Neutrality is fundamental

Reading Michael Grech’s interesting article on neutrality (Neutrality Rocks, June 12), I would like to underline certain elements which I hope would provoke a deeper study and debate on this fundamental question. This question is not only a formal constitutional one but is a vital structural part in our socio-economic politic.

We must convince all states that it would be in everybody’s interest to have a neutral Malta in the middle of the most upsetting of all regions

One has to debate this issue without the każin or parroċċa provincial approach. The neutrality status of Malta was chosen by the predominant parliamentary majority of the time. It gained international recognition and support throughout the global community including the United Nations and the European Community. It also achieved a guarantee relationship with several states.

Malta’s praxis during these last decades was constantly and continuously based on its status and policy of neutrality. Even during the most problematic Libyan turbulences, the Nationalist government quite correctly had to play a rather dangerous tight-rope role and thanks to our neutrality status it achieved quite a positive result, relatively speaking.

To throw out all this experience, richness and accumulated respect is worse than throwing the baby with the dirty water and the tub into the gutter.

Yes, neutrality was, is and will always be under attack, as every status of neutrality, including that of Switzerland and Austria (and others) were and still are.

It is up to us to uphold, sustain and develop this precious building block constituting an essential part of our political and economic life. We have to convince and continuously persuade all powers-to-be of the mutual interest and fruitfulness one may ‘inherit’ and gather from sustaining Malta’s neutrality.

Contemporary belligerent situations need various oases that would offer possibilities for the creation of bilateral and multilateral systems of good faith between states and blocks-of-interest. This is precisely Malta’s role in international relations, and neutrality is the fundamental component in the achieving of such objective.

The more tension exacerbates, the more the neutral oases become categorical prerequisites: and we are living in a period of extreme, unheard-of tension. Choosing another path, warlike path, even if cunningly camouflaged by a neutrality veil, is nothing but prostituting Malta.

One can visualise and accept the fact that different political parties and different governments have different international political affinities. There is absolutely nothing wrong in having different governments towing different international ropes.

Thus, having one Maltese government which finds a more common language with the United States and Britain, while another feels better with a French-German relationship, should not dampen nor weaken our neutrality status.

However, all governments of all periods should underline the status and policy of neutrality, independently of the problematic situations that may and will arise. This will only increase our ‘credit’ possibilities in the international arena.

We must convince all states that it would be in everybody’s interest to have a neutral Malta in the middle of the most upsetting of all regions. One should not forget that the radical difference between Maltese neutrality and other historical examples of this status is the incredible fact that Maltese neutrality was not imposed by foreign powers during some atrocious aftermath of war.

In fact there are two other important legal documents which make Maltese legal political evolution one of the most fascinating examples in the history of international relations: Magna Charta Libertatis, 1425/27 and the Malta 1800 Bill of Rights. Let us sustain our historical legitimacy.

It is true that the manifest character of belligerent situations has radically changed. However, the rooted hidden nature of these situations is still the same. Maltese neutrality has to take this into consideration.

One needs a top-notch political foreign policy with its corresponding ministerial apparatus embedded in first class technical, political and legal know-how. Unfortunately, such structural expertise on neutrality is, in my opinion, lacking.

This is a lacuna that has to be immediately tackled. Such a lacuna is dangerous when the Maltese state is confronted with other states’ interest in undermining our status of neutrality.

Giuseppe Schembri Bonaci, whose Ph.D dissertation analysed the status of Maltese neutrality, is a lecturer in the Department of History of Art at the University of Malta.