Malta's neutrality provisions face sternest test

S Borg

Mar 20th 2011, 01:02

Neutrality is a thing of the past which was drafted in our constitution during the cold war which has now came back to haunt us and yet again we are being seen as being closer to the Gaddafi regime then to the international community which is condemming the Gaddafi regime for his barbaric acts against his people. How can anyone be neutral in such circumstances I cannot understand but the desicion of the Maltese government to remain neutral is surely short sighted because now that the international community has responded with their military assets against the Gaddafi regime. The days of the Gaddafi regime are numbered and when a new government gets elected the new Libyan government would surely remember our indifference and lack of action and let us not forget that many Maltese have investments and work in Libya.

John Azzopardi

Mar 19th 2011, 20:17

Yes, Malta and it's nuetrality are facing it's sternest test at the most. I think "il Kbira" ta Malta is still to come. I hope I am wrong, but we shall see. I hope that we are not in the way and that we are saved from massive libyan refugees as this will destroy Malta and our tourist industry for years to come. Malta survived the financial crises that took place in 2 and half years ago, but will be survice this.

alan smith

Mar 19th 2011, 17:51

The reality is that you take part in a military operation by flying from a military base. The Uk will not use Heathrow the french will not use Orly and the Italians will not use Fiumincino. There are various military bases in close proximity to Libya and simple Malta is not required. If a plane fires its missiles during operations it would require to re arm. You do that at a military base which has a stockpile of missiles, bombs etc... The only thing they could get from Malta is fuel which seeing that Sigonella and Souda bay are so close makes no difference.

d.magro

Mar 18th 2011, 21:35

Ejjew naraw il-Germanja x`ghamlet.....baqet gallerija. Dr.Gonzi...ghandek il-kostituzzjoni xi thares....tilghabx man-nar. Dik hi l-bibbja taghna u sserviex ta tap ghal xi qawwa ohra. Dr.Muscat, hemm bzonn li l-PL isemma lehnu fuq in-newtralita. Ejja naghmluha cara lil DR.Gonzi biex ma jilghabx man-nar u naghmluha cara lil xi potenza Ewropeja u barra mill Ewropa sabiex ma jersqux lejna.

FJScicluna

Mar 18th 2011, 19:34

If for instance an allied fighter jet needs landing on Malta's soil in an emergency, will it be refused landing here ? Will the jet be inpounded as well? if it does land?

S.Marmara

Mar 18th 2011, 19:24

Imma Malta qeda fit trouble? jistaw jitfaw xi bomba aw bi zball ezempju?

M Vella

Mar 18th 2011, 14:30

In times of trouble neutrality does not exist,its either fight or surrender.Malta always fought,the island fortress.God bless our for fathers who died for our freedom.

Geoffrey Mifsud Farrugia

Mar 18th 2011, 13:57

This madmad denied Malta from its rights to drill for oil for many many years. If it wasn't for him, Malta would be a paradise now.

let's kick his ass out of power - his days are numbered anyway..his position as leader is untenable.

A Mangion

Mar 18th 2011, 13:33

Neutrality is a farce. What person on earth will remain neutral if his children are attacked ? We are all children of the same planet and we are obliged to support each other. If Malta does not offer full support, this will be nothing less than a moral crime.

PS: We all know how neutrality came into our constitution (and Gaddafi was an important part of the process) ... so let's put an end to this 25 year old hypochrisy.

Joe Xuereb

Mar 18th 2011, 13:21

@ Mr.Brincat(2hours 9mins.ago - first one to comment). Is this what tourists come for Mr. Brincat? Some Maltese see no difference between our feast(tourist attractions) blocking roads and Muslims praying on pavements. I don't think so.

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110317/letters/gathered-for-prayers-on-a-main-road

And my response therein (awaiting publishing): As a non-religious individual, for me religions and their rituals mean practically nothing. But a national culture is a different matter and needs to be safeguarded.
Commenters here are missing the point. Malta is tiny and so are its culture, language, people fragile. Fragile as in easily engulfed and overcome.
One of Malta's stalwarts reckons that Muslims in Malta should build as many mosques as they deem necessary (one instance where Malta is definitely no Switzerland in the Meditarranean, this).
http://www.timesofmalta.com/blogs/view/20090509/fr-joe-borg/should-there-be-more-mosques-in-malta
I know that church attendance in Malta is dwindling but do we really think that churches turned into mosques plus minarets - do we really think this is in Malta's best interests?
Too much Libyan influence - inspite of and because of heavy investments - is dangerous for this tiny country. I mean, it is not the most stable of countries and any benefits are only superficia and could well wreak a hefty price.

