Malta’s reapplication for inclusion in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation’s Partnership for Peace initiative represents a rekindled opportunity for both the Maltese government and the Armed Forces of Malta. It also represents the reinstatement of a crucial link missing from Malta’s diplomatic and military activities since its short-lived participation in the project was brought to a premature end in 1996.

In April 1995, shortly after the project was conceived by NATO in 1994, Malta joined the PfP – only for the newly installed Labour government to retract the membership in October 1996 on the ground that Malta’s constitutional neutrality was being impinged upon.

As such, the government’s recent, abrupt announcement that it had reapplied for membership in the project, shortly after a general election in which it held on to the reins of power by the most narrow of margins, took many by surprise.

While the advantages for Malta are clear, it is the reciprocal obligations expected from Malta that had split Maltese popular opinion when Malta signed on in 1995 – namely due to the questions of whether Maltese soldiers would be forced to participate in armed conflicts and whether Malta’s neutrality was at risk.

Malta’s PfP membership does not breach Malta’s independence or constitutional neutrality and the argument that PfP membership impinges on this neutrality fails to hold water. The PfP has for several years counted Europe’s other neutral countries – Austria, Ireland, Sweden and Switzerland – as members.

As per the PfP framework and the lines along which Malta is expected to negotiate its membership, participation would not lead Malta or its soldiers into armed conflicts, it would not lead to the basing of foreign troops in Malta, and would have absolutely nothing to do with a prospective NATO membership for Malta, which the government has given no intention of pursuing.

Moreover, and as per government and AFM policy, if Malta reaches a political decision to participate in any future PfP international crisis management operation – such as humanitarian or rescue operations – the involvement of any Maltese soldier would be on a completely voluntary basis.

Putting aside political arguments over the way in which the decision was reached, when it had been taken, why it was taken without public or parliamentary discussion and whether Malta faced particular pressure from the EU or the US to throw its hat back in the PfP ring, Malta undoubtedly stands to gain – both diplomatically and militarily – from the development.

And Malta’s membership is not yet etched in stone. It will be confirmed only after all PfP members approve the application, a process expected to take months rather than weeks or years.

The first tangible benefit is for the AFM, which would see its operational capabilities and its interoperability with other member states greatly enhanced through military exchanges, co-training and participation in joint or group military exercises with the other PfP and NATO countries in terms of humanitarian operations, search and rescue and preparedness for natural disasters and other emergencies.

The second benefit lies in classified information exchanged between the EU and NATO that Malta, as a non-PfP member, has not been privy to over the last four years of EU membership. As such, Malta will be able to take informed decisions on a political level with all the facts in hands and on an equal footing with other EU-PfP member states. At the political level, Malta will be able to fully participate in the EU’s Common Foreign Security Policy structures, with full access to NATO documents made available to the EU.

The government’s decision to reactivate its PfP membership, irrespective of the political considerations behind it, will right a wrong enacted in 1996, and is essential considering Malta’s new EU dimension and the interplay between the EU and NATO, where Malta has been left high and dry and unable to give a real, concerted input for the last four years.

The prospect of Malta once again being a PfP member state bodes well for its future representation and involvement in EU security affairs, as well as for the army’s continual development process.