The Labour Party has for decades considered Malta’s neutrality as the best hallmark of the country’s sovereignty. Decades ago, a Labour government cut all ties with NATO and established friendly relations with all countries including China which for a long time was ostracised by many western nations.
As recently as the late 1990s the Labour Party in opposition made a strong stand against the repair of US Navy vessels in Malta’s shipyards because they saw this as a breach of Malta’s neutrality as enshrined in the Constitution. Former prime minister Alfred Sant and present president George Vella were unequivocal in their opposition to entertain the US request for the signing of an agreement that threatened Malta’s commitment to neutrality.
The government is now considering signing an agreement with the US that would define the legal status of US personnel and property in Malta’s territory, and US Defence Secretary Mark Esper was in Malta on Wednesday for talks with the prime minister.
The US always seeks to sign the Status-of-Forces Agreement (SOFA) agreements with any country interested in doing so. Today almost half of the 190 nation-states comprising the world community have signed such agreements with the US. Many others refuse to do so.
SOFA agreements are common in countries that have a US military presence that helps the host countries’ economy, defence, or political stability. Malta does not need such military support.
Many know about the formidable challenges that Malta is facing as a result of seven years of inadequate enforcement of international anti-financial crime regulations. The grey listing of Malta by Moneyval, the anti-money laundering watchdog, could hit the flow of direct foreign investment.
It seems that Prime Minister Robert Abela and a majority of his ministers are prepared to use Malta’s sovereignty as a bargaining chip to avoid the Moneyval threat. The denial by Abela and the US officials that SOFA and Moneyval are two separate issues is far from convincing. Malta has no intentions of inviting any military power to establish a base here. Only in such a scenario would a SOFA agreement make sense.
Admittedly Malta does not have the resources to stop the smuggling that allegedly is common in the country’s territorial water. But the collapse of investment as a result of the loss of reputation in the international investment community is a price that the government is not prepared to pay.
The opposition has so far not made its position clear on this issue. They have a rare opportunity to force the government’s hand on a matter of constitutional importance that needs their support to be approved. The PN will no doubt weigh the pros and cons of supporting the signing of SOFA if the government goes ahead and declares its intention to bargain with the US government.
The government also needs to deal with internal dissent from some prominent and principled heavyweights in the Labour Party. Former prime minister Alfred Sant and Foreign Minister Evarist Bartolo have commented publicly about their negative views on the proposed agreement.
When sovereignty become a bargaining chip in negotiations aimed at mitigating self-inflicted damage to the country’s reputation, the governance mediocrity of Labour’s administration is cruelly exposed.
The SOFA details are not yet out and would need to be thoroughly scrutinised but Malta needs to ensure that any agreement signed with a foreign government does not impose on the country the limitations that shackled us when we were a colony.
Our sovereignty and the advantages of neutrality should never become negotiating chips.