Since 1987, reflecting the insecurity generated by Cold War superpower competition and growing militarisation of the Mediterranean, among other socio-political drivers, Malta’s constitution has defined the country as a “neutral state actively pursuing peace, security and social progress among all nations by adhering to a policy of non-alignment and refusing to participate in any military alliance”.
Amid current debates over the continuing applicability of neutrality for contemporary security, the words “actively pursuing” are instrumental.
“Actively pursuing” is indicative that neutrality does not equate to indifference, nor has constitutional neutrality rendered Malta ‘neutralised’ in its international engagement. The critical role played by the Mediterranean actor as the staging hub for humanitarian relief efforts during the 2011 Libya crisis exemplifies this.
While other countries conducted military operations, neutral Malta provided water, food, emergency landings and assistance to expatriates, refugees and other humanitarian efforts of crucial importance for international security – operations that were trusted and permissible precisely because they were conducted by a neutral state. Evidently, Malta’s ability to serve as an enabler of peace would be significantly curtailed by eschewing this neutrality.
“Actively pursuing” also means that, for the neutral state, aggression will be neither accepted nor tolerated and Malta has long been vocal in condemning serious violations of international law and advocating for peaceful conflict resolution.
This has been the case historically, including hosting the Bush-Gorbachev summit, which symbolically ended the Cold War, and pioneering the Common Heritage of Mankind principle that underpins modern Law of the Sea, as well as in its more recent diplomatic efforts, with Malta serving as rapporteur at the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People at the UN, hosting Libyan peace talks and being among the first countries to endorse the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
In relation to the Ukraine crisis, Malta has been abstaining on lethal assistance measures but, like Austria, has still provided significant non-lethal military assistance through its contributions to the EU’s European Peace Facility.
Furthermore, in January 2023, Malta acceded for its second tenure as an elected member of the UN Security Council for two years – a role that does not engender additional legal or political obligations but which aligns with the multilateralism-centred approach advocated by the neutral State. In this position, Malta has taken a clear stance, whilst following UN procedures.
For instance, in keeping with the procedure permitting non-members of the Security Council to address members prior to a debate they hold a direct stake in, Malta allowed Ukraine to address the council on the anniversary of Russia’s invasion, despite strong Russian opposition.
This is not to say that there is no debate about Malta’s neutral posture and, every few years, the discussion resurfaces. This was most vivid during the debate over EU accession, when concerns were raised that joining the supranational organisation could compromise Malta’s neutrality. However, since acceding to the Union, both the major political parties have come to a consensus that membership can be compatible with the Maltese brand of neutrality.
If threatened, Malta has several safeguards
Still, questions about its viability regularly recur from external parties. In seeking support for President Barack Obama’s Afghanistan policy in 2010, American Ambassador to Malta Douglas Kmiec questioned the “the uncertainty of the current meaning of neutrality”. When the French sought to activate the mutual defence clause of the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy following the Paris terrorist attacks, the Maltese government made it clear that they would only aid in line with the constitution. In 2016, Malta refused to refuel Russian warships bound for Syria.
The debate over the continuing relevance of neutrality remains a live one, particularly with the Finnish and Swedish abandonment of this long-standing principle and their applications to NATO. While Malta is not facing the same security dilemma as eastern European partners, its geographical location has exposed it to security risks, ranging from the threat posed by ISIS (for example, being within range of a ballistic missile) to spillover effects from the Libya crisis.
While it has navigated these challenges to date, Malta lacks military facilities and its armed forces are constrained by limitations typical of small states, including budget, manpower, hardware and know-how.
Still, if threatened, Malta has several safeguards. First, it would not be abandoned to face threats alone because it is legally entitled to mutual defence under clause 42.7 of the Treaty of the EU, which states that “if a member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power”. It is, therefore, entitled to assistance within the relative constraints of European collective security arrangements.
Secondly, while the constitution does not permit the country to engage in attacks upon another State, it is fully entitled to “the inherent right of self-defence…whenever there exists a threat to the sovereignty, independence, neutrality, unity or territorial integrity of the Republic of Malta”. Malta will not attack other countries but will certainly defend itself and accept assistance to do so.
Thirdly, Malta will continue to be a vocal participant in multilateral fora to promote peaceful conflict resolution, including the Union of the Mediterranean, the EU, the OSCE, the UN and other regional and international organisations that contribute to inclusive and multifaceted security architecture.
Ultimately, any attempt to alter the provision enshrining constitutional neutrality will require a two-thirds parliamentary majority and is presently unlikely to pass. The departure from neutrality would only exacerbate Malta’s insecurity while forcing it to surrender its moral authority and reducing its diplomatic clout, particularly within the volatile Mediterranean region.
The key question for policymakers should not be whether to abandon this orienting principle but how to continue actively promoting dialogue internationally while shoring up domestic resilience in case any required assistance should ever be delayed. Evidently, such endeavours do not necessitate a participation in military activities overseas and the country is, therefore, likely to continue adhering to constitutional neutrality for years to come.
Hillary BriffaHillary Briffa is a lecturer in National Security Studies at King’s College London.