Wikileaks: Government indicated willingness to sign SOFA agreement with US
US Ambassador Douglas Kmiec reported in a diplomatic cable in January last year that during a wide-ranging discussion with the personal assistant (Chief of Staff) of Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi, the Government of Malta (GOM) indicated possible willingness to sign the "Agreement among the States parties to the North Atlantic Treaty and the other States participating in the Partnership for Peace regarding the status of their forces" (the PfP SOFA), and to provide training to Afghan civil servants in a yet to be specified curriculum in Malta.
SOFA establishes the rights and privileges of foreign personnel present in a host country, such as which country's court is competent to hear cases should military personnel be involved in crime in the host country.
Mr Kmiec said that during a regularly scheduled monthly meeting with Edgar Galea-Curmi, he was told that the government was still reviewing how to approach the SOFA issue, but that progress had been made.
According to Galea-Curmi, Foreign Minister Tonio Borg, who had been the primary opponent and chief skeptic of signing a SOFA (on political grounds), had, following extensive discussions with the Ambassador, recently dropped that opposition and agreed that the government should consider a SOFA "in some form or another."
What remained to be determined was what parameters the SOFA needed, and how Malta could meet U.S. "expectations."
Mr Galea-Curmi advised that Dr Borg would be in touch with Ambassador Kmiec to discuss these issues.
The Ambassador pointed out to Mr Galea Curmi that the proposed treaty document was sufficiently broad that many other countries had been able to accept it, including Russia, Croatia and - hopefully in the near future - another neutral EU State, Ireland. He stressed that this would be an opportunity to show, politically, that Malta was in charge of the SOFA process and not doing the U.S.'s bidding.
Mr Kmiec said that in some cases countries, signing the PfP SOFA and protocols have been done with reservations, but he cautioned that any reservations should not have the effect of rendering the document meaningless. Mr Galea-Curmi expressed his understanding of this point. He indicated that he would be in touch with Dr Borg and the Attorney General to determine what legislation would be necessary to implement the SOFA and indicated that he foresaw no difficulty with obtaining Parliamentary approval provided the political decision was made to go forward.
"The seeming willingness to consider signing the PfP SOFA represents a change in heart on the part of Malta. Both that dialogue and the broader public debate over the meaning of neutrality that was sparked by the Ambassador's public comments and a recent Op-Ed have helped strengthen the U.S.-Malta relationship by conveying to Malta that if it wishes to be an equal partner on the world stage, it must undertake the same obligations -- even if the scale is smaller, commensurate with Malta's resources -- as other similarly situated nations," Mr Kmiec wrote in his cable.
8 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Mr Antoine Vella
Sep 3rd 2011, 00:11
I don't know why the MLP should oppose a sofa. it's more comfortable than a fence to sit on.
Alfred Farrugia
Sep 2nd 2011, 22:14
Readers may find several links on the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA). According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report for the US Congress, written by R. Chuck Mason, Legislative Attorney, of 5th January 2011 – “a SOFA itself does not constitute a security arrangement; rather, it establishes the rights and privileges of U.S. personnel present in a country in support of the larger security arrangement.”
According to the same source, page 18, “The individual countries that participate in PfP agree to adhere to the terms of the NATO SOFA.”
Article I of the “Agreement among the States parties to the North Atlantic Treaty and the other States participating in the Partnership for Peace regarding the status of their forces” is very interesting. Is Malta a party to this Agreement?
http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/b950619a.htm
In Table 2 on page 22 of the same CRS report, Malta is listed among the PfP countries, but there is no indication that it has an agreement.
Those who are interested in reading the Agreement between the Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty Regarding the Status of their Forces may take a look at the text provided by NATO itself.
http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/b510619a.htm
Mr Christan Brincat
Sep 2nd 2011, 18:18
"He stressed that this would be an opportunity to show, politically, that Malta was in charge of the SOFA process and not doing the U.S.'s bidding."
He spilled the beans there, obviously we are doing the Us's bidding but they are trying to hide it very well.
Mr Victor Laiviera
Sep 2nd 2011, 14:05
From Wikipefia: "A status of forces agreement (SOFA) is an agreement between a host country and a foreign nation STATIONING FORCES IN THAT COUNTRY. (my caps)
Which means, in effect, that the PN government intends to make Malta a military base again.
The chickens are coming home to roost!
Mr Henry Spiteri
Sep 2nd 2011, 18:35
@ Victor Laiviera:
Who would make Malta a military base? Its so expensive to run and many Eurpoean countries including the United States are limiting their defense budgets and spending. From time to time they are closing military bases in their own countries.
We are in 2011 and not in the 1950s or 1960s!
Mr Pat Hobson
Sep 2nd 2011, 14:00
Signing of PfP SOFA . Breaking of Neutrality and Alignment Clause? Isn't this against the Constitution?
Christian Sciberras
Sep 2nd 2011, 13:58
And what's so surprising about this? Malta can't keep pretending it is safe when it doesn't (virtually) own toy guns, let alone real ones.
In fact, I don't know why this have not happened earlier. I don't know with what face our marketeers sell the island as a safe heaven by citing unrealistic crime rates.
Jimmy Magro
Sep 2nd 2011, 18:27
Mr. Sciberras: If there is a vacancy in international relations make sure you apply.
I do not know how you can betray your own country by writing that Malta is not safe. I also do not know what bringing foreign military forces on the island has to do with the local crime rates. Foreign military forces cannot interfere in domestic matters.
I wonder how bloggers like you come to these conclusions. You must be living in another planet.