Lino Bugeja’s recent article ‘Neutrality needs revision’ is the latest in a series of attacks on the concept of neutrality as enshrined in our Constitution.
We shall not discuss the various points Bugeja makes in his article, which include the dogmatic assertion concerning a threat by IS to our islands, the rapid infiltration of IS in European cities (actually a good number of IS members did not infiltrate Europe but were born within the European continent), the horrific death of James Foley and the situation in Libya.
Nor shall we highlight the blatant contradictions in Bugeja’s piece: on the one hand, he notes that the 2003 war in Iraq by the US and the UK - both NATO members - escalated terrorism in the region, that these same powers are funding and arming radical Islamic groups in Syria and that the financial support given to IS originates from allies of Western countries in the region, like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar; on the other hand, he suggests that the way to protect ourselves from the threat that the radical Islamic menace nurtured by major Nato members US and UK poses is to dump neutrality and join Nato!
We will focus on the frequently made claims that upholding neutrality makes us vulnerable to foreign aggression and that the neutrality clauses in the Constitution are outdated.
The type of neutrality enshrined in Malta’s Constitution does not entail that we are indifferent to what is happening in the world around us, or that we do not take sides in conflicts and issues. It only entails that we do not become members of military alliances (regardless of whether the alliances that exist on a global level are one, two or more), and that if we are to support the claims of an aggrieved party we do so by using peaceful means.
Indeed, the Constitution encourages government to actively engage – albeit in a peaceful and non-belligerent manner – in the promotion of justice and well-being in the region and in the world at large, something that may entail denouncing the failings of one party and championing the rights of another. This might sound idealistic and naïve.
The opposite is the case. It is an investment in our security and in that of our region, our continent and the world. Take the case of terrorism, to which Bugeja frequently refers in his article.
First of all terrorism is not fought through conventional armies. Nations that possess notable striking capability and who are major Nato members like the US, the UK and Spain have suffered terrorists attacks, despite their weapons and technology. Being a member of a military alliance with deadly, possibly nuclear, fire power does not help to stave off such threat.
Secondly, as Bugeja himself acknowledges, terrorists are not born but bred. People are attracted to violent radical ideologies for a number of reasons. Violent radical Islam is based on the idea of an inherent conflict between Islam and the West or anything deemed un-Islamic. The commitment to genuine dialogue, peace and justice by our island may help deconstruct this idea. An island that abets aggression and war, on the other hand, will increase the threat at our doorstep.
As Bugeja also acknowledges, terrorism increased considerably following the ‘humanitarian’ interventions in Iraq. Even in Libya itself, the IS threat did not exist before the US, the UK and France – assisted by our government – intervened and created havoc.
Even if a concrete threat on a massive scale (an army or something resembling it) were to materialise, the neutrality clauses in the Constitution do not prevent the government of Malta from defending itself. Not merely do the neutrality clauses not debar Malta from having its own army or sharing intelligence with foreign partners (something that was pertinently highlighted by Martin Scicluna – surely not a pacifist – in his article ‘Libya, threats and neutrality’), but defence treatises already exist with a number of countries which would guarantee our safety in case of a threat.
Defence treatises already exist with a number of countries
Moreover, the Constitution itself provides that if a situation arises whereby some military venture authorised by the UN Security Council (in this case one involving Malta, given Bugeja’s hypothetical scenario) is required, assistance may be provided in such exceptional circumstance. No amendment to the Constitution is hence required in view of such hypothetical scenario.
The neutrality clauses are not rendered obsolete by the fact that today there is one superpower/official military block rather than two. The disappearance (at least for the time being) of the second superpower does not entail that what the neutrality clauses enjoin no longer holds. The world is still a world of conflict between different parties, competing ideologies and rival economic blocks. Had this not been the case, the remaining military alliance would have ceased to exist.
In the current scenario, we still have a choice; pitting ourselves with one side against possible others or choosing to be an oasis of peace and dialogue. If we commit ourselves to Nato, it will not be just IS that will be on the opposite side of the fence (assuming IS is really on the opposing side of the fence and not, as Bugeja himself suggests, embroiled with the US and the UK) but also Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Syria and a myriad of other nations that oppose Nato and the interests of the latter.
All things considered we believe the neutrality clauses in the Constitution require to be strengthened not revised.
Michael Grech and Charles Miceli are members of a group that opposes the elimination or neutralisation of the neutrality clauses from the Constitution.