Peace revisited

It is bewildering that Malta's constitutional commitment to peace, security and social progress continues to emerge as a bone of contention.

It is remarkable that such an obvious and fundamental objective, so clearly if not always elegantly expressed in the Constitution, is used to befuddle honest opinion. All that is pegged to what is termed as the neutrality declaration in the first article of the Constitution.

This is reproduced in the box accompanying this article for those who wish to revisit an instrument intended to soothe and safeguard but which is so often and unnecessarily used to assault the mind and conscience and even bash the head.

One has to be warped and evil not to want peace, security and social progress for oneself. One has to be egoistic and unChristian not to also want them for others. The real question can never be whether we should strive for peace, security and social progress, but how to do it.

The answer to that entrenched in the Constitution is explicit - Malta pursues those noble objectives by being neutral. It does not merely declare a composite moral and material principle, but seeks to promote it actively through the neutrality condition. Neutrality is a means to an end. I have yet to meet anyone who disagrees with that end, or who proposes means of reaching it that are not already encompassed within our neutrality for peace, security and social progress declaration.

Those who bother to re-read the provision in detail should immediately realise that the Constitution clothes idealism in realism. It is not a declaration of international pacifism, nor of a resignation to lie back and bear it should Malta be in danger of assault and rape. The provision recognises that there are times when peace has to be defended with military means. When threatened aggression has to be countered with adequate instruments.

As a neutral state, Malta declares it will follow the objectives of peace, security and social progress through non-alignment. The reference to "the two superpowers" at the end of the provision does date the objective. There are no longer two superpowers. The Soviet Union is no more. Only the United States is left. That does not mean there may not be clashes, wars even, between two or more sides.

Under the Constitution Malta would not align itself in such circumstances. But neither would it turn its face away from them. The Constitution allows, if it came to it, military facilities in Malta to be used by foreign forces "at the request (sic) of the Government of Malta" in pursuance of measures or actions decided by the United Nations' Security Council.

The condition "at the request of the Malta government" in this context is an example of inelegance in the final draft, more than some clever attempt to be able to fly in the face of a decision by the Security Council. That is by no means a forum of perfection, but it is the mechanism that expresses international evaluation and decision.

Malta is an island, but cannot live alone unto itself, in a bubble, detached completely from what goes on in the rest of the world. It is also, the Constitution recognises, small, militarily insignificant, and therefore vulnerable. The fact that it declares itself neutral does not mean that it can never face some external attack or threat. Increasingly unlikely, but history tells us that one never knows.

The Constitution, therefore, would also allow military facilities in Malta to be used by any foreign forces at the request of the government in the exercise of the country's inherent right of self-defence, in the event of any armed violation of the area over which Malta has sovereignty. It furthermore allows such use, always at the request of the government, whenever there exists a threat to the sovereignty, independence, neutrality, unity or territorial integrity of our republic.

There are two other circumstances when foreign military personnel can be on Maltese territory without breach of the Constitution at the request of the government. There may be such personnel to perform or assist in the performance of civil works or activities. There may also be - in a reasonable number - military technical personnel to assist in the defence of Malta.

More inelegance, but more realism too, based on recognition of the contribution made by the Italian military mission from the mid-Seventies on. The parts of the article intended to demonstrate Malta's commitment to neutrality through non-alignment follow clearly, and I would say logically enough.

Not only does the Constitution declare unequivocally that no foreign military base will be permitted on Maltese territory. Aside from the four circumstances visited above, it also does not allow facilities in Malta to be used in such a manner or extent as will amount to the presence here of a concentration of foreign forces.

I am not aware that there has been one single voice suggesting that Malta should permit itself ever again to become the military whore of the Mediterranean. It served as a base to occupying powers for centuries.

In the process the Knights of St John built our magnificent bastions and palaces. We developed the terrible cultural fault of dependence. The British triggered the economic restructuring of the island, a diversification from subsistence farming and trade to much civilian and some uniformed employment with the naval dockyard and the services departments. Thereby Malta became dependent on military spending, acquiring skills and accumulating some capital in the process, but only through the creation of a lopsided economy that had to be rebuilt anew when the base was wound down.

The non-economic costs, the horrors of war, the moral horror of being an instrument of war, were higher still.

No one would want to go through all that once more. There is no controversy in that regard.