Wenzu Vella

Mar 18th 2011, 13:15

Those who are arguing that Malta’s neutrality is obsolete and are advocating change better think again before it is too late and find themselves under foreign rule again, a military situation that is not answerable to Maltese law. They come and go and do as they pleased like they used to do before Malta broke its shackles from colonialism. There has been a lot of comments lately from people that they seem to think a western power would commit themselves to save gourd Malta and its territories for just friendship alone. There is no such thing as a free lunch. A NEUTRAL MALTA IS A FREE MALTA.

Mary Ann Borg

Mar 18th 2011, 12:50

We can choose to be neutral but we cannot choose how others see us. Libya is certainly not seeing Malta as a neutral country. Its criminal actions early in the uprising resulted in us having two of its bombers on Maltese soil. The mad man reckoned he could simply send pilots and techincians to retake 'his' aircraft. Nothing of the sort happened, so there is no doubt that Libya's regime sees Malta as a prime enemy. Being the mad dog that he is, who of these 'neutrality served us well' minority brigade can guarantee that he will not send a couple of missiles in our direction? He did precisely the same thing in 1986 when he targeted Italy then and the missile fell short of Lampedusa and into the sea. Gaddafi holds no qualms in targetting us at the moment, however saintly and defender of our neutrality Tonio Borg is trying to portray himself. The sad thing is that because of his not only stupid, but equally dangerous stand, no nation will raise a finger should we come under attack, because we are the ones who trot this neutrality clause in the face of every nation that asksMalta for help.

Roger Nunn

Mar 18th 2011, 12:45

i thought that malta was the little mouse that roars like a lion, i think not, more like a mouse that is shitting itself with anguish as to what is going to happen next in the area.
A famous English Whinger-R.Nunn

albert leone ganado

Mar 18th 2011, 12:39

Nobody is above the maltese constitution and therefore we should not take any action before ensuring it does not in any way violate our neutrality. I suggest that in all eventuals actions government might take it before consults constitutional experts who are willing to assume reponsibility in writing for their advice. We should all be aware of the recent British Chilcot Iraq inquiry and the IRAQ weapons of mass description fantasy. The way Tony Blair misled and dissembled the state institutions on the matter was scandalous. I see an uncanny resemblance in the way this affair is being handled.
Personally I am not certain that a United Nations resolution on its own allow us to participate in a military action unless the Maltese government itself requests participation. I trust our government will be very prudent and tread carefully on this delicate issue.

Charles Massa

Mar 18th 2011, 12:38

Il gvern tal labour kellhu forsight kbira meta dahha; in nawrtralita fil kostituzzjoni. Il poplu Mlati kemm il darba iggieled gwerer ghal hadd iehor. U xha. Il goerge cross u wara partita sensji minn mas servizzi. F dan il kwistjoni l ahjar nibqu newtrali ghal gid tal investityuri u haddiema Maltin. Dawk kollha li huma kontra i newtralita huma lolipop tal barrani

Ivan Grech Mintoff

Mar 18th 2011, 12:31

There is a simple compromise that SHOULD satisfy all.

With today's planes' fuel capacity AND the fact that we are only talking of ten's of miles difference, Malta is NOT required for a no fly zone to be operational.

Moreover IF such a base is necessary, the planes can actually take off and land in other countries including Lampedusa itself (part of Italy & therefore available to Nato as a base). After all, Lampedusa is closer and has an airport.

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=lampedusa&rls=com.microsoft:mt:IE-SearchBox&oe=UTF-8&rlz=1I7TSEA_enGB326&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=Lampedusa,+Lampedusa+e+Linosa+Agrigento,+Italy&ei=ykGDTYOsJouChQeI39C_BA&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CBwQ8gEwAA

Those who wish a no fly zone to be in place will be happy as will those who wish our constitution to be respected.

