The announcement by the government that Malta will not be used as a base for military aircraft in the no-fly zone operation has been met with mixed reactions.

There are many who have received the news with undisguised relief for various reasons: Our uncomfortable close proximity to Libya, the fear of reprisals by Gaddafi and the potential harm to our crucial tourism sector. The last fear is not completely unfounded as there have already been reports of small conferences being cancelled.

Those who have criticised the Prime Minister for his decision, on the other hand, have objected to him invoking the neutrality clause, as they feel the government is simply using this as a feeble excuse. They point out that not only does the UN resolution circumvent this clause in our Constitution, but that Malta should play a more active part in ousting Gaddafi as a matter of principle.

The very word ‘neutrality’ of course also triggers a Pavlovian response in many people who equate the concept with the Labour administration led by Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici. Prior to the 1987 elections, the neutrality clause was inserted into our Constitution on the request of the Labour party in exchange for agreeing to changes in our electoral law which guaranteed a majority of parliamentary seats to a party gaining an absolute majority of electoral votes.

The strong vociferous reaction to the neutrality card being played by the Nationalist government is therefore being seen as a slap in the face to those who voted for the Nationalist party and who have been vehemently against this clause since day one.

Apart from how the government’s announcement has been met by the Maltese, we must bear in mind that this is all being played out on the international stage. In fact, all eyes immediately swivelled towards Malta after the Prime Minister’s statement, and pointed questions started being asked. The most stinging question came straight to the point: Was Malta showing solidarity with Gaddafi? If one looks at foreign media reports it is easy to see how people are jumping to this conclusion.

First of all, there is a factually incorrect statement being quoted by several international sources that “Britain also has bases in Malta” (Agence France Presse) and that there are “NATO bases in Sicily, Malta and Crete” (Cyprus Mail website). This misleading information needs to be corrected at once by the Maltese government because it makes Malta’s decision not to be used as a base sound even worse. If it is not corrected it will continue to circulate and be picked up by other media until it becomes a ‘fact’.

Secondly, there is the continued perception of Malta’s “special” relationship with Libya which has been reinforced by Libya’s request for Malta to be one of the observers to oversee a ceasefire. This request has also cast many doubts on where Malta stands in all this. While it is appreciated that the Prime Minister needs to use discretion and while one understands his calls for prudence, this is yet another matter which needs to be clearly and openly addressed by the government, if only to set people’s minds at rest.