Early this year (from January 23 to 25), Brigadier General Martin Remes, from the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE), led a NATO expert team visit to the Armed Forces of Malta. The main objective was to enhance military cooperation between NATO and Malta.
According to NATO, they “discussed in depth Maltese ambitions for defence reforms and force capability development and how these could be linked to NATO”.
During the visit, NATO explained its Operational Capabilities, Concept Evaluation and Feedback (OCC E&F) to the Armed Forces of Malta, which Malta had expressed its willingness to join in December 2023 “to improve the level of interoperability between NATO and Partner Nations, and the operational capability of Partner units.
“The programme enhances the operational relationship between the Alliance and Partners offering contributions to NATO led operations and to the NATO Response Force.”
In February 2024, Malta and NATO agreed to cooperate on the Individually Tailored Partnership Programme (ITPP) described by NATO itself as “marking the beginning of an even closer partnership. This programme covers areas for enhanced cooperation with NATO...”
In December 2023, Malta had joined the Planning and Review Process (PARP) “to increase the effectiveness and interoperability of selected elements of its armed forces, allowing them to better serve national needs, and helping them to prepare for multinational peace-support operations, should Malta wish to contribute to such efforts. NATO and Malta are interested in working together to promote security, mutual understanding, and situational awareness in the Mediterranean region.”
For those of us who see this getting ever closer to NATO as a bitter pill, it comes with a spoonful of sugar, we are told: “NATO Military cooperation with the Armed Forces of Malta is following the strategic objectives set between NATO and the Republic of Malta, fully respecting Malta’s neutrality.”
Getting ever closer to NATO is already making us neutral in name only. It is up to Malta to behave in a way that is neutral and seen to be neutral. Our neutrality is military. We are not neutral morally. We support and uphold the values of the United Nations: equality of states, solving disputes through non-military means, respecting the sovereignty of states, human rights, democracy and peace.
The biggest threat to our neutrality is primarily coming from ourselves.
We need a high level of leadership in terms of vision and skill. We must always pursue our national interest, not simply do the bidding of the West that still considers us to be in its sphere of influence.
It puts no pressure on us to actually join NATO as it knows it can already get what it wants out of us without requiring us to formally join the organisation.
At the same time, it tries to avoid ruffling the feathers of those Maltese who still want our country to be neutral.
Looking for trouble
The fact is that we can still remain neutral if we try to get on with everyone and deny the use of our territory to anyone who wants to use us as a launching pad to attack others.
Today’s technology both in terms of missiles and air and sea transport has diminished greatly Malta’s strategic location in the Central Mediterranean. We should use this to our advantage and stay out of becoming again a military logistical centre threatening others.
Getting ever closer to NATO is already making us neutral in name only- Evarist Bartolo
The world is becoming multipolar. Why join a bloc against others instead of getting along with everyone?
We must remain true to our constitution, in spirit not only in name, which declares that we are a neutral State “actively pursuing peace, security, and social progress among nations”.
To get us into trouble, NATO does not need to fill our harbours with warships and our airport with miliary jets and send soldiers to a local military base.
It is enough for us to cooperate ever closer with NATO to become part of its communications infrastructure and make ourselves a legitimate target for those in a military confrontation with NATO.
Have we learned nothing from history? Are we happy to celebrate Malta’s closing down of military bases every March 31 simply as political folklore?
Seventy years ago, the strategic military importance of Malta increased after the United Kingdom lost its bases in Egypt.
The UK decided to use Malta as a logistical hub from which to coordinate the operations of all its warships, submarines and military jets all over the Mediterranean, Africa, the Middle East and Asia.
It brought to Malta NATO’s coordinating centres of AFMED and CINCAFMED.
US fighter jets used Malta’s runways. The US Sixth Fleet and any NATO country could use Malta’s harbour.
The British government knew that this was considered as a threat by Moscow and evaluated what would happen if a one megaton atomic bomb were to be dropped on Malta to wipe out all the UK and NATO military logistical hubs based in Malta.
As documents dating back to September 1959 at our National Archives show, a megaton atomic bomb dropping on Senglea, in the Grand Harbour would kill 143,057 people – around half 1959 Malta’s population of 289,135, leaving another 59,747 seriously injured.
With an effective evacuation scheme, 41,192 would still die and 62,345 would be left injured.
The use of World War II air raid shelters and catacombs was proposed for evacuation and the deployment of the Royal Navy, the Army, the Royal Air Force and the Civil Defence to deal with the massive casualties.
Valletta, Floriana, Cospicua, Senglea, Vittoriosa and Kalkara would be the worst hit and it was estimated that, without any evacuation programme, 90% of the persons there would die and the rest would be seriously injured.
It was estimated that, out of a population of 289,135 people, in case of war there would be shelters for 54,400 only.
This was the scenario way back in 1959. Today’s nuclear weapons are more destructive and war has become more horrendous than ever before as missiles can be fired from everywhere, including space.
Evarist Bartolo is a former Labour education and foreign minister.