The activation of Malta's application to rejoin Partnership for Peace (PfP) has drawn attention to the nature of, and necessity for, the neutrality clause in the Constitution. Two questions arise. First, should Malta remain a neutral country? And, secondly, if so, how should this concept now be expressed?
Consideration of the first question provides the answer to the second.
Neutrality has a clear meaning under international law. It is a position adopted freely by a sovereign country resolved to refrain from participation in a war between other states and to maintain an impartial position towards belligerents when conflicts break out. But a country forming part of the United Nations cannot remain neutral in a conflict in which the Security Council has called on it to take action against a warring country. Neutrality, therefore, has its limitations and these are redefined depending on the circumstances at the time.
Malta has been formally a neutral country since 1987 "actively pursuing peace, security and social progress among all nations by adhering to a policy of non-alignment and refusing to participate in any military alliance". In effect, however, the genesis of Maltese neutrality occurred in 1979 when British troops ceased to be based on the island.
It could be argued that Malta's non-involvement in military alliances has served it well these last 30 years. Malta has never been under threat, nor has it been involved in external military activities. It has pursued a policy of good neighbourliness with all countries both to the north and to the south. In such a potentially volatile region, this is no mean feat - helped, undoubtedly, by the country being neutral and being seen as such. Malta has not been on anybody's side, but then nor has it been against anybody either. If the island had indeed formed part of a military alliance it might have been seen as Europe's front-line, facing those not forming part of that alliance. It might have stopped being regarded as the bridge between north and south and, instead, been seen again as "the last bastion".
Malta's neutrality within the EU is central to its foreign and security policy. Its aim is to reinforce the maintenance of peace and stability, which has been achieved since Malta's independence through dialogue, friendship and cooperation rather than confrontation. Malta's commitment to neutrality and its geo-strategic position enables it to make a valid contribution to Euro-Mediterranean stability, thus benefiting, in the final analysis, Malta's own security.
Neutrality can therefore remain enshrined in the Constitution. But sections in it, which were introduced at a time when the Cold War still had three years to run, and that speak of "two superpowers" and ideological blocs one of which no longer exists, and of "non-alignment", now that the Non-Aligned Movement is also defunct, need to be revised if they are to have any relevance to today's world.
The reference in the Constitution to the Maltese shipyards and their denial of access to "military vessels of the two superpowers", of course taken to mean either the United States or the former Soviet Union, are not only utterly redundant but also utterly luddite in that they restrict Malta's ability to compete for valuable and much-needed work for its hard-pressed dockyard.
The narrow interpretation that has been given by some to the clause dealing with the presence of "foreign military personnel on Maltese territory" also needs revisiting.
Malta now belongs to the European Union. It has just been accepted back within the PfP. It has taken a great stride forward in joining the EU. The Lisbon Treaty - passed unanimously in Parliament - envisages countries participating in peace-keeping or humanitarian missions as part of the implementation of the EU's Common Security and Defence operations. These contributions will invariably be on a voluntary basis.
This is the reality of where neutral Malta stands today. The Constitution should be amended to reflect it accordingly.