Of copurse there are those who think that this is just an excuse to finally get Malta involved pretty much directly in Nato activities once again... so this more convenient position (Lampedusa), will probably be ignored with an excuse for Malta to be involved in someone else's war unnecessarily...

:(

George Azzopardi

Mar 18th 2011, 12:17

Ohhh .. so Neutrality is still applicable for Malta .. some years back ,many PN sympatisers were telling us that Neutrality was no longer applicable since only one super powers was still standing!

Evarist Saliba

Mar 18th 2011, 12:12

My views on the neutrality clause in our Constitution, and the impact of a UN Security Council resolution on this clause, have been clearly stated over and over again, and need no repetition. I would only add that one should not confuse creating a foreign military base in Malta with Malta's facilities being made available, if needed, in the execution of a UNSC resolution. As for the use of our air space by military aircraft, I remember sitting in an aircraft in Malta's airport for about an hour while foreign military aircraft flew overhead on their mission (also in accordance with a UNSC resolution) to free Kuwait from an invasion by Irak.

Let us not pressure government into making statements on hypothetical situations. If I were a government spokesman, my only comment would be:

MALTA WILL RESPECT BOTH ITS CONSTITUTION AND THE UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION, IN AN APPROPRIATE MANNER, IF CALLED UPON TO DO SO.

Pace Martin

Mar 18th 2011, 12:10

Who is holding you to go and join those who want to impose a no fly zone? If you think you are doing the right thing, just join those who are willing to do so., but not over our national territory. Our constitution is secret, hands off.

Charles Taliana

Mar 18th 2011, 11:59

The Govt of MALTA is bound by LAW TO ABIDE BY WHAT IS WRITTEN IN THE MALTESE CONSTITUTION. ONLY HUMANITARIAN AID SHOULD BE ALLOWED.

M. Farrugia

Mar 18th 2011, 11:58

(b) 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;

Tista tkun cara iktar minn hekk?? Malta tista tippartecipa fin-No Fly Zone minghajr ma tikser il-Kostituzzjoni.

Ghal darba we CAN have our cake and eat it! Mela x'inhi l-problema?

Johnnie Bowdler

Mar 18th 2011, 11:57

Well Malta - you've come of age at last. Perhaps you will see the futility of (1) the joke that is neutrality and (2) the continuous brown-nosing of Gadaffi that both Maltese political parties have been up to their necks in ever since Libya had a rabid dog running the country. The chickens have finally come home to roost.
There is no such thing as neutrality in a world where there will always be good and evil. Now is the time for Malta to stand up and be counted and do the right thing. Forget those relics of the past Scibberras Trigona, Mintoff, Mifsud Bonnici playing their political games. They're gone now for good. Just stand up for your principles for a change, and help the sane world rid itself of the Libyan dictatorship which has constantly oppressed its people. You can start by opeing up the island to allied planes and ships (if they request it - Cyprus seems to be less sanguine about doing so).

J.Borg

Mar 18th 2011, 11:47

I am wondering where Malta stand here now, as for the article above neither France and Britain has no ideal bases to use as distances are far. Only USA and France have aircraftcarriers available in the Med. so logistically especially for fighters they need a shorter way, USA had already pointed out for bases in Tunisia and Egypt, next inline is Sigonella in Sicily and then the best option remain us ... will see what's gonna happen. I guess we can't stay idle and hinder such a plan ...

Frank Portelli 2BFRANK

Mar 18th 2011, 11:45

Neutrality – who guarantees our safety ?

What happens when the “Guarantor” of Malta threatens to become the Aggressor ?

On 7th December 1984 Dom Mintoff signed a Treaty of “ Friendship and Co-operation” with Gaddafi.

Gaddafi undertook to “respect and support Malta’s neutrality and to assist Malta ----- in cases of threats or acts of aggression against Malta’s”

We need to ensure that solid defence agreements are in place to guarantee our safety

Or like the Chamberlain Hitler agreement 1938 it's another " scrap of paper ".

