The early weeks of Malta’s MEP election campaign appeared to be heading towards a clash over Malta’s defence and neutrality policy, with candidates from all parties trading barbs on the issue. 

The debate was quickly overshadowed by the news that a damning magisterial inquiry would lead to criminal charges against several of Malta’s top government officials past and present.

But several questions remain: Where do Malta’s MEP candidates stand on Malta’s neutrality? Do they support the EU’s push to beef up its military power? And will they support more military spending?

Malta’s neutrality has long been a controversial issue but took on a broader geopolitical hue earlier this year after EP president (and PN MEP) Roberta Metsola told Politico that the EU should bolster its defence capabilities by setting up a defence budget, among other things. 

While this isn’t the first time that European leaders have made similar calls (French President Emmanuel Macron had called for a “true European army” as far back as 2018), Metsola’s words instantly became a key talking point among local political leaders.

Warmongering or scaremongering?

A prolonged tit-for-tat ensued, with one side accusing Metsola of warmongering and the other saying that Labour was scaremongering and ignoring international security threats.

MEP candidates from the two main parties quickly got on board. 

Leading PL candidate Alex Agius Saliba, speaking during a radio interview in March, said that the issue goes “beyond the missiles and nuclear weapons that (EPP chief) Manfred Weber talks about” but is ultimately about how Europe will be taking decisions on the bloc’s security and defence issues.

The EPP, Agius Saliba argued, wants to set up a defence commissioner which would effectively mean that decisions about Europe’s security and defence would no longer be subject to a veto, eroding any say that smaller countries such as Malta might have over the matter.

Other PL MEP candidates also took exception to the EPP’s proposals. Daniel Attard told a university debate last month that Europe “should defend the sovereignty” of its member states, especially when it comes to security. 

“If we want peace we need to invest in diplomacy, not arms,” Attard said.  

Meanwhile, PN candidates spent weeks brushing off accusations of warmongering, saying that their position is being misrepresented. 

Peter Agius has repeatedly argued throughout several debates that the EPP wants to strengthen Europe’s defences, not engage in aggression, contrary to the picture being painted.

Meanwhile, Miriana Calleja Testaferrata de Noto insisted during a debate at the university that “we are not saying that people should be sent to war but we need to be prepared to help”, in full respect of the EU’s mission to end wars.

Lee Bugeja Bartolo has some ideas of what this could mean in practice. “It’s not about buying missiles, it can also mean better surveillance, satellite imagery and cybersecurity,” he argued during a TV debate earlier this year.

Europe’s ‘two weights two measures’

Labour candidates also had harsh words for what Agius Saliba described as Europe’s “two weights two measures” when dealing with the two major conflicts in the world today, namely Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the war in Gaza.

Once again, it was Metsola’s show of solidarity with Israel in the immediate aftermath of Hamas’s attack on October 7 that bore the brunt of candidates’ criticism.

While Maria Sara Vella Gafà accused Metsola of clearly taking “Israel’s side on the Gaza issue”, Clint Azzopardi Flores argued that Metsola and (European Commission chief) Ursula von der Leyen should take a back seat to (EU foreign affairs head) Josep Borell when it comes to leading the bloc’s foreign affairs policy. 

Meanwhile, Agius Saliba urged Malta to support a move to charge Israel with genocide through the International Court of Justice.

Is neutrality here to stay?

Ultimately, the debate over Europe’s defence inevitably spills over into one about Malta’s constitutional neutrality, which prevents it from joining a military alliance.

Malta’s MEP candidates appear to agree that neutrality is here to stay, although they tend to differ slightly in describing what that means in practice.

PN MEP candidate Agius, for instance, has called for Malta to join PESCO, a Europe-wide defence and security cooperation project set up in 2017. At the time, Malta had adopted a wait-and-see approach, saying it wanted to see how the project unfolded before deciding whether or not to join. Malta remains the only EU member state not to have joined the project to date.

Nevertheless, Agius argues, Europe must “respect Malta’s neutrality” and not overstep its mark by emulating NATO and violating its “vocation for peace”.

Independent candidates and those from smaller parties also raise similar arguments.

Malta’s neutrality should be maintained “but that doesn’t mean we don’t protect our security”, Arnold Cassola argued at a recent university debate. So while we should help fund missions in countries such as Ukraine, there should be “no boots on the ground”, he said.

ADPD’s Mina Tolu agrees. “There is going to have to be an increase in the EU’s defence spending to maintain security”, she said, but that doesn’t mean that Malta should be contributing to ground troops.

Besides, Tolu says, there are other ways to support countries such as Ukraine, such as by supporting their bid for EU membership.

James Ryder, while expressing support for more investment in Europe’s defence (“the past few decades of no war in Europe is the exception, not the rule,” he points out), argues that Malta’s contribution should focus on humanitarian aid, particularly medical supplies.

Meanwhile, Imperium Europa’s Terrence Portelli argues that Malta’s neutrality makes it well-placed to offer “global conflict resolution services”, effectively serving as a mediator for conflicts taking place across Europe and surrounding regions.