Anatomy of a neutrality

The simmering issue of Malta's neutrality, which flares up from time to time at the slightest provocation, requires a more serious treatment than superficial reactions and comments.

Historically, Malta did not seek a neutral role in world, especially Mediterranean, political developments. Taking 1530 as a convenient starting point, there was only one instance until the1980s when Malta declared itself neutral. This was under the Knights of Malta during the Napoleonic wars. The result was the occupation of Malta by the French. This utter disrespect by a belligerent state for the inconvenient neutrality of another has been replicated again and again in our times by Hitler in World War II.

Let no one harbour any illusions that neutrality provides security.

The formal declaration of Malta's neutrality incorporated in our Constitution early in 1987 was preceded by an earlier unilateral neutrality declaration by Dom Mintoff's government, which was deposited at the United Nations and formed part of bilateral friendship agreements with Italy, Libya and the Soviet Union. A prominent feature of these agreements was a commitment of financial or economic aid to Malta to make up for the loss of the income from the closed-down military base. When, in the view of the Maltese government, the Soviet Union did not deliver, our Foreign Minister did not hesitate to accuse it in the UN of signing the friendship agreement in bad faith.

Some would maintain that Malta's expectation that other countries should help it financially for assuming a neutral status was fully justified. Others disagree, claiming that neutrality was our free choice and had no claim on any other nation. As a diplomat who dealt with representatives of other states, I became aware of a more negative attitude towards our neutrality. There were others who saw it as a bargaining chip or, crudely put, a blackmailing ploy to pressure others to pay up or, otherwise, Malta would find it difficult to maintain its neutrality, with obvious consequences. The words of a departing Arab diplomat accredited to Malta are still etched in my mind. He claimed that Mr Mintoff's tactics were like those of a pirate.

In the light of the foregoing, I cannot agree with those who claim that neutrality has served us well. The Italian financial protocols were the only benefit that followed the neutrality declaration attached to our friendship agreements. This was at a high political price with the countries that really mattered for Malta's development, including Italy itself.

Fortunately for Malta, the implementation of the neutrality clause in our Constitution fell mainly on the governments led by Eddie Fenech Adami. He respected this clause imposed on his party in exchange for the right to govern in accordance with the democratically-expressed wish of the people. This did not keep Malta from accepting to host the leaders of the two superpowers in our harbours in 1989 to bury the Cold War. A bigoted interpretation of the phrase "neutrality on the basis of non-alignment" would have refused this hospitality, even though this would have been diametrically contrary to "actively pursuing peace, security and social progress among nations" as proclaimed in the same section 1(3) of Chapter I of the Constitution of Malta.

Indeed, Malta has enjoyed peace, security and unprecedented social progress since 1987, but it would be ridiculous to link this in any way with our neutrality rather than with the return of genuine democracy and wise leadership.

Somebody asked what parts of the neutrality section could be changed. If that question were to be put to me, I would not hesitate to answer that references to "neutrality", "non-alignment" and "superpowers" should be deleted, fully aware that this would mean the removal of the framework on which the section is built. The references to military bases in sub-section (3) (a) and (b) (i) (ii), but deleting the word "neutrality", could remain, while (c) (d) and (e) should be reduced to one less verbose paragraph that should distinguish between "presence" of foreign military personnel, which includes short visits, and "stationing" of same.

Inevitably, the potential role of a neutral Malta in the pursuit of peace, especially in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, creeps into the debate. The important point is not what we ourselves claim about our neutrality but the perception of our neutrality by the other parties involved. Even so, how relevant is neutrality? The two occasions when peace in Israel and Palestine seemed possible were due to the involvement of Norway (Oslo accords) and the USA (Camp David agreement). Both countries are members of Nato and not neutral.

As Malta's representative to the UN and other international organisations in Geneva, I attended the 1977 conference to revise the Geneva Convention in the light of the changed nature of modern conflicts. Neutrality is a position taken by a state when two or more other states are engaged in war.

Today, most conflicts involve a state on one side, an entity, which has to abide by the Geneva Convention, and groups, which call themselves by a variety of names, which are not so bound. Usually, they are not regular disciplined forces, they wear no uniforms and target civilians indiscriminately. They may be backed by governments but these are shy to claim responsibility for the fighters' actions. Should such fighters be treated as prisoners of war or just criminals when caught? The resulting implications are legion, not confined to precise borders, and challenge the concept of traditional neutrality.

Should Malta, as a UN member and a state that fought hard to become a member of, and presided over, the UN Security Council in the 1980s, be constitutionally neutral? Not being a formally-declared neutral state does not imply that we seek to become a member of a military alliance. It just gives our democratically-elected government the opportunity to study threatening situations as they arise on their own merits, in the light of the country's current interests and freely assumed international obligations.