Revisiting the concept of Maltese neutrality

The very first article of our Constitution affirms Malta as a neutral state adhering to a policy of non-alignment. When it was inserted in 1987, both parties were in agreement and the clause was unanimously approved by parliament.

Two aspects of our neutrality have been the cause of certain concern and disagreement. These emanate from Clauses 1(3)(d) and 1(3)(e).

In the first clause, the Constitution states that no foreign military personnel will be allowed on Maltese territory. Notwithstanding this, however, over the last few years Grand Harbour has played host to a number of British and American warships.

This has brought about a mixed reaction. Some quarters from the Labour Party and some pressure groups have protested about this. Undoubtedly, the objections raised were legally founded since our Constitution is very clear in this respect.

On the other hand, however, the presence of American marines or English military personnel did have the effect of generating a considerable amount of commerce. On account of this fact, therefore, other quarters of society have overwhelmingly embraced this foreign presence.

Interestingly, lately, after a similar visit by a foreign warship the deputy leader of the Malta Labour Party, Charles Mangion, has gone on record saying that the party would be taking a prudent position on this matter. This does not mean, at this stage at least, that the Labour Party is condoning such manifestly illegal activity. It may, however, imply that the party might well be considering revisiting certain aspects of our neutrality, perhaps recognising the fact that this should be brought more in line with the times.

The other issue emanates from the second clause of our Constitution that I mentioned earlier and refers to the question of the two superpowers prevailing at the time. This clause says, among other things, "and in accordance with the principles of non-alignment the said shipyards will be denied to the military vessels of the two superpowers". The superpowers prevailing in 1987 were the United States and the Soviet Union. Again, notwithstanding this clause, our shipyards have, over the years, contracted work on American warships.

At times, such instances have given rise to serious difficulty as happened when the General Workers' Union went so far as to give directives to 'yard workers not to carry out work. From a legal perspective, the issue is a tricky one.

Our Constitution speaks of two superpowers. However, the international political scenario in this respect has changed drastically today. The Soviet Union no longer exists and Russia itself cannot exactly be referred to as the other superpower.

It will be interesting to see what the reaction will be, for example, if our shipyards are engaged to carry out work on a Russian military vessel. In this respect, however, I do not think there remain any Constitutional legal niceties to give rise to objections which could be juridically sustainable.

On the other hand, however, the United States has remained a superpower. It is my opinion, the idea behind this particular clause was to uphold the principle of equidistance between the two super-powers, so much so that this issue is also tied up with Malta's Constitutional commitment to non-alignment.

If one argues so, then once there no longer remain two superpowers, the question of equidistance has in fact become anachronistic.

From a personal perspective, I am still absolutely for Malta's preserving its neutrality status and in fact I believe we should even further strengthen our position within the European Union.

On the other hand, however, surely in considering in substance certain aspects of the way our neutrality is portrayed in the Constitution and the far-reaching changes which have occurred since the time when the concept of neutrality was embraced in it, one would definitely conclude that the time is ripe for upgrading and re-addressing this important issue.

Dr Herrera is a Labour MP