During Dom Mintoff’s leadership of the Labour Party, the party’s foreign policy was based on neutrality and non-alignment, with an emphasis on the Mediterranean.

While our foreign policy was modelled on that of our neighbouring North African and Middle East countries, common historical and social roots with these countries were sought and developed.

Commercial interests and reasons of culture and identity were alas compounded to such an extent that no sufficient regard was given to whether the end-result did in fact correspond to the correct historical facts.

This was not done from some sinister motive, but for reasons of expediency and because certain facets of our history were then obfuscated. The expediency was created since it was assumed that the Arab and Islamic countries would treat Malta in a more favourable way if common aspects were emphasised.

Consequently, the economic development of the country was followed unabated, while the cultural issue and the question of identity were put on the back burner.

Neutrality and non-alignment are the appropriate positions that ought to continue to be pursued by Malta in foreign policy.

However, their interpretation is to be better coordinated with our constitutional history and cultural traditions. This in my opinion would result in a policy that would take into consideration inputs from the political experience of South American countries, in addition to that which has already been accepted from North African and Middle Eastern countries.

Of course after the cultural issue and the question of identity have been clarified, we should still seek to develop as much as we possibly could our commercial and trade relations with our neighbouring North African and Middle East countries, based on mutual interest rather than a supposed identity affinity.

The kernel of this position is that Malta embarked on the road of development much earlier than its neighbouring North African and Middle Eastern countries and more in consonance with that pursued by the South American countries.

We experienced, during the short-lived Napoleonic era, a veritable separation of state and Church – which is the first step towards the installation of a capitalist economy – with all the ideological consequences which this would give rise to. Similarly, the South American countries, which at that time were colonies of Spain and Portugal, during the turmoil of the Napoleonic wars initiated their course towards independence and political development.

The North African and Middle Eastern countries – on the other hand – had first to attain their independence in the 20th century, before initiating the process of separating the political state from civil society. This of course delayed the process considerably. After 1815 – under British rule - Malta reverted to crown colony status and thus the constitutional development which had taken place in the French period was so to speak hidden from us. But this institutional rupture could not be undone and things could not return to the position existing prior to the coming of the French in Malta – to that prevailing at the time of the Knights.

This interpretation is in agreement with what is said in our history books, that the Maltese came under British protection at their own request – meaning that they had already been then liberated from feudalism. Although such a stance is not in agreement with the policy of real politik – it is in agreement with how the Maltese felt at that time.

The Maltese however could only well and truly realise that they had been freed from the feudal system, only after the last colonial shackles had been broken in 1979, with the dismantling of the British military base. In the meantime our constitutional history had to develop for well over a century by fits and starts.

Mario Mifsud

Hamrun