Prime Minister Robert Abela is right to declare that the time has come for Malta to reconsider how it has traditionally interpreted its neutrality and to contemplate increasing its defence spending to meet “today’s realities”.
Abela was speaking from Brussels, where he was attending a meeting on defence with other European leaders. He hinted, rightly so, that Malta frequently interpreted its neutrality too rigidly in the past.
The prime minister’s comments are a welcome break from his previous statements and those by other Labour politicians who accused the Nationalist Party – in particular European Parliament president Roberta Metsola – of warmongering for saying precisely the same thing. Such accusations can only be described as cheap populism intended to score points ahead of last June’s EP elections.
Nevertheless, Abela’s latest remarks will hopefully signal the start of a proper debate among all Malta’s political parties – free from partisan point-scoring – on the country’s security and defence needs in an ever-changing geo-political landscape. There is little doubt that over the years neutrality has served Malta well. There certainly exists a consensus between the government and opposition that neutrality should not be discarded but reassessed in view of today’s realities.
One option could be to amend the constitutional clause enshrining our neutrality to make it less rigid and suitable for our security needs.
Our neutrality should be re-evaluated as part of the EU’s move to strengthen its defence and security arm
The wording of the neutrality clause is obsolete, a product of the Cold War that equates neutrality with “peace, security and social progress among all nations” and rules out participation in “any military alliance”. It also says that Malta should adhere “to a policy of non-alignment and refusing to participate in any military alliance”.
Non-alignment is certainly antiquated – non-aligned between who? Malta is part of the EU, we believe in the Union’s values, and we have not hesitated to take a firm stand on various international issues – such as condemning Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine or helping with the evacuation of people from Libya during the revolution. So, as a start we should scrap the non-alignment clause.
Malta’s EU membership is vital for our defence – forming part of the bloc has already given us a sense of security – and our neutrality should be re-evaluated as part of the EU’s move to strengthen its defence and security arm. Malta has a limited participation in the EU’s defence and security structures, and a good start would be to increase our involvement. We should increase our defence spending and beef up our security to protect our communications and energy infrastructure.
There is little doubt that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as well as the election of Donald Trump in the US has served as a catalyst for Europe to assume a greater responsibility for its security, to increase defence spending, to adopt a common strategic vision for security and defence, and to go for joint procurement of defence equipment. Malta should support this trend within the EU.
It is crucial that the EU becomes strategically autonomous in security while maintaining a close relationship with the NATO alliance – whose future direction is unknown at this point after the change in administration in Washington.
Nobody is suggesting that Malta’s neutrality should be scrapped, particularly since there still is a role for a neutral state. The EU does have two other neutral countries – Ireland and Austria – which while maintaining their policy of neutrality are both keen on strengthening the EU’s defence pillar.
As geopolitical tensions escalate, with Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, instability in the Middle East, and now the unpredictability of US foreign policy, Malta’s Cold War-era concept of neutrality feels outdated. Neutrality should not mean passivity, nor should it be a shield that prevents us from standing on the right side of history.