Or as Dom would have put it a piece " Anchovy paper "


Dr Frank Portelli

http://www.mjha.gov.mt/DownloadDocument.aspx?app=lom&itemid=8787&l=1

JJ Mercieca

Mar 18th 2011, 11:39

Remove this worthless and idiotic part of our constitution. Even back in the time of a NATO vs Warsaw Pact scenario it was nothing more than a way to chicken out of choosing the right side (i.e.democracy vs communism/dictatorship). Neutrality wouldn't stop Gaddafi from dropping a few bombs on us, neutrality isnt some kind of miraculous shield. An American PAC-3 Patriot battery up at Dingli cliffs or a THAAD equipped Aegis cruiser off the shore is a million times more protection than the empty words of the neutrality clause.

Emma Xerri

Mar 18th 2011, 11:37

I think that Malta's neutrality is anachronistic. One has to keep in contexted that it was a concept that originated during the Cold War and as such referred to neutrality vis-a-vis the two super-powers at that time, namely the US and USSR.

Also, one has to keep in mind that being "Neutral" in the face of a genocide is a morally reprehensible thing. One cannot be neutral in the face of evil. Would any man or woman watch and 'stay out of it" if one sees a crime or violence being committed on a passerby for instance? Should Malta have been neutral when faced with the crimes of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot against humanity?

I think that Parliament should amend the Consitiution and this "neutrality' clause, amongst others, should be taken out.

joe farrugia

Mar 18th 2011, 11:37

Il klawsola tan-newtralita fil kostituzzjoni kien saret taht rikatt min Mintoff biex il maggoranza tigverna. u Mintoff kien aghmila bi pressjoni ta Gaddafi ghax meta telqu l-Inglizi,Gaddafi kien gie jiccelebra qiesu rebah xi kolonja gdida u Malta ma kellha l-ebda hajt ta kenn tant li meta Gaddafi attakka ir-rig taz-zejt li kien qed ihaffer ghal ghal Malta hadd ma dahal ghalina ghax it-taljani kienu dahlu ghax ir-rig kien taljan u mhux ghal wiccna. Ghalhekk min jiftakar sew dawk iz-zmienijiet jaf li din hija il verita.

wally vella-zarb

Mar 18th 2011, 11:28

Why do we need to get involved? The British can fly their aging planes from Cyprus - which is much closer to Benghasi. The Americans can use their aircraft carriers to boost Obama's waning stature.

The UN Security Council would regain some of its long lost credibility when it enforces the multitude of sanctions that were applied on the Israeli occupation and treatment of Palestinians, and takes concrete action to help the equally oppressed peoples of Bahrain, Tibet, Darfur and elsewhere. Failing that it is only a case of political posturing and not much to do with aiding the oppressed.

D.Galea

Mar 18th 2011, 11:24

I think the neutrality provisions speak very loud and clear, not it also show how well sound they are even to this day.

According to these same provision it means that now since the approval of the U.N operations in Libya the Maltese government is free to request the use of foreign forces Malta also stands a threat of however gravity to face a retaliatory attack from Libya as clearly warned by Col. Qaddafi in recent days.

I not only see no contradiction but I am glad that when these provisions when written, such eventualities were in fact considered. Consider that if Qaddafi regime is now at war the UN, it's also at war against Malta, there is definitely no beating around that.

Anthony Farrugia

Mar 18th 2011, 11:23

Mr Prime Minister, there is no constitutional provision holding you back from allowing Malta to assist in the "no fly zone" resolution approved yesterday by the Security Council. This is what separates the men from the boys or politicians from statesmen. Knock, knock, are you there ?

Joseph Agius

Mar 18th 2011, 11:22

Malta is a small neutral country. The question I ask is 'is our neutrality credible?' I do not think so. For one thing, our neutrality was not born out of conviction, of popular tradition but out of a political compromise between electoral outcomes (majority rules) and neutrality status of Malta. in short apples were traded for oranges. This was relatively fine but our neutrality eas never really credible for the following reasons.

1. The international political environment against which negotiaions centred changed completely. theer is no Warsaw Pact and NATO underwent huge reforms.
2. Malta became an EU Member State - we have obligations.
3. The political reality to our south is completely changed.

In front of human tragedy and political injustice, Malta cannot remain neutral. It is time to stand up and be counted.

For God'ssake Gaddafi used our territory to plant the Locerbie bomb. This humilated our nation.

Gaddafi, bannedMaltese from entering Libya to spite Switzerland.

Worst of all, Gaddafi sen boat loads of illegal migrants with whom we are stuck.

