The queen is dead, long live the king and, likewise, following the recent paradigm shifting events in global politics that culminated on February 24, the old-world order, too, is dead.
I mention this event particularly in light of our small, yet proud, country that, in its continued efforts to discover its post-colonial path, seems to persist on a foreign policy modus operandi that, in many ways, was developed as a reflection not just of the previous unipolar world order but to that which existed even before the collapse of Mikhail Gorbachev’s USSR.
Gorbachev, like the queen, and also like the perit of Malta’s constitutionally enshrined neutrality clause, former prime minister Dom Mintoff, are dead. But is Malta’s historic foreign policy posture – cemented on what for many is the sacrosanct principle of a neutral state that views its pursual of peace, security and social progress through the lens of non-alignment – also an essentially crippling posture that is begging for its own termination?
Today, two arguably contradictory facts exist in parallel on our islands. On one hand, there thrives a firm (frankly ideological) commitment among not only most policy makers but also among everyday people towards maintaining Maltese ‘neutrality’ not only in law but in outlook, in popular psyche.
This also being statistically shown in a survey commissioned by the foreign ministry prior to the Russian aggression that found 63 per cent of the population to be ‘strongly in favour’ of neutrality.
However, on the other hand, the latest 2022 Eurobarometer survey shows not only a robust level of trust towards the EU as an institution, at 71 per cent, but a plainly overwhelming level of support in favour of not just a simple common energy policy in the EU, at 86 per cent, but, at 78 per cent, in favour of a common foreign policy and 83 per cent in favour of a common defence and security policy.
All of these statistics exceeding the EU average and also being broadly concordant with the results of last year’s Conference on the Future of Europe.
When analysing these two realities, the former seems to be driven more by ideology while the latter appears to be more of a response to current international development and tangible facts on the ground. What is clear is that they together constitute a fundamental disequilibrium that, at some point, needs to be reckoned with.
There is a conspicuous lack of debate on Maltese foreign policy- Nikos Chircop
This first requires breaking the taboo on discussing what politicians have long deemed a national ‘consensus’. It’s no coincidence that there is a conspicuous lack of debate on Maltese foreign policy as those who stray from the ‘enlightened path’ have at best been accused of naivete and at worst of little short of treachery.
Like how the symbol of the queen represents a comforting permanence, you may notice how this symbol remains just that, a symbol that offers less to the world of today than perhaps it once did. And, as we have just seen, even symbols die.
The policy of non-alignment spearheaded by Mintoff’s Labour government in the 1970s was one in tune with Malta’s fresh post-colonial reality as well as world divided by an Iron Curtain. Indeed, at that time it was arguably quite successful. So much so that it began to resonate more and more on both sides of the aisle until it was enshrined in the constitution in 1987.
However, only a couple years following this amendment, change both at home and abroad necessitated the start of the effective ‘hollowing out’ of Maltese neutrality. The PN-led pivot to Europe may have been juggled for decades with an ongoing commitment to neutrality, a juggling act that this time was then adopted by PL. But why has neutrality been hollowed out? Can’t we be both neutral and a part of the Union just like other states, like Austria?
Furthermore, as was the logic for entering the EU, you can do so much more to defend your interests within a club rather than standing on the shoreline waiting for whatever the waves will wash up.
While the Ukraine war is a more traditional interstate war, the majority of warfare today simply isn’t fought at gunpoint. Vladimir Putin himself claimed that the West is waging “economic war” on Russia and, in this war of sanctions and influence, Malta remains neutral only in the strict legalistic sense.
For the very sake of, as written in the constitution, “pursuing peace, security and social progress among all nations”, it may be a smart move to fully engage in security fora, especially EU-led initiatives. I believe that hedging our bets on a more robust and sovereign EU security framework is a wise move for two reasons.
Firstly, it guarantees our long-term security much more than a neutrality clause where Rome, in theory, acts as a its sole guarantor.
Secondly, it will ultimately elevate Malta’s standing in Brussels and as a ‘fully committed member’ will lend it more sway to continue defending our interests, principally for security and stability, not just in the East, but also in the Mediterranean.
Nikos Chircop is reading for a master’s degree in International and European Governance at Leiden University, the Netherlands.