It has not been a good week for Maltese neutrality. For those who believe the government took the right decision in not offering Malta as a base for the international military coalition – and I am one of them – it is difficult to argue that the justifications being given do not sound hollow. How did we get here?

First, the words sound hollow because the case for offering a base is so strong. I don’t have in mind the jingoistic case being made on the comments boards and in sections of the international commentariat. The last time I saw words like “lily-livered” used was when I was still reading the boys’ comics that taught me words like Banzai and Achtung! Englander schweinhund!

But the strong case made by Eddie Fenech Adami and Simon Busuttil is, if anything, understated. They have made the point that the Constitution permits Malta to participate in actions sanctioned by a UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR). But while saying we had obligations as UN members they did not spell out in full why this was so.

Chapter VII of the UN Charter deals with military action taken to restore peace. Its articles make it very clear that, once a resolution is taken, it is incumbent on members to follow it (so much so, that the chapter provides for members who find economic difficulty in doing so).

Therefore, UNSCR 1973, which mandated military action to protect Libyan civilians, does not just make it legal to participate in such action. It places the onus of justification on those who do not wish to offer military facilities. Someone like me, who wants to argue for the government decision, has four options, three of them bad.

First, there is the Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici high road: Challenge the motives of the resolution. Say it’s imperialistic and driven by oil and (though he did not mention this) the Gulf States’ wish to get the US bogged down in Libya so the US cannot turn its glare too strongly at what they are doing to their own civilians.

Whatever the truth of its regional analysis, this argument has a problem. The military wreckage on the road to Benghazi, left in the wake of the allied bombing of Muammar Gaddafi’s forces over the weekend, should leave us in no doubt that a massacre of civilians was averted.

There is no argument against the immediate need to protect Libyan civilians.

Second, one can argue, like the government, that Malta’s security must come first. But if there was a case for that before the establishment of a no-fly zone, it is much weaker now and that condition could have been made clear beforehand.

Third, one can argue that Malta’s neutrality means the country should keep its head down. Fine, but in that case one should square up to the fact that one is effectively saying that our UN membership should be reviewed. Because to say Malta should always keep its head down, even while innocent people are being massacred, is to say that Malta has a permanent opt-out on a fundamental chapter of the UN charter.

Fourth, one could acknowledge the case for military action but somehow argue for a different role for Malta. This is the case being made by the government and Labour, that we are serving a humanitarian role.

This is the position I would like to make in principle. I share the view expressed two weeks ago in this newspaper by Richard Rubenstein that the region has a functional need for Maltese impartiality in the conflicts that are likely to continue to arise, whichever way the “Arab Spring” goes. (Prof. Rubenstein is a director of a centre for the study of conflict resolution in Washington DC.)

The case is that such a differentiated role would be good for Europe, too. But if Malta had to be a military base, even once, even now, the possibility to argue impartiality would be lost in our lifetime.

Note, however, that this is far from a Keep Your Head Down school of neutrality. The name of this school is Stick Your Neck Out For Peace.

Nice-sounding in theory, the argument sounds hollow at this time. And the reason is that Malta, right now, has nothing much to offer by way of investments, record, trained personnel (medical, legal, mediation...), etc. that would support a national identity invested in expertise in humanitarian aid, conflict resolution and post-conflict interventions.

It is clear from our politicians’ waffle that none of them has articulated a vision for a 21st-century neutrality. So any defence of Malta’s position on UNSCR 1973 is bound to sound improvised. It probably usually is.

This is still a defining moment for Maltese neutrality. Let the country’s politicians begin to articulate a vision for neutrality and a strategic plan of institutional investment.

If they do not, then there would have been no justification for their current position in the Libyan case.

ranierfsadni@europe.com