Article 1 (3) of the Constitution of Malta is casually referred to as the neutrality article. A careful reading would describe it more accurately as Malta’s mission statement.
Today, ‘non-alignment’ is not only irrelevant but also an embarrassment- Evarist Saliba
It states that Malta’s mission is to pursue peace, security and social progress among all nations. It is a very praiseworthy mission, though a very ambitious one.
The article goes further into seven sub-sections, describing how this mission is to be accomplished. It includes neutrality, a policy of non-alignment, non-participation in a military alliance, no foreign military bases on its territory, no military facilities to foreigners. This betrays a negative rather than a positive approach. An exception is made for self-defence, or in compliance with measures sanctioned by the Security Council of the United Nations.
There is an elaboration that a concentration of foreign forces is permissible for the performance of civil work or activities, or military technical personnel assisting in the island’s defence.
The shipyards, then a major if ailing industry, was debarred to military vessels of the two superpowers (read US and USSR), and were to restrict themselves to limited repair works on military vessels of other states, apart from civil commercial work.
Peace is highly desirable as long as it is based on justice. Dictators bring “peace” to their country by eliminating opposition. They quote “security” as a justification for this policy, since this is the way that they can achieve “social progress”. Prominent examples are Muammar Gaddafi and Robert Mugabe. I do not believe that this is what Malta wishes to pursue, and our Constitution would benefit by making it clear.
During my lifetime, Europe has seen tragic evidence that neutrality does not necessarily promote peace. At best, it is irrelevant. Did neutrality bring peace to Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg in 1940? No.
Did their neutrality contribute, unwillingly perhaps, to the conduct of war? Yes. It made it possible for Hitler to launch the war, with lightning successes.
As for Sweden and Switzerland, both countries enjoyed peace. Hitler did not need to invade Sweden because it supplied him, willingly or reluctantly is immaterial, with the steel he needed for his war machine. Switzerland boasted of armed neutrality which, together with its terrain, presented a formidable obstacle to an invader. In any case, the occupation of Switzerland was not a strategic necessity for Hitler.
It is significant that most pre-war European neutral countries abandoned their neutrality after the war and sought their security as members of Nato. Austria and Finland, which had been neutralised, as well as a contrite Sweden, felt a moral obligation to contribute to peace and security in a more tangible way by being heavily involved in UN peacekeeping forces. Switzerland had long established a reputation, through the International Committee of the Red Cross, as a major contributor to humanitarian activities during armed conflict.
Does article 1 (3) of our Constiturion provide for a positive contribution to peace and security comparable to those of the countries just mentioned? No. Admittedly, our resources are limited, but the omission of a mention of humanitarian assistance reflects badly when so many other details are included. When one goes into such great detail, what one omits becomes as significant as what one includes.
Malta’s record during the Libyan uprising this year has been appreciated at an international level, yet criticism came from local persons claiming that article 1 (3) had been violated. This exposed the basic inspiration of those who demanded its inclusion in the Constitution as the price to ensure just democratic representation in Parliament.
It should be remembered that this article is a successor to a unilateral declaration, deposited with the United Nations, and later included in treaties of friendship between Malta and Italy, Libya and the USSR, all of which demanded economic support for Malta’s neutrality. Thus the claimed nobility of our neutrality is somewhat tarnished by its direct link to financial/economic support.
As for non-alignment, this ceased to have any political credibility when Cuba, a country openly aligned to the USSR, one of the superpowers, was elected to preside over the movement. Today, “non-alignment” is not only irrelevant but also an embarrassment.
Article 1 (3) has two elements which are valid, though whether their place is in the nation’s Constitution is another matter. One is the prohibition of foreign military bases on the island, and the other is the non-membership in a military alliance. Malta’s history shows that military bases tend to distort the nation’s economic structure. Even in bigger nations, the closure of a military base sends economic shivers in the surrounding areas. Malta is too small to share its civil seaports and airport with foreign military bases. This should not exclude reasonable facilities in accordance with UN Security Council decisions.
As for membership of a military alliance Malta – unlike Luxembourg, a nation of comparable size – does not have clear identifiable neighbours holding similar values. Malta is on the periphery of Europe, having only one border with an open sea, and facing another continent. A military alliance could involve us in disputes that we are unable to influence.
Today, Malta’s international identity is defined through its membership of the European Union. Malta’s political parties have come to agree on this membership. Even participation in the Partnership for Peace is no longer a divisive issue. The experience that we have been through during the struggle of the Libyan people against dictatorship has also highlighted the positive and practical role that Malta can play, in cooperation with other states, in the pursuit of peace.
This experience gives us the opportunity to re-examine the contents of article 1(3). The debate should not be an electoral issue but a sober reassessment, without any unrelated demand introduced as a bargaining chip. In a democracy a government should be free to examine situations as they arise within the existing context, and not shackled by outdated concepts.
Are we mature enough to rise to the occasion?