A recent Times of Malta poll indicates that 56 per cent of readers believe that the concept of neutrality should be retained, 30 per cent that it should be reviewed and only 14 per cent that it should be removed.

This confirms the solid consensus among the Maltese population that neutrality continues to serve best Malta’s national interest. This within the current precarious European scenario, which has prompted two neutral EU member states, Sweden and Finland, to apply for NATO membership and a third, Denmark, to relinquish its opt-out from the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy.

Former foreign minister Evarist Bartolo and his successor, Ian Borg, have recently thrown their weight into this interesting debate. The former believes it is time to revisit Malta’s constitutional neutrality while the later argues that our constitution is fine for the time being, that its rules are flexible enough for today’s exigencies and challenges.

My belief is that we should approach the matter with great caution. The law of neutrality is enshrined in The Hague Conventions V and XIII.  The concept is heavily nuanced according to the geopolitical and economic needs of the 21 countries which declare themselves neutral.

Malta’s neutrality as written in article 1.3 of the constitution is clearly conceived as an active neutrality; certainly not one that stays aloof of international controversy but is actively immersed in bilateral and multilateral diplomacy.  Malta pursues “peace, security and social progress among all nations by adhering to a policy of non-alignment and refusing to participate in any military alliance”.  

This sentence in my view defines the core value of Malta’s neutrality. It will be difficult to rewrite it without weakening it. Moreover, I believe it provides sufficient flexibility to enable Malta to achieve its foreign policy objectives in today’s international geopolitical environment.

An outstanding example of this success is Malta’s election on June 9 to a non-permanent seat at the Security Council, with 97 per cent of votes cast, on a platform of neutrality and non-alignment.

I certainly see no reason to rewrite our constitutional neutrality- Edward Zammit Lewis

The five sub-paragraphs that follow in article 1.3 specify what Malta cannot do as a neutral and non-aligned state.  It cannot have foreign bases on its territory and it cannot allow its military facilities to be used by foreign forces except at the request of the Maltese government in self- defence or to implement decisions by the Security Council or when its sovereignty, independence, neutrality and territorial integrity are threatened. 

The constitution allows the presence of small contingents of military technical personnel to perform civil works and activities. Maltese shipyards are for civil commercial purposes but are allowed to build military vessels and repair military ships that are out of combat. However, use of the shipyards is denied to the two superpowers, meaning the US and Russia as the successor of the Soviet Union.    

A recent contribution in the Times by Malta by the former foreign minister raises concerns about Malta’s vulnerability should its sovereignty or territory be threatened.

Article 1.3 (b), as the same contributor points out, permits the Maltese government to allow foreign forces to use military facilities on the island in self-defence.

I would tie this provision in our constitution with the mutual defence clause (article 42.7) of the Lisbon Treaty which requires member states to assist any member state by all the means in their power should it be a victim of an armed aggression on its territory.

It has already been invoked once, by France in November 2015, following a series of terrorist attacks on its territory. Our prime minister at the time made a lengthy statement in parliament. He referred to legal advice he had been given that responding to such a request would not necessarily violate the neutrality provisions in our constitution. Consequently, Malta would be prepared to ask for assistance from other member states if the need arises.

One must add that Malta has taken a pragmatic approach to this mutual defence clause. By accepting its provisions, Malta does not consider itself as having joined a military alliance, especially since article 42.7 goes on to specify that it “shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain member states”.

Within EU circles, Austria and Ireland are in the same position as Malta. It seems,  however, that the three countries are committed not to give up their neutral status and have resorted to a combination of pragmatic participation and constructive abstention whenever the EU launched initiatives in the areas of security and defence.

Malta, to a large extent, follows the Irish and Austrian examples. We are benefitting in the areas of security and defence both from our membership of the EU and of NATO’s PfP and this without prejudice to our neutrality. The flexibility provided by the treaties allows us to this. Declaration 35 annexed to the Accession Treaty guarantees Malta’s sovereign choice in matters of security and defence and reaffirms its neutrality. There is no reason why we should change direction.

In conclusion, I would say that the growing security and defence ambitions of the EU may well suit us as a guarantee to our own security and defence and to provide more opportunities for capacity building to our armed forces and civil defence services. 

I certainly see no reason to rewrite our constitutional neutrality. It is up to us to continue to cherish and safeguard its core principles, which makes us what we are, as Maltese and EU citizens.

Edward Zammit Lewis is Labour MP.