Advert

Gonzi told US it would rejoin Nato programme if elected

The participation of Maltese soldiers in the Partnership for Peace programme has always been a sticking point for the Labour Party. However, US cables published yesterday by Wikileaks suggest the party was prepared to accept membership of the Nato programme. Photo: Darrin Zammit Lupi

The participation of Maltese soldiers in the Partnership for Peace programme has always been a sticking point for the Labour Party. However, US cables published yesterday by Wikileaks suggest the party was prepared to accept membership of the Nato programme. Photo: Darrin Zammit Lupi

Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi told the US Ambassador two months before the last election that a new Nationalist government would reactivate Malta’s membership of Nato’s Partnership for Peace programme.

The commitment to join the PfP was never made public and was one of the very first decisions taken by the PN government soon after the election, causing widespread furore.

The revelation was made in a leaked US Embassy cable published by whistleblower site Wikileaks yesterday.

The commitment was made to former US Ambassador Molly Bordonaro in January 2008, a month before Dr Gonzi called the election that was held in March, according to the leaked cable.

Another embassy cable, in February, giving the State Department an overview of the election that had just been announced, expressed concern that a victory for the Labour Party would impact US interests “in several ways, including by reducing possibilities for multilateral security cooperation”.

However, Malta’s participation in the PfP programme seems to have been of great interest to the US as evidenced by other leaked cables.

A cable sent to the State Department by the US Embassy in Malta in November 2009 said former Ambassador Douglas Kmiec found comments by Labour foreign affairs spokesman George Vella on Malta’s participation in the programme as “troublesome”.

The cable was reporting on Prof. Kmiec’s first meeting with Labour leader Joseph Muscat and Dr Vella.

It quotes Dr Vella saying that the country’s reactivated membership of PfP was “invalid as it failed to comply with Malta’s Treaties Act” because the government had not referred the matter to Parliament.

However, the cable does reveal the PL’s willingness, unspoken of in public, to accept Malta’s PfP membership.

“The PL, Dr Vella indicated, had come to the conclusion that PfP membership was not contrary to the neutrality clause of Malta’s Constitution and would have been willing to work with the government to rejoin,” the cable said.

The ambassador had also noted the PL’s reluctance to accept any status of forces agreement (SOFA). These agreements generally establish the framework under which US military personnel operate in a foreign country, addressing how the domestic laws of the foreign jurisdiction shall be applied towards US personnel while in that country.

The status of forces agreement was also on the agenda of a meeting between Foreign Minister Tonio Borg and Prof. Kmiec in February last year.

According to a confidential cable, Dr Borg told the US Ambassador that Dr Gonzi was “prepared to go forward” on a Nato-sponsored, PfP status of forces agreement.

The sensitivity of the subject was also highlighted by the fact that Dr Borg and Prof. Kmiec only spoke about the matter “outside the presence of note takers”.

“While recognising that Malta has concerns pertaining to sovereign jurisdiction and some national laws such as those relating to the wearing of uniforms, carrying of weapons, etc., which are contrary to PfP SOFA provisions, Ambassador Kmiec urged the Foreign Minister not to make any gratuitous reservation or modification to the standard document if at all possible and he promised to forward a copy by messenger,” the cable said.

The highly-sensitive nature of the discussion was also highlighted by the fact that Dr Borg said it was his wish for the SOFA acronym to be “kept out as much as possible of the public discussion”.

Advert

7 Comments

Post comment

Comments are submitted under the express understanding and condition that the editor may, and is authorised to, disclose any/all of the above personal information to any person or entity requesting the information for the purposes of legal action on grounds that such person or entity is aggrieved by any comment so submitted.

At this time your comment will not be displayed immediately upon posting. Please allow some time for your comment to be moderated before it is displayed.

Your User Profile is incomplete.
Please click here to complete your profile before posting comments.

Mr Hans Wolf

Sep 3rd 2011, 23:05

You have this completely wrong. The SOFA only puts the military member under US jursidiction if the crime is commited by them against another service member or while in the performance of duty. All other crimes are under local jurisdiction.

And in addition, all US service members are subject to double jeapordy. Once tried, convicted and sentence served in civilian court, that service member will then be tried under military laws for the same crime.

N. Bill Camilleri

Sep 5th 2011, 14:53

I'm sure if that were to happen, the US soldier would much rather be charged in a Maltese court - he would probably get a suspended sentence. In a US court-martial the soldier would receive a minimum of 10 years in a US prison.

Mr Joseph Aquilina

Sep 3rd 2011, 16:56

It is a pity that so many in Malta opt to close their eyes to reality!! Declaring yourself neutral means nothing, it never did and will never do!! A country that declares itself neutral will be invaded (and there are various types of invasions) all the same, either immediately or later on. If you cared reading you would realise that during World War II Switzerland – with all it's neutrality decelerations – was preparing to be invaded!!

“During World War II, Germany considered invading,[4] but never attacked. Under General Henri Guisan, the Swiss army prepared for mass mobilization of militia forces against invasion, and prepared strong, well-stockpiled positions high in the Alps known as the Réduit. Switzerland remained independent and neutral through a combination of military deterrence, economic concessions to Germany, and good fortune as larger events during the war delayed an invasion. “

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Switzerland#World_Wars_.281914.E2.80.9345.29

So that puts at rest the value of declaring yourself Neutral; a zero value that is. If it did, then every country would declare themselves neutral and avoid conflicts!! Indeed Malta's neutrality clause (because who wrote it was not as stupid as some of those interpreting it) does not even state that Malta should remain neutral in every conflict. Malta's constitution allows Malta to be used as a military base by any other nations if there is need to defend Maltese independence or to enforce UN Security Council decrees. Therefore joining NATO for peace keeping missions would not in any way endanger Malta's neutrality. Indeed it would give the Maltese army better training, better equipment, and very good friends should Malta every need them. It is prime time that some stop interpreting the Neutrality clause as they wish and like and allow it to be adapted for the world of today!!

F A Mercieca

Sep 3rd 2011, 18:38

Well said Mr Joseph Aquilina.Hope this will enlighten some people what neutrality is all about.

Advert
Advert