Foresight on the neutrality issue

I would like to congratulate Douglas Kmiec on his appointment as US Ambassador to Malta. We, the people of Malta, welcome the man to our islands and wish him a serene stay along with hopes of success in office, just as his predecessor.

Having said that, I would like to make my point regarding a fair amount of questions on our neutrality status embedded in our Constitution which lately have been flying all over the place. We are getting certain signals which, in my opinion, have the clear interest to make us somehow comprehend that we are now living in some kind of a new world order. Or are we? Moreover, that, in this day and age, it is somewhat "unfashionable" and "outdated" for a state to continue wearing the neutrality outfit.

But what might lurk behind all of these views, I ask. Why all this interest all of a sudden coming especially from Mr Kmiec himself? Who is bound to benefit if, God forbid, we lose that status?

The concept of peace and serenity for any country in today's wicked world are in pure human terms a priceless commodity. With no disrespect to the Ambassador's views, the man knows very well that Malta enjoys its hard-fought peacefulness due to the fact that it managed to conserve its neutrality clause, which shields it from anything considered threatening. The only reason Mr Kmiec is presenting his argument on the matter is because his own country has a clear strategic interest and not because of other misconceptions.

A bell does not ring for no reason. There is always, and I repeat always, some kind of hidden message. And let me assure you that there is one here also. You do not need to have the gift of prescience to understand that something is lurking around the corner. All you need is an ability of reading between the lines.

My late grandfather, Henry, who in his time served in the British Navy, used to tell me that nothing comes for free and everything happens for a reason. Although our geographical position is not as important as it used to be in the times of Emperor Napoleon, it is still somehow of delicate importance to some powerful states; the same countries that will try to convince us otherwise.

We may be a very small nation living on a very small stretch of land but the biggest mistake any nation can do is to underestimate our knowledge and our abilities. Of course, we have zero military power, no tangible resources and, perhaps, not even enough political voice in the international arena but what we do have is a clear stand against any type of coercion, a sharp eye against any sort of Machiavellism. What we surely have is an ideal position right in the middle of the Mediterranean region, right between Europe and Africa, diverse races and different religions, which gives us somewhat of a distinctive role in the old game of international politics.

If fate has placed us here then, for sure, there was a valid reason; a fair diplomatic position which we cannot afford to toss away. Just as Switzerland is Europe's main diplomatic arm because of its history and its central strategic location in the heart of Europe, Malta has the same exact qualities for the Mediterranean region.

Our Constitution was drafted under certain criterions as history unfolded, a history tainted by violence, with several foreign occupiers using Malta for their own self interest, that same self interest which always brought our islands in the centre of harm's way. The neutrality clause in our Constitution is preventing our islands from serving again as "the maid of the Mediterranean".

The words embedded in chapter one, paragraph three of our Constitution are the direct result of that history. Malta is a neutral state actively pursuing peace, security and social progress. In short, we are not looking for trouble but for economic progress. By taking a side we would be doing just the former. As it turns out, the world of today is clearly not a safer place than that of yesteryear.

The Cold War between the USSR and the US might be over but a new kind of warfare has ducked in; a reality being fought on a daily basis in the form of the evil spirit of terrorists. By containing our stand on neutrality it does not mean we do not support the fight against terrorism. In fact, Malta has many times condemned openly various terrorist attacks that occurred in various countries around Europe and beyond. There is nothing fashionable about the matter in question. On the contrary, our neutrality has proved to be a genuine safeguard, which is keeping us out of harm's way.

I agree with Ranier Fsadni (January 7) when he said that "Malta's politics of responsibility, given its means, should centre on initiatives to strengthen the kind of political dialogue needed to make al-Qaeda less attractive to would-be recruits in our region".

Our neutrality is positive and peace-seeking. We must therefore also sustain or take initiatives that lessen existing provocations sufficiently so that potential al-Qaeda recruits would not have to join. More positively, we should be instilling confidence in them by showing alternative paths to peace through conciliation.

That is foresight.