It seems that certain fellow countrymen can’t help getting martially aroused whenever NATO gets involved in some new war. Quick to don their crusading rhetoric, they decry our constitutional neutrality and emphatically insist it is indeed our moral obligation ‘to be on the side of freedom against despotism’.
Such rhetoric is as old as humanity itself: the Athenians fought for freedom against ‘despotic’ Spartans; the Romans fought ‘barbaric’ Carthage in the name of liberty and went on to carve an empire using the same pretext; the Frankish nobles heeding the papal call went to the Holy Land to ‘liberate’ Jerusalem, committing multiple massacres along the way, especially of Jews.
If history taught us anything – it is that, in hindsight, the ‘rightfulness’ of such causes always dissipates to reveal a more worldly scenario of land-grabbing, power-politics and rather impure motivations.
History lesson number two: small, relatively powerless countries always end up paying the ultimate price in a war between empires. Read Thucydides about the Melian experience or ask the Albanians but, then, why go that far in history? Let’s hear what the Syrians have to say, some of them presently living among us as refugees.
It always makes me wonder whether those who buy into the rhetoric of ‘rightfulness’ really believe it is pure selfless nobility of spirit that tickles NATO’s sensibilities to engage in war. Maybe Mario de Marco can answer me on that one. Recently, in parliament he asked whether it is time to scrap our constitutional neutrality, prodding the chamber to “ask ourselves: can we remain neutral in the face of an unjustified invasion? Can we be neutral in the face of a war that no one has sought and no one has provoked?”
De Marco isn’t alone making the same argument. Peppi Azzopardi believes the place for neutrality is at the cemetery. I know Peppi is a passionate man, a dedicated activist and a person of strong ideals. The problem – allow me to be cynical on this one – is that geopolitics is as moral as a pot of dry earth. In the end, what matters in geopolitics are concepts quite alien to Peppi’s worldview: power, territory and economics. If such concepts are the base, then the rhetoric of ‘rightfulness’ is the superstructure that seals and legitimates an alliance.
On the other hand, in response to those who challenge constitutional neutrality, there are those who don the metaphorical armour to propose themselves as its champions. Their problem is that, more often than not, they do so in the worst possible way. In fact, they do it so badly that they end up undermining the very concept they intend to champion.
Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici is, unfortunately, one of those. His declaration that constitutional neutrality means we have to treat Russia and Ukraine equally is not just the wrong interpretation of the neutrality clause but plain wrong. From whichever angle one tries to view it.
I don’t doubt Mifsud Bonnici’s good intentions but that declaration simply makes any sensible reader who follows the news from the Ukraine battleground cringe.
I don’t know what is so difficult for any party to rightfully interpret article 1.3 of the constitution of Malta. Constitutional neutrality does not preclude the state from favouring what’s right.
Declaring that Russia is wrong to invade Ukraine does not in any way infringe our neutrality- Aleks Farrugia
If anything – if we adhere to the principle that the single article is to be interpreted within the context of the whole law – doing so is not just a legal and a political obligation but also a moral duty. In its declaration of principles (chapter 2) and fundamental rights (chapter 4), the constitution translates into articles of law what the Maltese state should hold to be right with regard to all Maltese citizens.
Applying the principle of consistency, the Maltese state would be caught in contradiction if it were to accept any state of affairs elsewhere that wouldn’t be acceptable in its own country. So if the Maltese state is obliged to protect the life, personal security and freedom of the individual by article 32.a of the constitution of Malta, the state would be inconsistent with itself (and with the constitution) if it doesn’t denounce any attack on the life, personal security and freedom of other individuals wherever it happens around the world.
Declaring that Russia is wrong to invade Ukraine does not in any way infringe our neutrality, if anything it is perfectly in line with the spirit of the constitution. That, however, doesn’t mean we have to throw ourselves in the NATO’s arms and allow ourselves to be swayed by the rhetoric of ‘rightful’ war.
The constitution obliges the state, as represented by the government, to ‘actively’ seek peace. I don’t see how anyone can interpret that imperative as sitting on the fence. It is our country’s mission statement and one which is very hard to live by. The ideology of peace is not merely a commitment to shun war. It is much more. It is a commitment towards dialogue, negotiation, reason and respect. Malta has often played this part in a Mediterranean context.
If there ever was an example of such qualities embodied in one successful Maltese peacemonger, that is (ironically for de Marco) the late Guido de Marco. Whether one agreed with his domestic politics or not, one has to recognise the man carried respect even between enemies. Israelis and Palestinians can attest to that. He never shied, in his measured way, to distinguish aggressors from their victims, yet, he retained the ears even of the aggressors in order to draw them to peace.
Sometimes, I fear we want to change the constitution not because of its imperfections but, rather, because it poses challenges which make us doubt whether we have the stature to meet them. In the case of this war, as in the case of others, being on the side of peace is the most difficult position to take. Actively pursuing peace – meaning, doing something concrete about it and not just empty talk – is an arduous task but it is a task worth pursuing if we still believe this country has some relevance left in the world.