The question of Malta’s neutrality, in the context of the invasion of Ukraine and the military assistance that the EU is extending to the country, played some role in the recent European election campaign.  Alas, the discussion was purely for electoral purposes, mainly trying to bash (and rather unsuccessfully) the PN’s prime candidate, Roberta Metsola  –  the President of the European Parliament.

Writing on The Journal on 13 April, Frans Camilleri argued that Malta‘s neutrality policy is shrouded in ambiguity and needs to be re-examined in the wake of international geo-political developments, including security and defence.  Re-examined does not mean ditched, as some would think.

As argued by former Ambassador George Saliba, also writing on The Journal on 5 January, neutrality has been a success story and served Malta well in the past. The majority of the Maltese people still support neutrality strongly and there is a cross-party agreement that it should remain a central plank of our foreign policy.  In any case, our neutrality is enshrined in the constitution and any changes would need to muster a two-thirds majority in the House of Representatives.  

The need fo clarity

The evolving geo-political situation and growing risk that there may be war in Europe make it incumbent that our neutrality policy is clear enough to provide a resilient framework for decision-making, rather than making the process subject to purely personal interpretations and on-the-hoof, possibly knee-jerk, reactions. 

This is particularly the case because, as it is and has always been, there is nothing in the Constitution that obliges the Prime Minister of the Government to obtain anybody’s approval for any decisions they may take   ̶    be it the Leader of the Opposition or the Parliament itself.

Coming back to the Ukraine situation, Prime Minister Robert Abela told the nation, in the wake of the Joint Security Commitments agreed between the EU and Ukraine on 27 June, that Malta’s neutrality and non-alignment are “specifically reflected”.  I don’t know about “specifically” because I couldn’t find any specific reference to neutrality, let alone to Malta.

I think that what the PM had in mind was the paragraph stating that “Military support and security commitments will be provided in full respect of the security and defence policy of certain Member States” but “taking into account the security interests of all Member States.”  I presume that this addresses the neutrality of Austria, Ireland, and Malta.

But, if there is ambiguity in our neutrality, one could say the same about the Security Commitment.  It makes a perfunctory nod in favour of “full respect” of the (neutral) policies of certain states but then adds that this will take into account “the interests of all member states”.  A diplomatic way of saying that the Union might decide that it is in the interest of all states (including the three neutral ones) to participate directly in the Ukraine war or provide any type of weapons to Ukraine in our name.

This is exactly what I’m talking about.  We all know how the EU works: totally innocuous and forgettable concepts are planted in various documents to which only a few people pay attention, but gradually enter the realm of accepted guidelines and policies. 

The process is very much an application of Ronald Dworkin’s legal philosophy, where the application of a concept depends neither on fixed criteria nor on an instance-identifying decision procedure but rather on the normative or evaluative facts that best justify the set of practices in which the concept is used.

Applying Dworkin to the Ukraine situation, it means that the concept of a security commitment to Ukraine is neither bounded by pre-defined criteria to which it is subject (for example, Ukraine’s willingness to conduct negotiations with Russia or not to launch an invasion of its neighbour) nor to any specific way of the delivery of that commitment (for example, which type of arms can be provided by the member states to Ukraine   ̶   purely defensive or offensive; who has control on their use), but rather on the facts as they evolve on the ground which best justify the concept of the security commitment.

In other words, the door is left open to anything under the sun as may be justified by the majority at a particular point in time or in particular circumstances.  And this “anything” will be done in the name of “all member states” (including Malta).  So much for respect of Malta’s neutrality.

War in another form

Under the Security Commitment, the EU will “speed up and intensify” the delivery of ammunitions, missiles and air defence; provide training to Ukraine’s security and defence forces; participate in the joint procurement of arms; further sanctions and other pressure to undermine Russia’s ability to wage war, including pressures on third countries (China) that circumvent sanctions; immobilisation of Russia’s assets and their use to benefit Ukraine.

Now all these commitments, though probably supported by most Europeans (including Maltese), are nothing but war in another form.  Whether they are justified or not is immaterial.  That is how Russia looks at them, and Russia will respond in one way or another.  At first it responded by withholding its gas from the market. Lately it has responded by preventing Russian citizens from reading the Times of Malta and Malta Today.   Big deal.  But can anyone give a guarantee that one day nothing more serious will happen, for example a catastrophic cyberattack or the provision of plutonium drinks to key decision-makers in Malta?

Neutrality does not protect us

What I’m saying is that Malta’s neutrality does not protect us against anybody who is seriously intent on doing us harm.   This is where I part ways with my friend George Saliba, not because I do not believe in the idea of neutrality but simply because neutrality needs to be defended.

At the end of the day, the ultimate defence is our ability to resist foreign attacks.  Like Taiwan vis-à-vis China, equality of arms is impossible.  What deters the enemy is the threat of counter-attack on a scale that makes them think twice, and then again.  Sending roses (or Maltese capers and extra virgin olive oil) is not an option.  Malta cannot possibly resist any determined enemy. 

And so, this would bring us to whether we should be part of a defence alliance. That is, indeed, the elephant-in-the-room question  ̶   one that nobody in Malta wants to discuss.  So be it.  It hardly matters at the end of the day. 

If war comes, Malta will be involved one way or another, whether we like it or not.  On that occasion, somebody will decide on which side we will stand and how much we will suffer until, hopefully, we prevail.

Main photo: Alexkich/Adobe Stock