Maltese neutrality in a brave new world

Many small states want to opt out of the violence of great power politics, and neutrality has often been a logical solution. It is understandably popular as it seems to shield us from the devastation of wars over which we have no control and with which we want nothing to do.

Small state politicians understand this and eagerly put forth neutrality as a justification for all sorts of stances in international politics.

But neutrality can mean a great many things and it is politically dishonest not to recognise this. In the Maltese case, there are several aspects of neutrality that remain somewhat unclear.

In the current environment, this is dangerous and can lead to undue pressure from major powers, which is precisely what neutrality is supposed to guard against.

There are broader considerations that should be factored in, particularly surrounding the longer-term objectives and conceptual nuances of Malta’s neutrality. These should be clarified beyond the short-term debates regarding Ukraine, NATO’s cohesion (or lack thereof), or the EU’s defence spending in the immediate term.

First, are we speaking of armed neutrality or unarmed neutrality, or something in between? Swiss, and, until recently, Swedish and Finnish neutrality were and are armed, often heavily so.

During the height of the Cold War, for instance, Sweden spent between 2.4% and 4% per cent of GDP on defence.

Costa Rica has chosen another path and abolished the military in 1948.

How does Malta want to develop its neutrality in terms of defence capabilities, both for conventional and hybrid threats? Is neutrality without defence capabilities realistic in today’s world? In the last weeks, messages have been mixed.

Second, there is military neutrality and political neutrality. Irish politicians, for instance, stress they are militarily neutral but that does not prevent them from taking political stances, including stances that are unpopular with major powers. Over the past two decades, Malta has followed a similar line and repeatedly stressed that Malta is militarily neutral but not politically so, or that Malta’s neutrality does not mean it should be neutralised.

Neutrality can mean a great many things and it is politically dishonest not to recognise this

At the height of the Gaza war, Ireland chose to recognise Palestine as an independent country, knowing some governments would be very unhappy about it. In contrast, Malta de facto backpedalled on its near-recognition of Palestine. Does this mean Malta is selective in how it pronounces its political neutrality, depending on the issue at hand?

Third, there is neutrality that champions international law and neutrality that is not anchored in much, beyond what could be bluntly called “saving our skin today by whatever means seems expedient”. Mostly, neutral countries have strongly supported international law – simply because, in the long run, small countries stand most to lose if international laws and regulations on sovereignty, international commerce and the conduct of warfare, etc., are not respected.

Malta has always championed international law, and this has been Malta’s position on Russia’s war in Ukraine within the UN and elsewhere. Maltese politicians should be clearer in this position with their domestic audience and maintain the sanctity of Ukraine’s sovereignty in calling for a diplomatic solution.

This could otherwise be interpreted as the tolerance of a major power’s aggression against a smaller and more vulnerable neighbour. As we are entering an era of great power balancing and great powers throwing their weight around, shouldn’t our neutrality be even more defensive of upholding the parity of all states in international law?

In Malta, the debate around these, and other points pertaining to Maltese neutrality, has hardly begun.

Any discussion around the revision of the current constitutional regulation of neutrality will need to take these into account. The risk with any such discussion is that it will end in sterile feuds about minor wording choices while the larger, principled and crucial issues around the objectives and shape of Malta’s neutrality are forgotten.

Neutrality is a precious option for small states. It is not an easy one: to make larger powers accept and respect neutrality is a major feat of diplomacy and deft political decision-making. It needs clarity, consistency and rigorous messaging. The Maltese government and politicians need to show more of that in this brave new world of great power menaces.

Anna Khakee and Valentina Cassar are academics within the department of international relations at the University of Malta.