The fact that the European Union’s resolution before the United Nations seeking a mandate to take military action against Libya’s networks of human traffickers has gone nowhere fast since EU leaders agreed to the controversial plans last April should be welcome news for the government.

That is because that particular course of action, including the possibility of boots on the ground in Libya and without the consent of either of Libya’s rival governments, presented nothing short of a serious constitutional conundrum for Malta and its constitutionally-enshrined neutrality. 

But that thorn in the side of the whole plan, at least as far as Malta is concerned, has been temporarily prevented, with the Home Affairs Minister confirming on Tuesday that the resolution before the UNSC has all but hit a brick wall, and he gave no indication as to whether he believes the UN would ever approve the mission.

The EU’s ongoing crackdown on human trafficking in the central Mediterranean is not, at least not yet pending the approval of the UN’s Security Council, a military mission, but the terms that were agreed upon by EU governments last April nevertheless leave the door wide open for military action in Libya.

Without entering into the somewhat dubious merits of the EU’s plans to stem the Mediterranean migration crisis by destroying human traffickers’ assets in Libya, the mission that Malta has signed on to was always questionable from a Maltese constitutional neutrality perspective.

At present the EU operation against human smugglers and traffickers in the Mediterranean, EUNAVFOR Med, is focusing on surveillance, the assessment of human smuggling and trafficking networks and rescue operations, EU leaders want that remit to be expanded to provide for the search and seizure of suspicious vessels, the destruction of vessels and apprehending traffickers and smugglers, and more should push come to shove.

But internal EU policy documents on the mission that were approved by all 28 member states, Malta included, specifically stated that military intervention on the ground in Libya will in all probability be required.

Push would theoretically come to shove when, as EU internal documents put it: “land operations in Libya might be needed and are not ruled out” on account of “militia and terrorist threats to the EU forces” in Libya and considering “the existence of heavy military armaments (including coastal artillery batteries) and military-capable militias present a robust threat to EU ships and aircraft operating in the vicinity. The terrorist presence in the region also constitutes a security threat. Action taken ashore could be undertaken in a hostile environment”.

But if direct military action is taken in Libyan waters or on Libyan soil, as envisaged by the operation’s rules of engagement, what would Malta’s position on its long-held constitutional neutrality be?

Given the rather unclear situation, it would have been opportune for the government to come forward with an explanation on the mission, on whether it considers it to be humanitarian in nature or an issue of national security and, if so, how it reconciles the terms of engagement allowing for military action with what is stipulated in Malta’s Constitution.

Malta’s constitutional neutrality is, after all, one of the country’s most cherished tenets of its statehood. But the government is treading a slippery slope by signing on to what can clearly be deemed a military action, not only by its nature but because of the fact that neither the Tobruk nor the Tripoli governments have endorsed any such action. As such, would boots on the ground by EU forces constitute an invasion of a sovereign state?

But perhaps the government knew all along that the UNSC would never give the mission a mandate, with permanent member Russia, which still accuses western states of having abused a 2011 resolution authorising NATO intervention in Libya to help remove Moammar Gaddafi from power, having said it would veto any such resolution.

Should the state of affairs change at the UNSC in the foreseeable future, and the EU is authorised to go down a more militarily-minded route, the government and the Constitution will both find themselves in a sticky situation.