To prune a Constitution (II)

The first summit of the Non-Aligned Movement after the end of the Cold War was held in 1992 in Jakarta. Survival meant that the movement had to reinvent itself and that is why a decision was taken to replace the political agenda by an economic one. Focus had to be shifted to work across groupings such as the G8 and the European Union.

Last year, two members of the Non-Aligned Movement - Malta and Cyprus - joined the EU. A few months later, in August 2004, a ministerial conference of the Non-Aligned Movement was held in Durban, South Africa. No effort or expenses were spared. Nearly a quarter of the members, including Malta and Cyprus, failed to turn up. The only European country present was Belarus (oddly enough, Yugoslavia is still on the list of members).

South African President Thabo Mbeki was a disappointed man, eager as he was to assert himself as the one to revive the Non-Aligned Movement. Not so much because of the number of absentees from the Durban Conference as for the lack of political stature of those who actually attended. Only one third were ministers, mostly from Africa, the rest were deputies, ambassadors or representatives who lacked political clout. Personally, I am convinced that his aim was to remove the old cobwebs from a past era and substitute non-alignment from the major military powers by realignment with the major economic groupings. Unfortunately, this part is still obstructed by those who are unable to adapt to reality.

I arrived in South Africa on October 20, 2004, exactly two months after the Durban Conference ended. I was being hosted by a small but influential group with Maltese connections. The venue was Cape Town, possibly one of the most beautiful cities in the world. My hosts had invited a minister to dinner and the conversation naturally fell on the recent conference. The South Africans were not surprised with Malta's absence since it had graduated from non-alignment to EU membership. The minister believed that the best interest of the movement could be served not through dormant membership but actively within its new habitat.

Parallel thoughts had crossed my mind. Notwithstanding all good intentions it appears that the movement has been overtaken by events. Even its name seems out of tune. In a generic sense, it is difficult to perceive how the initial concept of non-alignment can continue to exist between a power and a vacuum. Specifically in Malta's case, is membership of the Non-Aligned Movement complementary or incompatible with that of the European Union? Militarily, as long as we retain our neutrality there should not be any obstacles to dual membership. Even when Malta became a member it had been accepted, notwithstanding, that it was host to military bases.

The Non-Aligned Movement views itself as a distinct and separate entity from the EU. By its very statements, it sees its future as working across groups, such as the G8 and the EU. Perhaps even here concentric circles are compatible. When the Non-Aligned Movement was conceived it emphatically opposed Western domination.

When Malta joined the movement its policy of equidistance was clear, as witnessed at the CSCE summit in Helsinki in 1975. But today, through membership of the EU most of the East has become the West and the rest have allied themselves through other institutions. Today, whether we like it or not, Malta is part of the West.

Finally, the movement defines itself as representing "the interest of developing countries". In the recent past Malta could have been classified as a developing nation but this is not the case today. Out of the 115 within the movement, the two Mediterranean states, together with those of the Gulf, Singapore and Brunei, are among the top 10 with the highest per capita income.

By and large, the reference to non-alignment within our Constitution may seem anomalous not because of Malta's new status but due to the fact that the Non-Aligned Movement has become an anachronism.

But there are many other constitutional issues that need to be addressed. And instead of proposing ad hoc amendments or inclusions, a more judicious approach is required as our Constitution badly needs a good pruning to flourish.

Dr Attard Montalto is a Labour member of the European Parliament.