Should we rewrite our constitutional neutrality?

The Maltese people are in almost full agreement that our constitutional neutrality continues to best serve Malta’s national interest. The current precarious European scenario has prompted two neutral EU member states, Sweden and Finland, to join NATO and a third, Denmark, to relinquish its opt-out from the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy.

An argument that has emerged in recent days is whether one should amend Malta’s constitution so that, although we maintain our neutrality, it would reflect today’s realities more clearly.

My belief is that we should approach the matter with great caution. The law of neutrality is enshrined in The Hague Conventions V and XIII. The concept is heavily nuanced according to the geopolitical and economic needs of the countries that declare themselves neutral.

Malta’s neutrality, as written in article 1.3 of the constitution, is clearly conceived as an active neutrality – certainly not one that stays aloof of international controversy but is actively immersed in bilateral and multilateral diplomacy. Malta pursues “peace, security and social progress among all nations by adhering to a policy of non-alignment and refusing to participate in any military alliance”.

This sentence, in my view, defines the core value of Malta’s neutrality. It will be difficult to rewrite it without weakening it. Moreover, I believe it provides sufficient flexibility to enable Malta to achieve its foreign policy objectives in today’s internationally turbulent geopolitical environment.

The five sub-paragraphs that follow article 1.3 specify what Malta cannot do as a neutral and non-aligned state. It cannot have foreign bases on its territory and it cannot allow its military facilities to be used by foreign forces, except at the request of the Maltese government in self-defence, to implement decisions by the UN Security Council, or when its sovereignty, independence, neutrality and territorial integrity are threatened.

One must add that Malta has taken a pragmatic approach to this mutual-defence clause in the Lisbon Treaty. By accepting its provisions, Malta does not consider itself as having joined a military alliance, especially since article 42.7 of the treaty goes on to specify that it “shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain member states”.

Within EU circles, Austria and Ireland are in the same position as Malta. It seems, however, that the three countries are committed to not giving up their neutral status and have resorted to a combination of pragmatic participation and constructive abstention whenever the EU launched initiatives in the areas of security and defence.

Malta largely follows the Irish and Austrian examples. We are benefiting in the areas of security and defence, both from our membership of the EU and of NATO’s Partnership for Peace (PfP), and this is without prejudice to our neutrality.

Malta largely follows the Irish and Austrian examples- Edward Zammit Lewis

The flexibility provided by the treaties allows us to do this. Declaration 35 annexed to the Accession Treaty negotiated by then prime minister Eddie Fenech Adami guarantees Malta’s sovereign choice in matters of security and defence and reaffirms its neutrality.

The same position was taken by prime minister Lawrence Gonzi in 2011 when, although Malta played a key role in assisting during the Libya crisis, it chose, due to its neutrality, not to participate in military actions undertaken by NATO.

Another good decision was that of prime minister Joseph Muscat to keep Malta out of PESCO (Permanent Structured Cooperation), which is essentially a stronger and more integrated coordination of the armies of European countries.

Over time, our country has consistently maintained its position in safeguarding our neutrality. This applies now more than ever to the current situation regarding the ‘ReArm

Europe’ project. This is an EU initiative aimed at building an arms industry so that the union no longer imports around 80 per cent of its weaponry from the United States and, thus, reduces such dependency.

Moreover, the EU is discussing ‘Military Readiness’. Ursula Von der Leyen’s security expert, former Finnish president Sauli Niinistö, is speaking about ‘a single security market’.

Even in this case, Malta’s decision was a very wise one. The prime minister did not obstruct the European process in this regard but, with diplomatic prudence, registered Malta’s reservations, respecting our country’s neutrality.

Robert Abela emphasised that Malta will not participate in the lethal and war-related arms industry but only in peace and humanitarian activities, as it has done so far. Also, Malta will not engage in financial instruments to fund such initiatives and will not send our soldiers to military engagements.

Considering all this, there is a strong political and constitutional precedent that shows that our neutrality offers a certain flexibility in view of the global situations Malta faces, from time to time. I, therefore, see no reason to rewrite our constitutional neutrality. It is up to us to continue to cherish and safeguard its core principles, which define us as Maltese and EU citizens.

When the need arises, we do not necessarily remain passive or complacent in the face of situations before us but we always take wise decisions according to the exigencies of the moment, in the interest of peace and dialogue and in the best interest of our country.

Edward Zammit Lewis, a former minister, is a Labour MP and chairperson of the Foreign and European Affairs Committee.