Controversy exists over whether membership of the European Union would in some way conflict with the neutrality provision in the Constitution. That question may eventually have to be resolved by the courts. Meanwhile, there is nothing to suggest to a layman of average intelligence that, because Malta joins the EU its people should be any less committed to peace and security, and to social progress.

Neutrality tends to be propagated not only for its inherent rationale - that Malta should not serve as a military base for anybody, nor let its military facilities to be used by others against someone else. It is also rationalised in the context of Malta's geo-political realities.

Both are relevant considerations. Yet - above all - what flows from the neutrality status is our commitment to peace. Malta as a member of the EU should and surely would be able to demonstrate that commitment with no less determination than now and on a more focused platform.

It should also secure at least some reassurance that it can count on protection should its security ever be threatened.

Irrespective of EU membership, there are two remaining sources of continuing controversy. One is the final condition in the neutrality/peace provision. It stipulates that Malta's shipyards shall be used for civil commercial purposes, but may also be used, within reasonable limits of time and quantity, for the repair of military vessels that have been put in a state of non-combat or for the construction of vessels.

It goes on to demand that, "in accordance with the principles of non-alignment the... shipyards will be denied to the military vessels of the two superpowers". Critics of this condition claim that the definite constitutional reference to "the two superpowers" was rendered obsolete by the demise of the Soviet Union. They also query whether it continues to make sense to talk of "non alignment".

Again, the courts may have to interpret this condition some day. Meanwhile, it is not as if warships of the remaining superpower - the US - are massed at anchor off our shores queuing to get into the dockyard. If any did, it could presumably be accommodated under the condition that, within reasonable limits of time and quantity (sic), military vessels which have been put in a state of non-combat can be repaired here.

Legalities aside, the controversy is much more justified in the context of whether it serves Malta's modern image to seek to attract warships' repair work. Which relates to the other remaining source of controversy.

Over the years, and under various administrations, warships have been visiting Malta. Recently that included warships linked to hostilities in the Middle East.

Does that infringe the Constitution? Perhaps not. But once again, does it fit with Malta's jettisoning of its image as an instrument of war, as a bridge for peace, security and social progress, that we welcome ships teeming with the modern weaponry of war? I for one continue to abhor such visits, both for the image they recreate, and more so for the immediacy of war they bring to our young. It is as immaterial to this abhorrence that war may be in every TV room 24 hours a day on news and other channels as the fact that drugs are peddled mercilessly in every corner of the world.

The immediacy of instruments of war may not conflict with the neutrality provisions. They certainly are antithetical, I hold, to the moral and practical stand for peace that should not need any article in the Constitution to encourage it. What the Constitution states in that regard remains relevant and practical enough.

Unnecessary controversy and recourse to these provisions as fuel with which to feed the hungry flames of unjustified division undermines the very rationality of the constitutional commitment to peace and security, and leads to social regress, not progress.

What the Constitution states

1 (3) Malta is a neutral State actively pursuing peace, security and social progress among all nations by adhering to a policy of non-alignment and refusing to participate in any military alliance. Such a status will, in particular, imply that:

(a) no foreign military base will be permitted on Maltese territory;

(b) no military facilities in Malta will be allowed to be used by any foreign forces except at the request of the Government of Malta, and only in the following cases:

(i) in the exercise of the inherent right of self-defence, in the event of any armed violation of the area over which the Republic of Malta has sovereignty, or in pursuance of measures or actions decided by the Security Council of the United Nations; or

(ii) whenever there exists a threat to the sovereignty, independence, neutrality, unity or territorial integrity of the Republic of Malta;

(c) except as aforesaid, no other facilities in Malta will be allowed to be used in such manner or extent as will amount to the presence in Malta of a concentration of foreign forces;

(d) except as aforesaid, no foreign military personnel will be allowed on Maltese territory, other than military personnel performing, or assisting in the performance of civil works or activities, and other than a reasonable number of military technical personnel assisting in the defence of the Republic of Malta;

(e) the shipyards of the Republic of Malta will be used for civil commercial purposes, but may also be used, within reasonable limits of time and quantity, for the repair of military vessels which have been put in a state of non-combat or for the construction of vessels; and in accordance with the principles of non-alignment the said shipyards will be denied to the military vessels of the two superpowers.