Malta’s neutrality has “absolutely no relevance” in the international fight against terrorism and should not stop the island from taking a stand, according to former European Court of Human Rights judge Giovanni Bonello.
He was reacting to comments by shadow foreign minister Roberta Metsola who called for Malta to join an international coalition against Islamic State.
Dr Metsola said the island was the only EU member State not to form part of the coalition set up by the US last year. She is insisting that Malta’s constitutionally imposed neutrality should not stop it from participating in “non-military” action by providing logistical assistance.
The neutrality clause in the Constitution says: “Malta is a neutral State actively pursuing security among all nations by adhering to a policy of non-alignment and refusing to participate in any foreign alliance.”
It is by not fighting international terrorism that Malta would be in breach of the Constitution
Dr Bonello, however, says such constitutional provisions have to be interpreted in the light of the circumstances prevailing at the time they were written. “In 1987 ‘adhering to a policy of non-alignment’ meant not siding militarily or in a politically relevant manner with either the Western bloc or the Soviet bloc. That is the only action prohibited by the neutrality clause,” he said, adding the policy had no bearing on Malta’s involvement in the international fight on terror.
Illustrating his point, Dr Bonello said the neutrality clause had never come in the way of Malta’s involvement in the fight against organised crime, which was not a country but a phenomenon not entirely dissimilar to the jihadist group.
“In fact, it is by not fighting international terrorism that Malta would be in breach of the Constitution. The law mandates equidistance between two mighty political forces. It does not mandate distance between civilisation and terrorism,” he said.
Dr Bonello stressed that this was his own interpretation of the provisions and conceded that others might disagree with him.
He pointed out that the neutrality clause had never been interpreted authoritatively by the Constitutional Court or by any other internationally-recognised institution.
In making her appeal, Dr Metsola had noted that the belief that joining the coalition would not breach the Constitution was supported by the decision taken by a number of other EU member states which were participating notwithstanding having similar provisions. These included Austria, Finland, Ireland and Sweden.
Foreign Affairs Minister George Vella last year issued a statement denying international media reports that Malta had made some form of commitment to the coalition.
Clarifying a report carried by this newspaper earlier this week, he said that in the statement he had only referred to the neutrality clause, noting that, despite such legal provisions, Malta still had a role to play in the fight against terror. This role, he said, had seen Malta offer moral and political support to other countries.
Questions sent to the ministry on why Malta had not joined the coalition, however, were still unanswered at the time of writing.