A team of experts should be set up to propose a rewrite of Malta’s constitutional neutrality, according to former foreign affairs minister Evarist Bartolo.
He does not think Malta should scrap the idea but says that, 35 years since the amendments were first drawn up, it is time to explore if they need updating.
However, Bartolo’s successor, Ian Borg has other ideas. He says the constitution works fine as it is and rewriting it is not on the government’s agenda.
Malta’s constitutional neutrality has for decades been a topic of discussion among diplomats and scholars. This debate has regularly spilled over to the rest of the country whenever conflict has come knocking on the island’s doors.
With Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Malta’s policy of opting out of military conflict has again come under the spotlight.
What is constitutional neutrality?
Malta is one of 21 countries to have declared neutrality. From Switzerland to Singapore, these countries have affirmed themselves as either non-aligned on their own steam or have signed up to international peace agreements and other treaties barring them from participating in military conflicts.
Bartolo, 69, who until the March general election was Malta’s top diplomat, told Times of Malta that, since the constitution was amended 35 years ago, the world has changed.
Other neutral member states have already started exploring a rewrite of their own neutrality rules and Malta may want to follow suit.
Among them is Austria, where a group of diplomats and other experts have written to the government calling for an independent think tank to look into rewriting their rules.
Like Malta, Austria also declares in its constitutional law that it “will not join any military alliances”.
But it has already updated its rules in the past, including to allow it to participate in the EU’s common foreign and security policy.
By contrast, Malta inserted wording in its EU accession treaty saying it would not violate its position of neutrality and non-alignment, despite EU membership.
Bartolo said the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which began when he was still foreign minister, has made citizens of other countries like Finland, Sweden and Ireland ask whether they should depart from their tradition of neutrality.
He has called for a team of legal experts, former diplomats and business leaders to explore whether the constitution should be amended to reflect today’s reality.
The US may still be around but the Soviet Union is long gone and Bartolo asks who the second superpower is today. Would it be Russia and what about China?
Malta’s neutrality was added to the constitution in 1987, with then prime minister Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici enshrining the concept in the country’s founding document.
Specifically, it reads: “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.”
However, the neutrality clauses say more than just that and this is where there may be room for a rewrite.
In the late 1980s, the international community was still wading through the murky quagmire of the Cold War. In fact, Malta’s neutrality rules make reference the “two superpowers”.
The US may still be around but the Soviet Union is long gone and Bartolo asks who the second superpower is today. Would it be Russia and what about China?
The neutrality rules were also written at a time when Malta’s importance as a military and naval base were different to today.
Advances in ship bunkering and missile technology have changed Malta’s role in military conflicts.
Furthermore, the very concept of conflict and war has changed. Should Malta also remain neutral in the face of the information war and other cyber conflicts, Bartolo asks.
“Neutrality is not just a constitutional undertaking. It has geopolitical and economic implications,” he said.
“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 I believe neutrality should help us do that.”
Room for a rewrite
Weighing in on this, Bartolo’s successor, the considerably younger Borg, 36, said there was “no need to revisit the constitution for the time being”.
He said the neutrality rules are “flexible enough” to getting into the thorny issue of redrafting them.
Government sources, on the other hand, concede that the world has changed dramatically since the neutrality clauses were first penned and that, indeed, there is room for a rewrite.
However, the topic is politically polarising, especially among older Labour supporters who view Dom Mintoff’s political crusade for neutrality as sacred ground.
“It would be more trouble than it’s worth for us to revisit this topic. It would not go down well with a group of diehard Labour voters. It is also difficult to explain these concepts to the public who have more pressing concerns,” a government source said.