Libya is ablaze and out of control. The polarisation of forces fighting each other has deepened. For several weeks, Tripoli has been battered by militias. The international airport has been destroyed. There has been an exodus of Libyans and almost all foreign diplomats.
The country’s many, heavily-armed militias fall broadly into two camps: Islamists, who are strong in Tripoli and the middle of the country, and an array of secular opponents who tend to dominate the east and west.
The government’s grip on the country is tenuous. There is little resembling either a functioning national army or a parliament with any power or purpose. The grave concern now is that Libya is on the brink of turning into a failed State and could become a haven for regional jihadists.
It is against this background of growing chaos that the Minister for Foreign Affairs, George Vella, has expressed concern for Malta’s security. He has, understandably, pointed at the pressures from migrants fleeing the turmoil in the Middle East and, specifically, those escaping persecution by the Islamic State (ISIS).
The government should begin detailed technical talks on the threat posed by ISIS
He expressed the possibility that, while armed militias are fighting among themselves in Libya, extremist groups such as ISIS may seize the opportunity to infiltrate it in a bid to establish themselves there as part of a so-called caliphate stretching from Iraq and Syria to Libya and beyond.
“It is not being excluded that certain ISIS cells are already in Libya. It would be horrifying that an extremist group is so close to [Malta] seeking to establish itself there.”
He then went on to question not only Malta’s ability to defend itself but also its policy of neutrality. “If anyone thinks that Malta’s neutrality offers us peace of mind, they are mistaken,” he said. “This is a debate that should start immediately to consider all options, keeping in mind our constitutional obligations, of course.” He called on “an open public dialogue”.
The paramount duty of a government is to ensure that its people are secure and safe and that their liberty and economic well-being are assured. The government’s goal is to protect the freedom and territorial integrity of the Maltese islands and the ability of the Maltese people to pursue their legitimate interests at home and abroad. The government seeks to safeguard a range of interests: political, economic, trading and social. Its security policy, therefore, is designed to support and, if necessary, to defend them by any means at its disposal.
Security defined in this way is a broad concept. It is not simply a matter of military capability – Malta’s is inevitably extremely limited – important though that may prove in the last resort. It encompasses the combined processes of multilateral international cooperation, preventive diplomacy and the widest promotion of dialogue and understanding designed specifically to avoid ever having to use force.
Given the possibility of a serious jihadist threat on Malta’s doorstep, what should be the government’s response?
The first step must be an assessment of the threat. The threat of jihadist ISIS militia mounting an assault on Malta from Libya is improbable and can be discounted. The possibility of a rogue air strike by an ISIS jihadist flying a fighter aircraft from Tripoli is remote but a possibility. There have been no instances of ISIS using aircraft either in Syria or Iraq. However, if they possessed them, they would surely strike high profile targets elsewhere, not in Malta.
By far the most likely threat stems from three sources, each aimed at achieving maximum media coverage and sowing terror in Europe.
The first is the infiltration of terrorists into Malta as a stepping stone into mainland Europe with the aim of mounting a spectacular terrorist atrocity against a high profile target in one of the major European capitals.
Secondly, to target one of the international diplomatic missions located in Malta – say the United States (which now also has the US Ambassador to Libya based here), the UK or one of the major European states, France or Germany.
Or, thirdly, though less likely, to attack a Maltese government target as a proxy for other EU targets simply because Malta is a member of the Union.
The Maltese government’s priority should therefore be to make diplomatic and other contingency preparations to foil such attempts. Dealing with terrorism requires several tools. But the paramount tool is good security intelligence. The ability to expose terrorist networks or to pre-empt terrorist attacks is the central purpose of good peace-time intelligence.
Malta’s Security Service is inevitably limited in capability. But the American and British, French and German intelligence services are probably the best in the world. The presence of their diplomatic missions in Malta means that their interests and Malta’s in thwarting any terrorist attack coincide. The government must build on this mutual interest.
Malta is fully committed to the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policies (CFSP). It also has a long-standing (dormant?) defence agreement with Italy. Although Malta’s neutrality prevents it from participating in Nato operations, it would be within the spirit and the letter of the CFSP for Malta to call on intelligence support from other EU countries and it seems inconceivable that they would not provide it.
The government should begin detailed technical talks on the threat posed by ISIS to ensure that its Security Service is closely linked to those of other EU countries.
The bedrock of Malta’s security and economic well-being has depended on international friendship. Cooperation is the basis of Malta’s security. The over-arching feature of Malta’s foreign and security policy, however, is its status as a neutral country within the EU.
Malta’s neutrality is central to its foreign and security policy. The policy of non-participation in military alliances was formally incorporated into the constitution in 1987. It has served the country well. Its aim is to reinforce the maintenance of peace and stability which has been achieved since Malta’s independence through a process of dialogue, friendship and cooperation, rather than confrontation.
Although the EU is the centre-piece of Malta’s foreign and security policy, the country’s neutrality enables it to anchor itself to the rest of Europe while still maintaining close ties with its neighbours. It is in Malta’s national interest, as shown by events in Libya, to be part of the development of Europe’s common foreign and security policy and to be able to contribute to it through its bridge-building role.
The last few turbulent years have underlined clearly that the region Malta inhabits and in which it operates presents a picture of increased uncertainty and rapid change. Whatever the outcome in Libya – and there is regrettably little sign that it will be settled soon – it is in Malta’s self-interest to continue to foster good neighbourliness and the promotion of the various intelligence, political, economic, trading, humanitarian and cultural tools at its disposal.
This is Malta’s best safeguard against the continued instability in the region which has the potential to affect its interests so adversely, even if Malta, as a neutral country, plays no direct military part in it.
The government has to be vigilant in an uncertain world for any circumstances that could threaten Maltese lives or affect its territorial or political interests.