In seeking to contest Malta’s status of neutrality, Prof. Kenneth Wain’s article, ‘Three myths about neutrality’ (April 28), while interesting, endorses too many fallacies. There are at least six of them. They confuse the issues and need to be contested.
First of all, when distinguishing between what he calls unjust/aggressive wars and just/defensive wars, Wain compares conflict between nations to what happens when Peter and Paul indulge in a brawl on a street pavement. This is not tenable. Nation states form complex systems of individuals, social strata, interests with internal and external interactions that are defined by geographical location, ethnic and other allegiances, historical and other legacies.
Not keeping this in mind when considering – from the perspective of a State – situations of war, imminent war, emerging conflicts, State-to-State and bloc-to-bloc competition, as well as situations of peace is hardly illuminating. Nor is the status of neutrality just switched on when conflict occurs, as Wain implies.
It is assumed on an ongoing basis in the exercise of statecraft, over the long term, given the national interest of the State concerned, and in its light, the decision that its people take regarding the stance they wish to assume in external affairs.
So necessarily, each and every neutral status is specific to the country that assumes it. Generalising about neutrality in terms of what one or another country has done is another fallacy. The abandoned neutrality of Sweden and Finland has nothing to “teach” Malta, just as Malta’s retention of its neutrality has nothing to “teach” Sweden and Finland or other neutral members of the EU.
Which brings us head on against Wain’s claim that neutrality cannot be morally right. Yet, in Malta’s case, it has been based on the realisation that, over the centuries, the island served as a fortress that constituted a military threat, or was perceived as such by its neighbours, thereby provoking tensions and potential military face-offs. This was the case at times of peace, of emerging conflict and of war.
By opting for neutrality, and, therefore, removing the threat factor, Malta has adopted a moral position that surely cannot be declared wrong or deficient. On the contrary. In achieving this state of affairs, a radical and painful change in the ways by which the population earned a living needed to be envisaged and implemented, as was done, at no small cost in human and economic terms.
Yet, while acknowledging that Maltese neutrality is about “actively pursuing peace, security and social progress among all nations”, Wain seems to ignore that its fundamental thrust is that of not assuming any military posture in favour of any other State or power or alliance, unless it is mandated by the UN, or naturally, by way of self-defence.
The abandoned neutrality of Sweden and Finland has nothing to ‘teach’ Malta- Alfred Sant
The status of neutrality does not in any way prevent Malta from expressing a judgement and taking diplomatic sides, or from intervening on a humanitarian basis in situations of conflict or war. And this has been done, even regarding the Russian invasion of Ukraine. It was done not with reference to just or unjust wars, concepts that, apart from the call back to pavement fights, really confuse the issue but in terms of the flagrant and unacceptable violation by Russia of the norms of international law.
This is not the same as saying that judgements about conflicts and wars have to be made in terms of black and white, of devils and angels, which the bully-victim dichotomy stands for. Neutrality implies that international law, not least in the UNO frame, should serve as the gauge by which to take diplomatic and political positions about rights and wrongs in emerging conflicts.
But, then, Wain has not spared us an argument that I always find curious. Look at what neutrality did to Belgium, we are told. Hitler treated Belgium’s neutrality as a piece of paper and invaded. So one needs to be part of a military alliance in order to secure one’s defence!
It so happened though that, at about the same time of Belgium’s invasion, Malta was part of a military alliance structure, was attacked in its fortress role and in its “defence” hundreds of Maltese died, most almost starved and the destruction of towns and villages was horrendous. In Wain’s terms, both options consequently failed to deliver safety or security.
Actually, it is futile to argue in general terms from one case or two. The practice of neutrality – or of belonging to a collective defence system within the EU in favour of which Wain argues – have to be laid out in concrete terms that address current realities, while remaining mindful of the past, if they are to be meaningful.
Following Independence, between 1964 and 1971, willy nilly Malta formed part of a military alliance, NATO, which had a regional headquarters in Malta but which declined to give membership to the island. It graciously accepted, however, to just let our ambassador in Brussels have a monthly chat with NATO’s secretary general Manlio Brosio in the latter’s office.
Presumably as part of the EU’s developing defence ‘union’, Malta would have a membership voice but within the weighting of qualified majority voting. In real terms, when the push comes to shove, this would hardly be so different from what happened between 1964 and 1971.
On all fronts within the context of an EU defence union, Malta would be a policy taker, endorsing issues about which it can only have minimal interests though they could lead to maximal commitments. Meanwhile, on issues where it has major interests, its role could be easily nudged aside, as happened during the Libyan ‘civil war’. Yet, Wain would have us believe that participation in such an exercise “is an enlightened choice”.
I beg to differ. His enlightened choice is premised on too many fallacies and seriously endangers the principled and autonomous oversight regarding security matters that neutrality provides in a format that is suited to Malta’s circumstances.
Alfred Sant is a Labour MEP and former prime minister.