A rock in a hard place - the options for Malta

As pressure mounts on the ever-defiant Muammar Gaddafi and European leaders heighten their military threats, Christian Peregin evaluates the options open to Malta.

A stone’s throw away from Libya, Malta has played a crucial role in evacuating foreign workers from the violence over the past week. Its efforts, which saw more than 12,000 people hosted on the island, were praised the world over.

But as talk of evacuation is replaced with military threats – so far, in the form of imposing a no-fly zone – Malta’s strategic geographical location could conflict with its constitutional pledge of neutrality.

The Constitution allows the lending of military facilities to foreign forces in only two scenarios: either if the action is sanctioned by the UN’s Security Council or in the case of self-defence.

The second option is highly improbable, according to legal and military sources, who argue Libya has nothing to gain from attacking Malta at this stage, even though the island is still refusing to give back to Tripoli two fighter jets flown here by defecting pilots.

“(Muammar) Gaddafi has bigger fish to fry and has absolutely no reason to attack Malta. Doing so would simply confirm his immediate demise, since European countries would retaliate instantly,” according to one former military expert who preferred to remain unnamed.

If this remains the case, Malta’s role would be dependent on the Security Council, which has already imposed non-military sanctions with which Malta has already complied, including calling on the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court to investigate Col Gaddafi.

But to sanction military force, the Council’s five permanent members (China, France, Russia, the US and the UK) must all be on board and it can only be applied as a measure of last resort.

“If, God forbid, the sanctions do not work or prove to be inadequate, the Security Council may order such action by air, sea and land forces as may be necessary,” international law professor David Attard says.

China and Russia are notoriously reluctant to approve any form of military intervention in the internal affairs of a country, primarily because they themselves feel vulnerable to such a threat. Therefore, unless something changes drastically, it is very unlikely for Malta to provide military facilities for action against Libya, even though it may well continue to be the hub of humanitarian efforts.

But like Malta’s neutrality, its location is also unmovable, and if other countries decide to take action of their own volition, the island would be close to the action.

The US may tread cautiously – especially because of its less than successful efforts to democratise Iraq – but EU countries have a big stake in Libya’s pie and may well be prepared to take any necessary action to stabilise the region.

Most of Libya’s oil is exported to Europe and many European countries have lucrative business interests on Libyan soil, which they would want to protect. Also, a flood of refugees would put a great strain on the whole continent, especially if the turmoil persists.

“Britain and France are the most likely to take action on their own initiative. They may want to clear their conscience over the way they have behaved with Gaddafi over the past years. They don’t want to be accused of doing too little too late,” the anonymous military source says.

The US, the UK and France have already taken joint action in the past, most recently in the 1990s Iraq conflict, when they enforced a no-fly zone ostensibly for humanitarian reasons.

British Prime Minister David Cameron is trying to rally support for a no-fly zone, which would have to be enforced with military jets.

Although many Libyan protesters have warned against military intervention – because they want to bring Col Gaddafi down themselves – they have welcomed the idea of a no-fly zone as it would protect them from air raids. It would also stop foreign mercenary reinforcements from being flown to Libya.

France has so far proved more reluctant than the UK while the US has already warned a no-fly zone would require bombing Libya’s air defence systems first. “It would be a military operation,” according to top US commander General James Mattis.

As Col Gaddafi remains defiant to worldwide pressure, talk of some form of intervention has escalated.

Even Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi said Malta would not remain idle in the face of a genocide taking place in its backyard, adding that although neutral, Malta would not be “neutralised”.

In truth, Malta’s neutrality is most likely to be prioritised and militant countries will probably “not even bother to ask” for any assistance in military terms. Instead, they are more likely to use bases in Cyprus and Italy and bypass Malta’s airspace and territorial waters completely.

Malta’s commitment to help the humanitarian efforts may also prove provocative now that Col Gaddafi said anyone who sends aid would be considered a traitor.

What does the Constitution say?

“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... No foreign military base will be permitted on Maltese territory.”

“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.”