Malta is a Constitutionally neutral country, but is the principle of neutrality betrayed by the presence of foreign warships in our harbours? Moviment Graffitti’s ANDRE’ CALLUS talks to Raphael Vassallo about the intrinsic hypocrisy of a country which talks about peace while contributing to military campaigns
Moviment Graffitti organises regular protests against warships visiting Malta. Can you outline the basic reasons for your opposition to these visits? The main reason behind our opposition to the visits of foreign military warships is our belief that Malta should be a country which promotes peace around the world, particularly in the Mediterranean region. Therefore we oppose the visit of any warship from any foreign country or military alliance.
This is not some unrealistic idealism. To have an island in the middle of the Mediterranean saying that foreign military vessels are not accepted in our ports, with their practical and symbolic importance, would be a very strong and positive statement which will offend no one. It would send a clear message that Malta is not accepting the logic of the many wars going on. This would also put us in a good position to actively work for peace between different countries. This, we think, is the spirit of the Maltese Constitution, which puts a strong emphasis on keeping Malta ‘free’ from foreign military personnel and facilities. After the last military vessels left in 1979, our country was supposed to take the path of ‘a neutral state actively pursuing peace, security and social progress’.
However, the opposite is happening because of the continuous visits of warships. Our country is implicitly saying that it does not find any problem with such wars: so much so, that it is ready to give shelter to the means by which wars are fought. And often, not only does the Government accept these warships, but also celebrates their presence by attending lavish receptions onboard, and sometimes even holding ceremonies ‘welcoming’ them in the harbour. This is nothing but military propaganda that celebrates a piece of technologically sophisticated metal, while conveniently forgetting, and making others forget, that war is a very harsh reality in which whole nations are being destroyed and thousands of innocent persons massacred. We simply do not want our country to be accomplice in all this.
Why should Malta accept, and play part, to this military propaganda? Why should it let other nations come here to show their military might? Because this is the real aim behind many of these visits. They are a strategy used by various countries to show their military ‘presence’ around the world. In fact, when warships pay us a visit they often send press releases, welcome journalists onboard and give interviews. However, if you look closely at what they say, the participation of their ship in wars rarely features. Instead we hear that they ‘combat piracy’, ‘fight drugs’ or ‘tackle immigration’. They make every effort to drop the word ‘war’ from ‘warship’, as they know that the reality of war is associated with something very negative in people’s minds.
Apart from the propaganda we are also helping the foreign military forces in a practical way. Many US warships stopped in Malta on their way to Iraq, or when coming back. George Bush had even sent a letter thanking Malta for its ‘help’ in the Iraq war.
Visits by warships also create concern with regards to security issues, particularly because of the fact that they might be carrying nuclear material. Accidents on warships do occur and imagine what a human and environmental disaster would happen if there is a nuclear incident on a warship in the Grand Harbour...
US Ambassador Mr Douglas Kmiec, at a recent seminar, questioned the true meaning of neutrality. How would you yourself define the concept to begin with? The neutrality clause in the constitution is something that makes sense only if it is read entirely. The world ‘neutrality’, on its own, can even sound negative as to some it portrays passivity in front of what is happening around the world. However, the term ‘neutrality’ in the Constitution does not in any way mean that Malta has to be passive in front of, for example, conflict between two countries. It is quite the opposite. It says that Malta can only work for true peace if it is not aligned with any particular country or military alliance. Therefore, when we say that the entry of foreign military warships breaches our constitution we are, first and foremost, referring to the fact that you cannot actively pursue peace (as it is stated in the Constitution) if you accept, and celebrate, the machinery of war.
Ambassador Douglas Kmiec’s understanding (or lack thereof) of the neutrality clause is completely off-track. He was reported as saying “Neutral to what? Is it neutrality to peace? Is it neutrality to assisting those striving for peace?” If Mr Kmiec read the constitution he should have been able to answer these questions himself. Malta’s neutrality surely does not mean being neutral to peace. It means only being neutral to countries and military alliances. His second question we find quite ironic, because... who are those ‘striving for peace’? Would he include the US as being among those ‘striving for peace’? Will he say that NATO, a military alliance, is ‘striving for peace’? It would be a contradiction in terms. Suffice to say that Mr Kmiec then brings up the example of Afghanistan, a country where NATO and the US are currently waging a war which is leaving hundreds of innocent persons dead and is bringing about widespread destruction.
How would you react to the notion of Malta’s possible involvement is an ‘international peacekeeping mission’? One here has to distinguish between different types of ‘peacekeeping’ missions, because there are those done directly by the United Nations and others done by military alliances. We do not believe that military alliances, such as NATO, can ever undertake genuine peacekeeping missions. NATO’s raison-d’etre is to protect the interest of particular countries and to guarantee their dominant position on the international scene. It therefore has its specific interests and political agenda. NATO even permits the use of nuclear weapons in its missions. Therefore if Malta would participate in a so-called ‘peacekeeping’ mission done by a military alliance we would view this as a very clear breach of the Constitution.
When it comes to peacekeeping missions by the UN one would have to see the specific case. Unfortunately, many UN peacekeeping missions were unsuccessful, simply because there is no miraculous solution to end conflicts. Just deploying soldiers to try to stop, or contain, violence can in practice even worsen the situation. Peacekeeping missions can only be effective if they are securing an agreement reached between the conflicting parties. In such cases we do not believe that there is, in principle, a breach of the Maltese constitution. However, one would still have to be very careful and be sure that such a ‘peacekeeping’ mission would be in fact helping the peace process.
Despite your movement’s consistent efforts there appears to be little opposition to such visits on a nationwide basis. How do you account for the public’s apparently lukewarm attitude towards the issue?
Maybe the lukewarm attitude can be explained through the fact that issues such as neutrality or warships’ visits do not affect the everyday life of persons in a direct way. Memories of the Cold War are fading away, and in our small peaceful island we can easily get the impression that tensions and conflicts are far-away and that they do not really concern us. However, it is always good to remember that we are very far from living in a peaceful world. Big and powerful countries still exist and continue to fight wars and proxy-wars. The principle of ‘actively pursuing peace’ is relevant today more than ever before.
Having said that, we believe that there is a considerable part of the population that opposes such visits. Then, there are many who are just passive in front of this issue. So, through our activism we will continue to try to make this part of the population more aware of what welcoming warships really means, because we do believe that the majority of the Maltese population opposes wars. They just need to make the link between ‘wars’ and ‘warships’.
How serious do you consider the threat of potential hostile action against Malta, precisely on account of any perceived ‘affiliation’ with foreign military powers? Malta is indeed performing actions which can make us perceived as being ‘close’ to a particular military power. Malta has joined the Partnership for Peace, which is a NATO project and the absolute majority of warships visiting Malta come from NATO-affiliated countries. Recently a senior NATO officer also visited Malta and had meetings with the highest persons of the Maltese state.
In the present scenario it is difficult to imagine a military aggression on Malta because of affiliation with foreign military powers (expect maybe for terrorist attacks). However scenarios do change and we can never say what already existing tensions, or tensions that will come to exist in the future, will lead to.
We believe that Malta, as a small island in the Mediterranean, has nothing to gain by abandoning, or ignoring, the neutrality clause. Both as a matter of principle, and also as a matter of doing what is best for the country, it is important to have Malta as a country which loves and works for peace.
Moviment Graffitti is a self-styled radical left-wing pressure group
Any comments?
If you wish your comments to be published in our Letters pages please click button below. Please write a contact number and a postal address where you may be contacted.
Download front page in pdf file format
All the interviews from Reporter on MaltaToday's YouTube channel.
