Caring for our neutrality

A YouTube video up­loaded by Al Jaz­eera English on March 6 claims Malta is “prime for Libya action”. The video records a conversation between a Nato surveillance aircraft and the air control tower at Luqa airport.

Our Prime Minister denied the report insisting Malta will at no time be used as a military base (March 8). He added such reports linking Malta to Nato are a disservice to our country. This strong stand was in contrast with an ambiguous statement he had made a week earlier: “We hold neutrality dear but that does not mean being neutralised, especially if there are circumstances such as genocide” (February 28).

Our Prime Minister realises that in the present tragic circumstances taking place in Libya our neutrality is more precious than ever before. Malta is nearer to Muammar Gaddafi’s seat of power in Tripoli than Benghazi. There is a growing fear that as Libya moves closer to civil war, our country will somehow find itself roped into the conflict.

The defection of the two Libyan Mirage F1 fighters to Malta somehow exacerbated this fear and sense of insecurity. Yet, Libya acted responsibly and respected Malta’s sovereignty when a plane carrying pilots to fly the fighter jets back was refused landing permission. This is in sharp contrast to those nations which in the past infringed Malta’s airspace or sent secret agents to our country to eliminate their enemies. The Libyans are not naïve. They realise that any sort of military action against Malta could have been a good excuse for those powers that want Col Gaddafi out to retaliate militarily. Libya is not concerned with Malta so long as our country is not used as a springboard for aggression against it.

The Maltese stand four-square behind the Libyan people. We are proud that Malta is serving as a humanitarian base. That is in line with our values and geophysical realities. Our location is at the centre of deep global divides: between north and south, Christianity and Islam, western democracy and authoritarian regimes. Realpolitik dictates we are too small, too vulnerable to be involved in other people’s wars. Security will not be guaranteed by entering into a military alliance. The 9/11 attacks have challenged conventional security concepts.

Our Constitution is unequivocal about when Malta should allow a foreign power to use it as a military base – either when Malta’s own security is at stake or whenever such action is sanctioned by the Security Council of the United Nations. Permitting Malta to be used as a military base in any other circumstances would mean breaking the Constitution and no one is above the Constitution.

Unlike Austria, our neutrality results from a voluntary choice that needs to consistently earn the respect of other nations. This can only be achieved through our country’s behaviour in belligerent times. If we breach the rules we have set for ourselves, we cannot expect others to respect our stance. Neutrality is all about earned credibility.

It is also true that Malta’s Constitution links our neutrality to non-alignment. Some commentators question the relevance of this condition in the light of the end of the Cold War. In reality, non-alignment was never meant to be narrowly interpreted as equidistance between the US and the Soviet Union. Practically, no country ever met such a criterion. More importantly, non-alignment is a negation of military-power politics to solve international issues. In this sense, non-alignment is still very relevant to a powerless micro state like ours.

In an ever-changing global order, what is not so clear is how our neutrality is affected by EU membership. As things stand, the Lisbon Treaty does not prejudice the neutrality status of EU members such as Ireland, Sweden, Austria, Finland and Malta. This may, however, change as the EU’s common foreign and security policy takes shape. Our Constitution may eventually have to be amended so as to account for changed circumstances.

Yet, we would be foolish to rush in questioning the continued validity of our neutrality. If the Constitution is to be amended then there are rules to be followed. Any changes would require the support of two-thirds of our MPs. And, in any case, presently, there is no mandate from the Maltese people for such changes. Up to now, there is national consensus, and overall praise, as to how our leaders have behaved through the Libyan turmoil. Any action that would jeopardise our neutrality is bound to break this consensus.

The road to real democracy is not an easy one. The sooner it starts the better; a journey of 1,000 miles begins with a single step. It is naïve to think the ripple effects of what is happening in the Arab world, and in Libya, will not be with us for long years to come. The biggest danger is the creation of power vacuums. Neutrality is in our best interest. It is serving us and neighbouring countries well.

Malta has to be careful not to raise any unnecessary doubts about its commitment to neutrality. We should not rush in where much bigger countries fear to tread.

fms18@onvol.net