Some letters in this newspaper have been critical of Malta's revival of its Partnership for Peace membership. It is worth recalling that the Partnership is not an alliance and that besides the PfP, Nato conducts a similar, ongoing dialogue with some countries of the southern Mediterranean. I look positively on these initiatives as a sort of confidence-building measure between all the states involved and a contribution to the strengthening of peace and security.
As for the influence of the PfP and Nato on Malta once we rejoin PfP, I believe it is still a fact that Malta's neutrality is underwritten by a Nato country, Italy, which before signing the treaty in 1980, obtained Nato's clearance and will certainly have to consult its Nato allies were its treaty with Malta to be invoked in the future. Of course, in the interest of lasting peace one hopes that this bilateral treaty with a Nato country will never have to be invoked.
I also differ with those who bad mouth Nato, for I find nothing shameful in associating with it. Nato's and the US contributions to defending Western Europe during the Cold War ensured the survival of our democratic systems and market economies until the collapse of communism opened the door for this way of life to expand eastwards and free millions of toiling East Europeans. Is that a record to be ashamed of?
As for the rubbish about "Nato influence in Malta" my only question is, were the Maltese freer when the Nato southern HQ was still located in Malta or when as a neutral state all of Malta's democratic institutions were severely threatened by demagogical, internal forces?
With respect to Malta's neutrality, there again I find nothing wrong with a pacifist foreign policy that seeks to promote peace by peaceful means. But we are a democratic country and as such we belong to the global community of democratic states which needs to be safeguarded and expanded by peaceful means. We just cannot be neutral to tyranny and corruption. Nato also provides a credible military shield against potential threats by rogue states in possession of weapons of mass destruction.
When neutrality was inserted in the Maltese Constitution we, the Maltese citizens, had a right to be consulted and to express ourselves on the matter in the same way as when the independence Constitution was presented to us for approval in a referendum. But we were never given the opportunity to do so. The neutrality clause was negotiated behind our backs and entrenched in the Constitution without our approval.
It is a mark of the greater respect which the majority of our citizens attach to democratic values in this country and their maturity, that in the spirit of compromise, which is essential to any democracy, they have chosen to live with that constitutional debacle rather than oppose it as an imposition.