Malta’s neutrality: A principle or a paradox?

The question surrounding Malta’s neutrality recently re-emerged out of the closet during a panel discussion organised by the European Law Students’ Association (ELSA) Malta, titled ‘Law and Democracy: Malta at Europe’s Crossroads’.

Since the adoption of the neutrality clause in the Constitution of Malta (Amendment) Act, 1987, Malta has prided itself on being a peaceful state committed to non-alignment. Neutrality is often portrayed as both a moral choice and a key aspect of our national identity as well as our security and defence policy. A guarantee that our island remains outside military blocs and, therefore, outside global tensions that shape contemporary geopolitics.

Yet, in practice, Malta’s position today is far more complex than the constitutional text suggests. As the international security landscape evolves and as our ties within the European Union deepen, the gap between what we declare politically and what we expect has widened into an unmistakable paradox.

At its core, Malta’s constitutional neutrality is defined by one specific idea. The non-participation in military alliances. This principle, rooted in the geopolitical realities of the Cold War, sought to ensure that Malta would never become a pawn in the strategic power play between the superpowers in existence at that time. 

However, neutrality today is interpreted far more broadly in public discourse. Some portray it as an all-encompassing shield against any military engagement whatsoever. Others use it politically, invoking neutrality selectively depending on which foreign policy position they want to oppose or endorse.

Yet, even if we return to the constitutional wording adopted in 1987, one cannot escape the contradictions created by Malta’s subsequent membership of the European Union in 2004. While the EU is not a military alliance, it a political and security community that is also moving towards becoming a ‘defence community’. And Malta, as a full member state, has chosen to support the ‘mutual assistance’ and ‘solidarity’ clauses albeit requesting that its special status be respected.  

The EU’s mutual assistance and solidarity clauses state that, if any member state is the victim of aggression or is facing a major security threat, all other EU members have a responsibility to offer aid and support including, potentially, military assistance. 

Malta has hesitated to invest meaningfully in real defence capabilities- David Attard

But here lies the key paradox. Malta insists on its neutrality and its non-participation in military alliances.  Yet, we expect our European partners to come to our aid should our territorial integrity be threatened. We seek the protection that comes with belonging to a larger political union. However, we remain unwilling to fully participate in the security and defence responsibilities that underpin that union.

Solidarity, after all, is not a one-way street!

There is also another paradox which is more inwards-looking. While expecting security guarantees from others, Malta has shown little willingness to strengthen its own national defence capability along recent years. On the contrary, it has possibly degraded it. The country has hesitated to invest meaningfully in real defence capabilities. It has also failed to articulate a long-term vision for national security and defence. Our armed forces today face leadership and resource issues as well as degraded military capabilities during times where the country is facing a widening spectrum of threats.

Historically, neutrality has never absolved any state from the responsibility to do its best to be in a position to defend itself. Austria, Ireland and Switzerland (all European neutral states) maintain robust and modern defence forces. Their neutrality is credible precisely because it is backed by military capabilities that ensure they can contribute to safeguarding their own security.

Malta, by contrast, behaves as though declaring neutrality is enough to guarantee it.  This disconnect weakens Malta’s foreign policy and our national credibility. If Malta desires to remain neutral, and most Maltese deeply value this stance, then neutrality must be framed honestly and realistically. Our constitution must be amended to reflect current realities and not be framed in romanticised notions of a bygone geopolitical era. 

Today, Malta cannot continue indulging in the existing paradox. Insisting on neutrality as a principle while totally relying on others to respect it or guarantee it maintains this paradox.

Neutrality can remain a valuable and defining part of our national identity. But only if we confront the contradictions that surround it. For a small state such as ours in a turbulent world, clarity of thought and direction is not a luxury. It is a necessity.

Colonel David Attard is the former deputy commander of the Armed Forces of Malta and a graduate of the UK’s Joint Services Advanced Command & Staff College.