In a world where a country's enemies are unknown and where the targets are often innocent civilians, it is security services, rather than armies, that now form the front line of defence.
The growth in international terrorism has turned much of defence planning on its head. Countries are now spending much more than before on security services rather than military hardware.
It is generally agreed that there can be no neutrality in the face of terrorism. Terrorists are faceless individuals who strike by stealth, killing indiscriminately and across borders. And, as the major powers pour millions of dollars into counter-terrorism, terrorists are seeking out softer targets in countries which, because they are small, are in variably less prepared and more exposed.
Malta has, over the years, never been far from the terrorism headlines. It was mentioned frequently during the Lockerbie investigations. This island also witnessed the second worst case of aviation terrorism before the September 11 attacks; a ship laden with weapons for the IRA reportedly used Malta's harbour; there was a mysterious explosion at the Libyan Cultural Centre; a prominent Islamic Jihad leader was killed here, and there were claims of a plot against Queen Elizabeth before she came to Malta for CHOGM. Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has claimed that terrorists had planned to hijack a plane from Malta to hit targets in the UK.
The list is probably longer. The only common feature in it is that the targets or alleged targets were foreigners living or staying in Malta, but, nonetheless, any attack in Malta cannot but be considered as an attack on Malta, undermining its sovereignty with potentially serious implications for its economy, especially tourism.
A former member of the counter-terrorism unit of the Malta police wrote recently in The Sunday Times describing cruise liners as "an attractive target", mostly frequented by people of the Judeo-Christian faith, which can be struck through various ways - not a pleasant scenario for a country promoting itself as a cruise liner hub. Indeed, a determined terrorist can pick a target at will, whether it is hotels, embassies, aircraft, transport systems, even fast-food outlets or other foreign-owned establishments.
And apart from the direct risk of attack, the threat to security includes organised crime such as drug trafficking, illegal immigration and transhipment of weapons of mass destruction. Financial institutions too can be used to launder or channel terrorism funds. Such a multiplicity of threats means that the only hope of defence lies in prevention through intelligence, hence, the importance of a well-oiled counter-terrorism set-up.
The Security Service, under whose remit counter-terrorism falls, is clearly doing what it can, using what must be very limited resources. The recently-published annual report of the Security Committee, which oversees the service, was necessarily shorn of detail, but, as in previous years, it underscored the importance of cooperation and information sharing with security agencies overseas. The report showed that the Security Service is gearing up for the demands that will be placed on Malta when it takes its place as gatekeeper of the Schengen area. A close eye is being kept on the possible presence of terrorist cells and on illegal transhipment activities.
One cannot judge just how effective this work has been, but the country simply cannot ever let its guard down. It needs to harness all resources and assistance available to it, while ensuring that there is a clear, defined, delineation of responsibilities among the various agencies, with no duplication of roles.