Recurring EU-NATO joint declarations stress that the EU and NATO are essential partners that share common values, strategic interests and a majority of member states. (Currently 21 of the 27 EU member states are also members of NATO.)

EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Josep Borrell could not be more emphatic about this geostrategic relationship: “EU-NATO cooperation is crucial to our defence and to European and global security. Making this cooperation even deeper will remain at the heart of European defence efforts.”

Attempts to create a European defence community with a European army and shared military capabilities date back to the early 1950s. However, the so-called Pleven Plan, named after the French prime minister who proposed it, remained an unratified treaty. European integration, during the decades that followed, focused on the implementation of the EU single market.

However, in 1993, the member states committed themselves to a European Foreign and Security Policy, EFSP  (Maastricht Treaty) and subsequently, in 2003, to a European Security and Defence Policy, ESDP (Nice Treaty). 

The Lisbon Treaty in 2009 went further along the road of defence integration, notably by the introduction of a mutual defence clause (article 42.7).

These developments did not prevent Malta with its constitutional neutrality from joining the EU and, as a full member, from ratifying the Lisbon Treaty.

With EFSP and ESDP enshrined in the treaties, it became urgent and inevitable for the EU to institutionalise its relationship with NATO to ensure complementarity and to avoid stepping on each other’s toes. The EU-NATO Declaration on ESPD (2002) and the ensuing Berlin Plus arrangements (2003) are milestones in EU-NATO relations and serve as the foundation for their political consultation and practical cooperation. These arrangements define the modalities permitting EU-led crisis management operations to access NATO planning, assets and capabilities.

Subsequent EU-NATO declarations established the key guiding principles of openness, transparency, inclusiveness and reciprocity of the EU-NATO partnership. The Partnership is based on full respect of the decision-making autonomy and procedures of the two organisations and full respect of the specific character of the security and defence policy of any member state. It focuses on addressing current and evolving security challenges. EU-NATO cooperation now is an established norm and a daily practice.

In 2008, Malta reactivated its membership in NATO’s Partnership for Peace (PfP),  which had been signed in 1995   and suspended a year later. Malta is free to decide the areas of cooperation and the specific events in which to participate. These are set out in its Individual Partnership and Cooperation Programme (IPCP), which is jointly agreed by NATO and Malta.

So far, Malta has skillfully managed to secure maximum benefit from its membership of the EU and from its membership in NATO’s PfP while fully adhering to its constitutional neutrality. However, as the EU pursues further defence integration, with NATO as an integral part of its defence policy, it may become more difficult for Malta to succeed in this balancing act.

Malta enshrined neutrality in its constitution in 1987. Article 1.3 specifies that “Malta is a neutral state actively pursuing peace, security and social progress among all nations by adhering to a policy of non-alignment and refusing to participate in any military alliance”.

With war at its doorstep, Malta is once more carefully following a policy of positive neutrality, always putting its national interest first- Edward Zammit Lewis

Upon joining the EU, Malta affirmed, in declaration 35 annexed to the Accession Treaty, its commitment to the Union’s common foreign and security policy and confirmed that its participation did not prejudice its neutrality. The declaration adds that, as specified in the Treaty on European Union, any European Council decision to move to a common defence would have to be unanimous and had to “be adopted by the member states in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements”. This wording confirms that Malta’s EU membership does not automatically imply any involvement in common defence.

So far, Malta has used absolute discretion and good judgement to select only EU or NATO-led missions that do not compromise its neutrality and which conform to its foreign policy objectives and which carry dividends in the form of training and experience to the armed forces and civil defence organisations.

Similar caution and wisdom were used in 2018, when Malta decided not to join PESCO (Permanent Structured Cooperation) in the areas of security and defence, keeping its options open to see how the process would develop. Also, in 2018 Malta decided not to join the European Intervention Initiative proposed by French President Emmanuel Macron. However, it did join the European Defence Agency in 2004 as this form of European cooperation merely supports member states to improve their defence capabilities.

In the current context of war in Ukraine it would be useful to recall Malta’s position during the 2011 Libyan crisis.

In spite of the disastrous fallout of the conflict on its economy, Malta did not join NATO’s campaign nor allow its territory to be used for military operations. 

Instead, it focused on humanitarian missions and supported rapid negotiations for a political solution.

At the same time, Malta did not refrain from supporting EU Council statements that the Gaddafi regime had lost its legitimacy and condemned its violence against civilians.

Today, with war at its doorstep, Malta is once more carefully following a policy of positive neutrality, always putting its national interest first. The general consensus among the Maltese population is that our constitutional neutrality has served and serves our national interest best.

This does not eliminate the possibility of a national debate on the matter in the future within the ambit of an evolving European strategic autonomy which may include political and defence integration. Up till then, we should strive to maintain our ‘balancing act’ in the best interest of our country.