Gaddafi visited all of the Mediterranean except Malta.

Gaddafi referred to Malta as 'Province of Libya' during teh UN sanctions.

Why do we keep supporting his regime?

Joe Cassar

Mar 18th 2011, 11:22

Malta should remain neutral, it is the intelligent thing to do. We should follow the footsteps of other countries like Germany that have chosen to remain neutral on this issue. Our aid should be humanitarian and not military. It is the Christian thing to do.

M.Bezzina

Mar 18th 2011, 11:21

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

whenever there exists a threat to the sovereignty, independence, neutrality, unity or territorial integrity of the Republic of Malta;

Mela il UN u Nato taz zejjed u nieqes!!Meta ghandek bzonnhom tridhom go darek imma l bqija le!!Hallina tridx!!Bla sens!!!!

Edgar Gatt

Mar 18th 2011, 11:16

There is a clear provision in the constitution that says ''measures or actions decided by the security council of the United Nations''. Could not be clearer. Gaddafi is now finished and the more we hesitate to take action, the more the new administration shall keep it up their sleeves and pay us back for pussyfooting.

M Grech

Mar 18th 2011, 11:13

Not permitting the use of our airspace would still amount to a breach of neutrality. It would be equal to taking the side of Gaddafi. It's up to us to decide. I'm sure we don't want to show the world how myopic we can sometimes be. We've been sitting on the fence far too long now. But the fence is now gone. The current situation shows neutrality for what it really is - a utopia.

Hubert Paul Farrugia

Mar 18th 2011, 11:13

I think that even this strict neutrality clause, now approves the use of Malta as a Military base, as:
1. Most importantly, our integrity has been treatened by Gaddafi when he said that he will shoot down civilian and non-civilian aircraft and ships.
2. The resolution has passed through the UN Security Council
3. The no fly zone is for humanitarian intent. It is the first time that the UN is enforcing such sanctions with the intent of protecting civilian life.

Dr Francis Saliba

Mar 18th 2011, 11:06

The situation has now crystallized. Malta's invocation of the "neutrality" requirement under the present circumstances could only be interpreted as a pusillanimous failure to act in co-operation with others in support of our suffering Libyan neighbours. That translates into a negligent support for their oppressors. Predictably, we would have to pay a heavy price for that cowardice in the near future.

A.J.G. FENECH

Mar 18th 2011, 11:00

I cannot see that Malta faces any legal or moral problems over its neutrality status and the current situation. Military action and the No Fly Zone has been approved by the UN not as an imperial or territorial conquest provision, but as a provision to safeguard a nation's population from the maniacal clutch imposed on them by a family that usurped power and wealth as if by some God-given dictat when in fact such imposition has been through constant brutality, repression and the antithesis of anything that is remotely democratic. If the Gaddafi family really had the interests of the Libyan people at heart, they would have declared democratic elections enabling the Libyan people to decide for themselves as to by whom they should be led.

Alex Spiteri

Mar 18th 2011, 10:58

Neutrality is a travesty!

A travesty for secret deals between Maltese politicians and the Gaddafi regime, and I say this with responsibility!

Anthony Farrugia

Mar 18th 2011, 10:58

Let us hope our political leaders will rise to the occasion to rid us all of this dictator now that there is no constitutional impediment holding us back.

Chris Finch

Mar 18th 2011, 10:53

The Gadaffi regime's statement yesterday that the entire meditterranean basin is now considered a target provides Malta with the right to exercise clause (i) the inherent right of self defence (etc).
The sooner this mad dog is put down the better.

Plus the new American embassy and all its facilities could be classed as a military base. It is only under the guise of an embassy. If it is only an embassy then why is it so much bogger and in a closed compund than any other embassy in Malta?

L.Bugeja

Mar 18th 2011, 10:53

Fl opinjoni tieghi dawn il metafori u ligijiet ma jiswew xejn jekk tfaqqa gwerra dinjija.....ahna qas nkunu nafu x inhu jigri u jekk is sitwazzjoni tigrava nispiccaw bazi militari zgur ghax ma ghandhix biex niddefendu lilna nfusna........

J Brincat

Mar 18th 2011, 10:49

Let us not allow Malta to be used as a military base.

We need tourists not war planes!