The Russian invasion of Ukraine has made EU citizens of neutral countries like Finland, Sweden, Austria and Ireland question their neutrality and consider whether they should join the US-led military alliance: the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). In Malta too there are those who have opined publicly that we should abandon neutrality and apply to join NATO.
Seventy-five per cent of Finns and 57 per cent of Swedes now say they want their country to join NATO and support their government’s application to join the military alliance.
Over the last 30 years, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, both countries have moved closer to NATO, participating in many joint programmes and operations. They have become so NATO-compatible that joining is expected to be smooth (provided that Turkey’s objections are addressed adequately).
On the other hand, since the invasion of Ukraine, 75 per cent of Austrians have said they want their country to remain neutral, as do 66 per cent of Irish citizens. Last year, a similar rate of 66 per cent Maltese said they supported Malta’s policy of neutrality.
As far as I know, no polls have since been carried out locally to see if the public mood has shifted like in Sweden and Finland to join NATO or has remained in favour of neutrality like in Austria and Ireland.
We must be open-minded and be ready to go out of our comfort zone, asking all the necessary questions about the best way to protect our security and prosperity in the light of the new geopolitical global landscape that is emerging following the war in Ukraine.Since we incorporated our policy on neutrality and non-alignment into our constitution 35 years ago, the world has changed. But does that mean that we should now abandon our constitutional voluntary and unilateral commitment not “to participate in any military alliance” and to continue ensuring that “no foreign military base will be permitted on Maltese territory” and that “no military facilities in Malta will be allowed to be used by any foreign forces”?
Who will defend us?
The reference to the two superpowers where the constitution prohibits the use of local shipyards for the construction of military vessels “of the two superpowers”, the US and the Soviet Union, is undoubtedly obsolete as the Soviet Union is no more. But should the need to update this part, which is very peripheral to the whole issue, lead us unthinkingly to simply do away with our neutrality because the Swedes and Finns, with their own specific geopolitical reality, are doing it and joining NATO?
We still need to answer the painful question of what happens if we are attacked or threatened, not necessarily by a state but even by private military contractors that, today, could have more military clout than us. Who will come to our defence?
The constitution gives the government of Malta the right to allow foreign military forces into Malta as “self-defence in the event of any armed violation of the area over which the Republic of Malta has sovereignty” and “whenever there exists a threat to the sovereignty, independence, neutrality, unity or territorial integrity of the Republic of Malta”.
We must be open minded and be ready to go out of our comfort zone- Evarist Bartolo
When crafting Malta’s policy of neutrality and non-alignment, Dom Mintoff wanted it to be guaranteed by our four neighbours (Italy, France, Algeria and Libya). He also wanted the two superpowers, the US and the Soviet Union, to recognise and respect our neutrality. Substantially, this was only achieved with Italy.
Alberta Borg, says in The Neutrality Option for In-Between States (Minsk Workshop, 2018): “this new status of Malta was officially registered with the Secretariat of the United Nations on May 14, 1981, after which France, Greece, Algeria, Libya and Tunisia recognised its status. In 1981, the USSR declared its recognition, respect and support to the status of Malta as a neutral state but these declarations lacked the guarantee similar to that made by the Italian government.”
Are these declarations enough to answer the question: who will come to our defence if we are attacked or threatened?
Since joining the European Union, we have been adhering to its common foreign and security policy by restricting our participation to humanitarian operations. The same reservations define our participation in NATO’s Participation for Peace Programme (PfP).
We do not send any lethal weapons to Ukraine but send humanitarian aid. Our military neutrality did not stop us from supporting the United Nations resolutions reaffirming our commitment to the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of Ukraine; condemning the Russian aggression against Ukraine and calling for an immediate, complete and unconditional withdrawal of Russian forces from Ukraine and also reaffirming the fundamental principle of customary international law that “the territory of a state shall not be the object of acquisition by another state resulting from the threat or use of force”.
We have also refused to join article 46 of the EU treaty on Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) intensifying military cooperation through capacity building. All the other neutral EU member states, including Austria and Ireland, are participating in PESCO as they do not feel that it endangers their neutrality. We are holding back from taking part to see how PESCO develops and whether it would compromise our neutrality.
As we consider all these issues soberly and rigorously, we must keep in mind that neutrality is not just a constitutional undertaking but also has geopolitical and economic implications. We should not rush and simply imitate what other countries our doing. We should think with our own head on how to best promote our prosperity and values.
We are at the centre of the Mediterranean Sea washing the shores of Europe, Africa and Asia. We need to get on well with all these three continents. In the highly polarised world that is emerging after the Ukraine war, we still need to have good relations with as many different countries as possible and neutrality should help us do that.