This week, European foreign ministers decided, unanimously, to blacklist the military wing of the Lebanese Shiite political party, Hezbollah. From now on, it will be considered a terrorist organisation, although the decision will be reviewed every six months.

The ministers, however, decided against classifying the political wing as terrorist, even though the proposal was put forward by the EU Foreign Policy Chief, Catherine Ashton, and had the strong support of the US and Israel.

Both decisions seem to me to be justified, although I understand the hesitations of those member states that were concerned that blacklisting even the military wing of Hezbollah could lead to the destabilisation of Lebanon.

Some news reports included Malta on this list of countries. They were probably responding to appeals coming from the Lebanese government itself, from the President down. An appeal that unites several Lebanese factions is unusual and should not be ignored without being considered carefully.

On Monday, when Malta was listed as one of the as yet unconvinced states, the large members were all to be found on the side proposing the blacklisting. It was not always so. US pressure to consider Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation goes back several years. Few EU states had responded positively. Then, the February report of a terrorist attack last year in Bulgaria began to change things.

This time last year, at a Black Sea resort, an explosion killed five Israeli tourists and their Bulgarian bus driver. The terrorist attack occurred around the same time that, in Cyprus, a Hezbollah member was found guilty of conspiracy to attack Israelis on the island.

Hezbollah has strongly rejected any involvement in the Bulgaria attack. It is true that its attacks have usually been conducted in the Middle East. However, the Bulgarian authorities, helped by Europol, have insisted that there is convincing evidence pointing to the Lebanese group.

Once we take the evidence as given, the issue becomes one of whether Hezbollah should be blacklisted, in part or as a whole, irrespective of the consequences.

Up until the report on the Bulgarian attack, large states like France and Germany were reluctant to blacklist. It’s the attack that swung their vote.

Up till then, they had supported the argument made by the President of Lebanon, Michel Sleiman, to the EU representative. Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese government. Blacklisting, and the sanctions that come with that, would hurt Hezbollah. The result would be complications in the relations that Lebanon could have with the EU as well as internally within the government.

The argument in favour of blacklisting was simple. Hezbollah had just transferred its struggle onto European soil, murdering civilians. How could Europe not take a united stand against terrorism on its own soil?

Given the intense lobbying by Lebanon against the decision, there can be no doubt that it will have a destabilising effect on its government. But the real question is another.

The EU has to avoid taking action that stops it from engaging with Hezbollah’s politicians

There is a strong argument for saying that, by refraining from taking action, the EU would anyway have been contributing to the destabilisation of Lebanon. A lack of firm action against escalation would embolden Hezbollah. The balance of power within the governing coalition would change in Hezbollah’s favour. In the past, such imbalances have undermined Lebanese governments and civic peace rather than preserved them.

Apart from this there is the matter of responsibility. Suppose the Lebanese government, as a whole, sponsored a terrorist attack on European soil. Would it be sound to argue that no European action should be taken since that would lead to Lebanon’s destabilisation? Of course not. It’s the government’s own fault if its actions destabilise its country.

It should not be different when only one coalition partner of such a government sponsors an attack.

Should Hezbollah as a whole have been blacklisted, not just its military wing? Israel’s argument is that Hezbollah’s leadership is united. It is ultimately responsible for both the political and the military decisions.

Here again I believe that the EU foreign ministers reached a balanced decision, which recognises the nature of Lebanon.

Hezbollah’s military operations in Lebanon and its neighbourhood reflect the particular weakness of the Lebanese State, which is not able to protect all of its citizens adequately.

Hezbollah remains an important political actor within Lebanon. Without it, no sustainable peace in Lebanon is possible.

The EU has to avoid taking action that would make it impossible for it to engage with Hezbollah’s politicians, let alone the Lebanese government’s representatives when led by a Hezbollah politician. Indeed, as the UK Foreign Secretary, William Hague, has stressed, it should be possible to make a clear distinction between Hezbollah’s political and military wings.

The lesson that Europe needs to take to heart from this episode is a double-edged one. On the one hand, a firm united stand against terrorist actions on its soil. On the other, we should bear in mind that the Middle East conflict threatens to spill over into Europe. It is in Europe’s interest that firmer action needs to be taken to resolve the conflict peacefully and with justice.

The lesson which Malta needs to take to heart is single-edged.

It surprised me that Malta was originally listed as an unconvinced state. One newspaper even implied the possibility of a veto. Surely, it should have been obvious if one were to consider Malta’s interests first and foremost. Such a stance would have disastrous effects on the government’s main electoral promise: energy – the cost of bringing down the price of energy.

Only recently, the minister responsible for energy, Conrad Mizzi, went to Qatar, a gulf State with unbelievable gas reserves. Should Malta have taken a different stance this would have terminated the possibility of any agreement with Qatar, the main supporter of the Syrian revolution. Recently, the latter took a battering primarily due to the thousands of Hezbollah warriors who have entered the affray on the side of the forces still loyal to the Syrian President.

International relations are like a game of chess and one must always view the repercussions of one’s move. It was a great relief to me that, in the end, Malta took a judicious decision.

John Attard Montalto is a Labour MEP.