The speeches delivered at the annual commemoration of Victory Day at the Great Siege Monument always provide much-needed food for thought about where Malta stands as a nation and how it interprets its identity.

Two years ago, former speaker of the house, Myriam Spiteri Debono stated that Malta needed to “redeem itself” from Daphne Caruana Galizia’s murder.

In 2018, Prof Raymond Mangion bemoaned the gradual destruction of the typical Maltese village.

This year, Malta’s Ambassador to France, Carmelo Inguanez gave a speech where he asked pertinent questions about Malta’s place in a changing international system. He rightly observed that the current world order has changed considerably. Multilateralism and the respect of international treaties are gradually giving way to unilateralism.

There is no “solid and strong system of international governance”. More troubling, “there is no longer a real will and genuine effort of nations to find common ground between them”.

In view of this, Ambassador Inguanez argues that Malta’s EU membership is vital and that “Malta cannot remain alone or in any weaker and less binding agreement”. Nonetheless, he points out that Europe itself is in a state of flux and needs to answer some existential questions.

Once again, this is a prescient observation. The war in Ukraine means that Europe can no longer ignore specific questions and that, in some cases, the Russian threat and the rise of China have precipitated certain decisions. The EU can either be more strategically autonomous or risk becoming irrelevant on the international stage.

Ambassador Inguanez observes that unanimity may no longer be possible for the common foreign and security policy, particularly as the EU seeks to enlarge and procedures become more complex. He, therefore, asks: “What value do we have as a neutral state if the decisions in the European Union will be taken by majority voting?”

With the removal of unanimity, the “option of constructive abstention will also be removed” and, therefore, “the concept of neutrality would become superfluous given that Malta would have to obey and respect decisions taken by majority voting irrespective of its neutrality”. 

It is important to reflect on Ambassador Inguanez’s remarks.

Firstly – to use the ambassador’s words – we need to recognise that the world has changed: “If we are not dynamic, even in our thinking, we will lose every sense of agility in our foreign policy.”

Secondly, we must understand how neutrality can be interpreted in this current geopolitical scenario.

For example, the wording of the neutrality clause in the Constitution is somewhat obsolete. It is both a Cold War relic and a product of an uncomfortable compromise among Maltese political actors in the late 1980s. It equates neutrality with “peace, security and social progress” and categorically denies participation in “any military alliance”.

The emergence of new security threats makes this definition somewhat problematic. This does not mean that neutrality did not serve Malta well. Indeed, there seems to be a cross-party consensus that neutrality is a good thing which is there to stay. Nor does it imply that neutrality should be scrapped altogether; this would be premature and somewhat disingenuous, particularly since there still is a role for the neutral State.

Nonetheless, it is time to discuss where Malta fits and how to retain its neutral political identity – if possible – within an integrated EU common defence and security policy. It also necessitates political maturity from political actors who must engage with the question without partisan intent.

Ambassador Inguanez’s address certainly provides food for thought.