Kurt Sansone
Labour U-turn on Partnership for Peace
Nato training exercise in Georgia under the Partnership for Peace programme in 2009. Photo: AFP
A Labour government will not withdraw Malta from Nato’s Partnership for Peace programme, according to a party spokesman, signalling a U-turn in policy.
This is the first public admission by the Labour Party that it will not reverse the government’s decision in 2008 to re-join the Partnership for Peace programme after a hiatus of 12 years.
In 1996 the newly-elected Labour government immediately withdrew Malta’s membership in the Nato programme, which the country had joined a year earlier under the previous Nationalist administration.
And after the 2008 election,the PL’s acting leader Charles Mangion had said the party did not agree with PfP membership because it “compromises Malta’s neutrality” and that joining was not on the party’s agenda.
Nato’s Partnership for Peace programme consists of practical bilateral cooperation between individual partner countries and the military alliance. It allows partner countries to build up an individual relationship with Nato, choosing their own priorities for cooperation.
Membership of PfP does not equate to Nato membership and does not mean military participation in the alliance’s missions.
The PL confirmation comes a day after a leaked US Embassy cable reported that in a meeting with former US Ambassador Douglas Kmiec in November 2009, Labour leader Joseph Muscat and foreign affairs spokesman George Vella had indicated that PfP membership “was not contrary to the neutrality clause of Malta’s Constitution” and the party would have been willing to work with government to rejoin.
In his cable, the Ambassador said opposition to Nato membership was a long-standing position, based on Labour’s interpretation of the neutrality clause in Malta’s constitution.
Asked to confirm whether the US cable reflected current policy, a Labour Party spokesman yesterday said the PfP programme had over the years developed differently than what was originally envisaged inthe 1990s when it was still in the initial stages.
“The Labour Party will not be withdrawing Malta from Nato’s PfP programme... time has shown that a neutral country like Malta, as long as it has total control of the participation programme, can take part in PfP,” he said.
However, the Labour Party still expressed reservations over the way Malta was admitted in the PfP programme in 2008 by the Gonzi administration.
“This is certainly not in line with the Ratification of Treaties Act,” the spokesman said.
This issue had also been raised in the 2009 meeting with Prof. Kmiec and the confidential cable published by whistleblower site Wikileaks, commented on what the US ambassador described as “unexpected and troublesome” remarks by Dr Vella.
During the meeting, Dr Vella had said the reactivation of PfP membership was “invalid as it failed to comply with Malta’s Treaties Act” because the government had not referred the matter to Parliament.
Widespread furore accompanied the government’s decision to apply for PfP membership just days after the 2008 election had returned a Nationalist administration.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
'No need for early election if PM's...
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Second group of migrants arrives
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
14 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Ivan Grech Mintoff
Sep 5th 2011, 19:42
@AV
a)Whilst it is true that JM & GV had INDICATED this time we have a spokesman who is being QUOTED.
I just wanted to know who it was.
b) do you always agree with everything "your party's leader says?"
c) I am merely pointing out that whoever says that pfp is not in breach of the constitution (PN LP or otherwise) is wrong. It is SERIOUSLY in breach of the constitution no matter what spin you put on it. If the 'spokesperson; is convinced that it is not, then he should explain why it is not to convince others (myself included) who think otherwise... and that is the very reason I want to know who said it, so I can ask him directly.
What am I doing wrong?
Mr Antoine Vella
Sep 5th 2011, 14:26
Grech Mintoff, you should follow the news:
"November 2009, Labour leader Joseph Muscat and foreign affairs spokesman George Vella had indicated that PfP membership “was not contrary to the neutrality clause of Malta’s Constitution” and the party would have been willing to work with government to rejoin."
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110904/local/Labour-U-turn-on-Partnership-for-Peace.383100
I'm sorry but you MUST agree, whether you like it or not. You can't go against your Leader.
Ivan Grech Mintoff
Sep 5th 2011, 08:15
A) What is NATO?
"A Political an MILITARY ALLIANCE"
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/SID-18575751-57A3D631/natolive/what_is_nato.htm
( press DISCOVER NATO, then BASICS....)
b) The Maltese constitution states: "1.3 Malta is a neutral state actively pursuing peace, security
and social progress among all nations by adhering to a policy of non-alignment AND REFUSING TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY MILITARY ALLIANCE."
http://www.legal-malta.com/law/constitution-1.htm
c) TOM :
"Nato’s Partnership for Peace programme consists of practical bilateral cooperation between individual partner countries and the MILITARY ALLIANCE."
Etc etc.
There is no question that NATO is a military alliance and there is not question that our constitution dictates that Malta cannot join ANY military alliance no matter how your play with spin....
Who on earth is the spokesman who came up with this 'new' way of interpreting .. the constitution?!!
What is LP playing at??
