Maltese neutrality needs more constructive treatment from the MLP

The government has secured Malta`s neutrality in its negotiations with the EU. It did so in June 2000, when it closed the foreign policy and security chapter. One of the puzzling features of Dr Alfred Sant`s recent column on Maltese neutrality ("Proximate dangers", The Times, May 15) is that it ignored this. Instead, he wrote as though the government was about to trade neutrality away.

In point of fact, there is agreement between the two political parties that Malta ought to remain neutral. It is true that two senior politicians have recently wobbled on this point. John Dalli, writing in the last edition of The Sunday Times, appears to have doubts about the relevance of neutrality itself, as distinct from the Constitutional statements about non-alignment. And Alfred Mifsud has written (TMI, April 19) that under certain economic conditions, he would consider a military rent agreement, with the EU, of the 1972-79 kind. This would violate the current Constitutional provisions on neutrality.

However, both were expressing a personal opinion. The disagreement between the political parties is not about the principle of neutrality. Nor is it about the central value that inspires the Constitutional provisions for it. Both parties endorse the idea that Malta should have a pro-active neutrality, that it should be a constructive base for peace, especially in the Mediterranean.

Dr Sant reiterated the MLP`s commitment to a constructive neutrality in last week`s column. For its part, the government has actively pushed for a Mediterranean Assembly for regional politicians; and it has registered its interest to host the EU`s foundation for cultures and civilizations, which would promote inter-cultural dialogue, so important for our region.

The disagreement lies elsewhere. It concerns the question whether the Constitution articulates effectively the values that both political parties share. The government believes the Cold War language of the Constitution drastically reduces the Constitution`s helpfulness as a political guide to today`s world. The MLP has avoided pronouncing itself on this point. Instead, it has restricted itself to casting doubts on the government`s commitment to neutrality.

Arguably, the Constitution needs more than just the updating of the Cold War language. It treats security only in military terms. Nowadays, the ecological and economic aspects of security likewise need registering. They press on the security of the Mediterranean perhaps even more insistently than military aspects do. A tidal wave of garbage is sweeping across the southern Mediterranean, water supplies are low in certain of its areas, and many national economies are in a precarious state.

The ecological and economic aspects of regional security were another puzzling omission from Dr Sant`s column on neutrality. We need to hear more about them from him. They affect his argument that if Malta joined the EU it would become a frontier state.

Ecological issues know almost no frontiers, of course. Our ecological security requires us to enter agreements that guarantee it best. In or out of the EU, Malta would probably need to sign up to much the same agreements.

Economies, however, do have frontiers. If Dr Sant`s Mediterranean Switzerland had to be as economically successful as he says, Malta would be on a tense frontier: that of the wealth-producing states, facing rather less well-off countries. Malta would be an economic-frontier state, in much the same boat as other EU states - a magnet for South-North migration.

How do the ecological and economic aspects of Maltese security enter the MLP`s vision? How do they inform the party`s vision of Malta as a constructive base for peace? We do not know, other than in the haziest terms.

On the other hand, we know what the government stands for. Its quest for EU membership is a statement that it shares the EU`s position on what economic and ecological security in the region entails. Its commitment to Maltese neutrality is not in doubt - having secured it for Malta in its negotiations with the EU. Its desire to have Malta serve as a base for greater cross-cultural understanding in the region is evident from its interest to host the EU`s foundation for cultures and civilizations.

What we need, all of us with Malta`s pro-active commitment to peace at heart, is a comparable statement from Labour. A constructive neutrality needs a constructive, practical vision.

If Labour`s idea of Maltese neutrality is alternative to that of the government, we need to know about it. That would include Labour telling us if the Constitution requires any amendment at all. Then we would be able to judge if we need to choose between the visions, or whether a third option suggests itself out of the creative fusion of the two.

Merely sniping at the government won`t construct anything. It just sets up a fake argument. The real argument is not about whether Malta ought to be neutral. It`s about what form Maltese neutrality should take. By not being more constructive, Labour hurts the real issue.