abuses and for imprisonment without trial. But then, of course, Saudi oil supply is no problem to the world's most voluminous guzzler of oil.

In the meantime, the two US raids on Fallujah not only poured US weapons of mass destruction on the Iraqi people but have also led to chronic deformities and early-life cancers in infants and babies to increase by 15 times. This fact has been recorded by neurologists, obstetricians and paediatricians working in Fallujah. It has also been reported to the United Nations by both Iraqi and British medical officials.

So much for peaceful toxic white phosphorus!

The truth is that, for a good number of years, an armed conflict has been going on between the US and Nato on one side and militant Islamism on the other.

Crucially, here, it is to be noted that there are two basic characteristics in this conflict that have an important bearing on Malta's neutrality and on the security of the Maltese people.

The conflict is being waged worldwide, not only in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan. The US, the UK, Nigeria, India, the Philippines, Indonesia, Australia, western China, Lebanon, Chechnya, Yemen, Egypt, Algeria, Spain and Saudi Arabia have all experienced this conflict within their territories. It is therefore quite logical to expect that if Malta had to lean on the side of Nato, Malta would also witness some of the action.

And the action is not conventional. Nato is not facing a regular conflict but a guerilla war. Sadly for Nato, but happily for its opponents, guerilla warfare has proved to be superior to conventional warfare. On purely military grounds, the Roman general Fabius, who managed to contain Hannibal, would today be justifiably proud of the success of his tactics and to the extent that these have been developed into the 20th and 21st centuries, given the necessary "Roman" conditions, that is, a spiritual mass will to resist foreign occupation and intervention, together with a defensive clandestine strategy.

The US war against the Vietnamese people provided a classic example of the superiority of guerilla over conventional warfare. Iraq and Afghanistan are simply a repetition of this superiority. Now this reality also relates directly to Malta's security. Guerilla warfare enables the enemy to operate, and inflict casualties, right from within Fort Hood, Texas! So, again, if Malta had to lean to Nato's side, it is only logical to expect the enemy to operate, for example, from within Malta's hotels with the greatest of ease. The outcome would certainly not be of any peace to the Maltese people.

Still, having cited these facts, like the majority of progressives world-wide, I am actually quite keen on the Obama Administration. The military aggression by previous US Administrations is not Barack Obama's responsibility. Mr Obama's policies on job creation, global warming, missiles reduction, social and health protection, etc. are certainly commendable.

But the matter of military intervention in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan has put the Obama Administration at a crossroads. The people of the US, like all other peoples, have every right to live in peace and security, to choose their political systems and to defend these rights. But they also have the responsibility not to destroy other people's peace and security and to let other peoples choose their political systems.

The history of the US military and the CIA during the second half of the 20th century abounds in actions of intervention, directly or covertly, that destroyed the peace and security of other peoples, especially in Latin America and South East Asia. Now, the focus is on Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Will President Obama continue to tread this road? His decision to deploy an additional 30,000 troops in Afghanistan is an act in this direction.

Within this global situation, the value of neutrality for Malta has never been any greater.

The Cold War between the two superpowers is not completely over. Kosovo and Georgia are witness to its existence. But the Cold War was always mostly dormant and with both sides militarily balanced. The present additional guerilla war is certainly not dormant but very much alive and kicking. It has no boundaries and no conventions. It has been escalating over the last decade and no end seems in sight in the near future. It could actually continue to escalate even more. Getting involved now is therefore a lot more dangerous for Malta than during the Cold War.

There are additional disadvantages if Malta had to lean to Nato's side in these wars. The majority of the people of the US and Nato countries oppose these wars and publicly manifest their opposition, at times even quite forcefully. Military morale is low, even at top brass level, particularly in the case of the UK command. The number of desertions on Nato's side runs well into thousands. So supporting Nato would also mean opposing the people of Nato countries and their earnest aspirations of ending these wars.

We also have to take into account our geography. Besides our diminutive size, we rest between two different cultures that roughly correspond to the two opposing sides in the guerilla war. The Israeli-Arab conflict is as intense as it has ever been. The US and Nato countries have no effective solutions for resolving it. Any leaning to Nato's side would only be viewed negatively by Arab and Muslim countries.

Any tampering by the government with Malta's neutrality would not only be a betrayal of the rights and the interests of the Maltese. It would also be a stupid betrayal. We have nothing to gain and all to lose.

Mr Meilaq sat on the national executive of the Malta Labour Party from 1985 to 1997 and also served on the party's Vigilance and Disciplinary Board between 1988 and 1992.