Can this LP 'spokesman' ( I truly hope its not the shadow foreign minister!) explain CLEARLY where PFP does NOT break the constitution.?
The constitution is CLEAR and does NOT state that you can join a military alliance as long as you are not involved in military activity. It states you cannot join a military Alliance.
Not even to play cards and do a bit of sport fishing...(especially on military boats!)
Halluna trid!
Mr Angus Black
Sep 5th 2011, 13:33
As always, Ivan, you know more about everything than everybody else!
Are you now against your own Party?
Does this latest U-turn not prove right the NP government who regained membership in PfP as soon as being re-elected in 2008?
Ivan, you seem to be as confused as GaddafiPL.
Ivan Grech Mintoff
Sep 5th 2011, 20:41
@ AB
>Are you now against your own Party?
1) Lets be perfectly clear on this point. If "my party" breaks the highest law of the land (like "your (sic!) party" seems to on a regular basis)... absolutely! But it hasn't yet so I am not against my party. I am against the statement of a thus far unknown individual of the party.
Why? You think I should turn a blind eye to something illegal "because its my party??
Are you one of those people who think that whatever "your" party tells you then it must be so....?
2) What am I doing wrong by asking who the 'representative' who stated something is (so that I may ask the same directly)?
3) I think the person who is confused would be someone who first says something is bad then says its good thereby showing no principle..
4) The law is the law for EVERYONE.
If we all start "ignoring" parts that we don't like then this is not democracy, liberalism or whatever new buzzword is in the party's apologists are branding about to sound 'intellectual'...
Ignoring parts of the law sooner or later leads to anarchy (when it is all ignored) and/or dictatorship (when just parts are ignored).
> Does this latest U-turn not prove right the NP government who regained membership in PfP as soon as being re-elected in 2008?
Not at all.
a) two wrongs don't make a right
b) its not party policy yet. Its just a statement by a party spokesman.
Clear?
>Ivan, you seem to be as confused as GaddafiPL.
Not confused at all. Quite the opposite actually.
:)
Mr Ray de Bono
Sep 4th 2011, 18:37
This is positive. A sign of maturity. Prosit.
Mr Denis Pace
Sep 4th 2011, 15:36
@John Zammit-Spiteri
What bothers us is that he had to say thuis after the leak from Wiki....
Let there be more leaks.....................
Mr John Azzopoardi
Sep 4th 2011, 14:20
Labour is being practical. The same way labour and PN are now supporting the new libyan government is the same people change their minds when national interest comes first. Malta can onlly rely on the US and Nato for it's defence. And no one else. The arab world is one big destabilizing place and a little place like malta need the us and NAto to defend it. EU will not do anything as it has no established army yet. Better get one though to protect it's dwindling economic power.
John Zammit-Spiteri
Sep 4th 2011, 12:36
Now that Gaddafi is gone, the PL can accept Malta to be in PFP. Naturally KMB and Mintoff accepted a condition from Gaddafi that Malta will NEVER be part of PFP (amongst other conditions for Malta, example, joining the EU) ... now that Gaddafi is gone, the PL can continue to the PN's steps in this case, and may others... I am not a Labour Supporter, but I am not a fanatic either. However what ever is good, where ever it's source... cannot be called otherwies.
Mr Denis Pace
Sep 4th 2011, 10:37
Another U-turn.....a result of Wikileaks admissions.
May I ask...."Neutral" to what???
J. Schembri
Sep 4th 2011, 08:13
Weren’t we told over and over again before the election by PL that we don’t want our soldiers coming home in body bags?
So now PL is agreeing to send our young Maltese soldiers to war! Tsik, tsik.
This is so humiliating to the new PL, shame on JosephMuscat who let George Vella concede this to the Americans behind our backs.
It’s good for our soldiers to know who betrayed them.
Thanks Wikileaks.
Mr Joseph Stafrace
Sep 4th 2011, 10:23
@ J.Schembri
It might help if things are put in clear perspective. ALL soldiers participating overseas; be it a partnership program or a UN or EU mandate are all volunteers. By the way the number of volunteers exceed the demand needed!
John Zammit-Spiteri
Sep 4th 2011, 11:38
I am not a follower of joseph muscat but when something good comes out I will count my blessings.
If joseph muscat decides that Partnership for Peace is good for our islands I think that he is choosing the right way. So I encourage less quacking about the subject. I would criticise him on other issues. This happens to be a step forward .
Lets not be fanatics now!
Mr Carmelo Micallef
Sep 4th 2011, 13:41
@ John Zammit Spiteri
Your referral to 'quacking' is uncalled for and does not address the issue;
One minute Muscat is against PIP full stop. Next minute (after wlkileaks do their thing) Muscat is for PIP.
The previous commentator was referring to Muscat's hypocrisy.