Ambassador of Malta to France Carmelo Inguanez has raised questions about neutrality in today’s world.

The Department of Information published a speech which Inguanez was going to deliver during a Victory Day ceremony scheduled for 6th September, but which, due to adverse weather conditions, took place in a reduced manner.

 “I shall speak from my own perspective. A man who always felt proud to represent his country and the Maltese identity in various cities of the world, including in New York as a Permanent Representative to the United Nations. A man who has worked in almost every corner of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs during a period of 35 years of service, of which 23 years he spent abroad. A man whose work has brought him to meet people from all over the world, of different cultures, religions, and sensitivities. Therefore, my speech cannot but touch on themes of international relations. From the outset I would like to make it clear that what I have to say are my thoughts, and mine alone. In no way can they be considered as any form of official or political direction of the Government, much less so that they bind the Government’s administration or the Government itself,” he said.

 In his speech, he touched upon the topic of neutrality.

 “Contrary to what one might think, I believe that Malta's sovereignty has increased and not decreased when it joined the European Union. To share a piece of your sovereignty with others, and for others to share their sovereignty with you, in certain areas, is an exercise that leads to a wider and deeper sovereignty. Whatever the cost of Malta's membership in the European Union - in any form of price - I am convinced that in the present times, Malta cannot remain alone, or in any weaker and less binding agreement.”

 “Europe is facing an existential question. What does Europe want? Does it want to remain a fully-fledged player and independent actor on the world stage, with a distinct vision and policy of its own? Or does it want to relegate itself and define itself, at best, as an important witness or spectator of the rivalry between the great global powers, or at worst, to be the continent where these superpowers play their game? It is my conviction that Europe has the historical responsibility and the necessary means and resources to be one of the main centers of action and influence in a multipolar world. It seems that the move in this direction has already started and was accelerated by the war in Ukraine. It seems that not only the path is one of European industrialization, of advanced technological independence but also of economic independence in the broadest of terms. More than that, it seems that in this same direction, Europe is looking at another enlargement that could lead to a European Union made up of 35 members.”

 “It is a fact that the European Union of the future cannot work with the rules of today's Union. There is already an informal but strong discourse, that in order for Europe to be able to act efficiently and effectively, when it relates to the procedures by which decisions are taken in the common foreign and security policy, these decisions would no longer be taken by a unanimous vote. What value do we have as a neutral state if the decisions in the European Union will be taken by majority voting? I am saying this because it is logical to expect that in case of the removal of unanimity, the option of constructive abstention will also be removed, because there would no longer be a need for it. If this happens, one must question whether the concept of neutrality would become superfluous given that Malta would have to obey and respect decisions taken by majority voting irrespective of its neutrality. There is a chance, although I feel it is small, that there could be some kind of compromise in the sense that the Union maintains in some form, the concept that exists today of the spirit of solidarity with the decisions agreed upon. But even if this were to happen, the fact remains that the probability is that the countries constitutionally bound to neutrality will be in an awkward position as to how to reconcile the aspects of European common foreign and security policy with their constitutional provisions,” he said.

 “Undoubtedly neutrality makes sense when there are disputes between two states. I doubt neutrality would be effective when it is the neutral country itself that is caught up in disputes or threats. It is a greater unknown, when there is a case of violation of the fundamental principles of the United Nations Charter. Because this concept, as beautiful as it is, as noble as it is, depends more on the will of other states than of yours. This is not a matter of not wanting peace in the world. Of course, we want peace in the world, and we should work for it. But we cannot fail to recognize that the world has changed; when the present is not like the past, and when the future will also be different from today. If we are not dynamic, even in our thinking, we will lose every sense of agility in our foreign policy. I am sure that Malta will not be afraid of any discussion in this regard. I am confident that our country will welcome this challenge with an open mind and study our priorities well with the aim of turning this challenge into a net advantage for our country, as it has always done.”