The Ministry for Foreign Affairs takes exception to the comment by correspondent Martin Scicluna in his article titled ‘Terrorism and neutrality’ (February 25).

In his article, Scicluna stated that “Malta’s Foreign Minister said that this [not joining the anti-Isis campaign launched in September 2014] was because of the neutrality clause in our Constitution”.

Scicluna accuses the government of having been ‘blinkered’ in its approach. He called this “an error of judgement” and also accuses the government of “abjectly hiding behind a very tightly drawn and now outdated neutrality clause in the Constitution”.

The correspondent continues: “As a neutral country it is beholden on us to work diplomatically towards a solution by the Libyans themselves.”

The Minister for Foreign Affairs never said that Malta was not forming part of the anti-Isis coalition because of the neutrality clause in our Constitution.

Both in his intervention in the Foreign Affairs Council meetings as well as in press releases issued by the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, the minister has never pronounced himself in this way. On the contrary, there were many occasions where the Minister for Foreign Affairs declared that neutrality does not feature when one is trading with the barbarity of Isis.

The Ministry for Foreign Affairs, according to the correspondent, is “abjectly hiding” behind the neutrality clause in the Constitution. It seems more the case of the correspondent “abjectly” building a whole article on a false premise, with the intention of denigrating the government policy on Libya.

The Ministry for Foreign Affairs thus requests the correspondent to quote ‘chapter and verse’ the Minister for Foreign Affairs saying, as alleged by the same correspondent, that Malta did not join the anti-Isis coalition because of the neutrality clause in our Constitution.

Short of producing this evidence, gentlemanly behaviour demands that an apology would be in order.