US ambassador Douglas Kmiec nay have been unaware of the intensely difficult gestation period that eventually gave birth to Malta’s Constitutional neutrality clause in 1987. But now that he has unwittingly placed his finger on an as yet unresolved dilemma, perhaps the time has come to re-evaluate Malta’s neutrality in the 21st century. MaltaToday asks what neutrality means to a few of the people who were/are involved in its implementation
Alex Sceberras Trigona A former foreign minister under the administration which brokered Malta’s neutrality to begin with, Dr Sceberras Trigona was among the people who conducted the negotiations leading to international recognition of Malta’s neutral status, long before it became entrenched in the Constitution.
“I hope we’re not going discuss such a vast and complex issue merely from the point of view of the Constitutional amendment alone,” he said when contacted on the matter shortly before departing for the Labour convention in Prague. “The Constitutional clause is just the tip of a very long tail, connected to the body of an enormous animal, he added”
Some people may in fact be surprised to know that the process leading to neutrality can be traced back to as early as 1960: when Dom Mintoff, who had resigned government two years earlier, wrote an article in the New Statesman signalling the Labour Party’s intention to press for non-alignment on the international stage.
“It was the first time the ‘Switzerland in the Mediterranean’ concept was mentioned,” Sceberras Trigona recalls. “The same arguments raised then underpinned all our foreign relations under successive Labour governments. And the negotiations were extensive - with Algeria, Italy, China, and ultimately with the United Nations.”
Along the way, Malta secured the support of the United States, with a letter of endorsement from Republican president Ronald Raegan.
But Sceberras Trigona also hints that Mintoff’s desire for negotiations was viewed cynically by some nations at the time. “When we negotiated with the British over the closure of the naval base (in the early 1970s), to the last minute they seemed to expect us to turn around and invite them to stay on, in return for more money,” he explains. “They evidently didn’t realise that our aspiration to neutrality was serious.”
When asked if he believed that Mintoff’s historic trip to China in 1972 - a year before Nixon’s – was intended to deliver a message to the West that Malta would consider a possible military alignment with Mao’s republic, Sceberras Trigona responded with a knowing laugh.
“How can I be expected to know what was on Mintoff’s mind?” he replied, before dashing off to catch a plane to Prague.
Guido de Marco Former President of the Republic Guido de Marco – who in 1986, as PN deputy leader in Opposition had led the talks with Dom Mintoff leading to the adoption of neutrality by Parliament the following year – told MaltaToday that the Nationalist Party was “never against neutrality” in principle.
However it could not accept the entrenchment of the ‘superpowers’ and ‘non-aligned’ status in the Constitution because the two-thirds majority necessary to amend it would have restricted the Maltese people aligning with possible future developments in history.
“Time had proved us right, as the Berlin Wall came down and the world order has changed dramatically since,” de Marco said.
In his comments Guido de Marco explained that the PN in Opposition that time was led to accept the clause entrenchment, as the Socialist government of the day led by then Prime Minister Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici made it a condition for it to accept the Constitutional amendment that guaranteed a majority in government was confirmed not by parliamentary seats but popular votes.
Guido de Marco said that the time has now come for the country to “re-define” the neutrality clause, stressing that this must be done through a sincere, open and non-prejudiced national debate.
The former President stressed that the clause served its purpose “until it was relevant” during its time. However put into today’s context, “things have changed to such an extent that the Eastern European bloc is today made up of sovereign nations, practically all belonging to the EU and NATO.”
Tonio Borg Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs Tonio Borg said that government has no issue on a neutral Malta not belonging to any military alliance or to host military bases on its soil.
“That is a settled issue,” he stressed, adding that the Constitution needs to be “updated” from what he defined as the “anachronistic references” to the superpowers.
Speaking from Luxembourg, where he attended the EU’s General Affairs Council, Tonio Borg explained that it is high time for all to understand that Malta’s neutrality does not prevent it from acting in defence of neighbouring Italy in the event of an attack or invasion.
He stressed that government “is open” to any suggestions from any party that could lead to a serious and non-prejudiced debate on the eventuality of re-defining the neutrality clause.
He asked if Malta could remain neutral if it had to fall victim to a terrorist attack, and added that there is nothing that prevents Malta from upholding its moral duty towards the upkeep of peace in any troubled region.
When asked about the recent request put forward by the US Ambassador for a contribution to Afghanistan, the Foreign Minister explained that “Malta does not have the military power to respond to such a call.” However he explained that, despite its small size, Malta has already contributed financially to the Afghan cause through the international donors conference, while it is also prepared to grant training programmes for Afghan civil servants under the auspices of the European Union.
Stephen C. Calleya A professor of international relations at the University of Malta, Stephen C. Calleya questions why the issue of Malta’s neutrality was raised only now by the US Ambassador Douglas W. Kmiec: who, when talking on President Barack Obama’s plans for Afghanistan, asked if Malta considered itself “neutral to peace.”
Calleya, stressed that “anybody who has an interest in international relations acknowledges that Malta is in dire need to update the definition of neutrality in the Maltese Constitution.”
“The question surrounding Malta’s neutrality is ‘neutral to what?’ As the Maltese Consitution clearly defines its neutrality from “the superpowers,” this relates to the scenario in 1979 when the world was split between two major political blocs.
“The United States and the Soviet Union were the superpowers at the time, and this all finished 20 years ago with the fall of the Berlin Wall. The world has changed since then, and is still continuing to change, leaving only Malta unchanged in the way it defines its basic principle of foreign policy,” Stephen Calleya said.
Should the Constitution be updated to modern times, Malta would need to give a clear definition to its neutrality, with an obvious reference to the role of its military.
“Issues of high security, humanitarian assistance, peace keeping missions and election observers, should all be issues to be taken into consideration and put into context of the modern days we are all living in,” Calleya says.
With hindsight, Stephen Calleya says that for the period it served during the Cold War, Malta’s neutrality – as defined by the Constitution – “served its purpose,” adding that it was opportune and ideal for the balancing of power in the Mediterranean region.
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.
