Vera maghandomx xghamlu (they really have nothing better to do) were the words that sprang to mind, when I read the story about the soldier who ate a poisonous beetle for a bet.

When I am finding it difficult to decide what to write about with so much happening in the world around us, our soldiers are running bets on whether to digest a beetle.

I am sure the soldier had no idea that he was putting himself in danger and had no clue that the beetle was poisonous. I do feel sorry for the poor lad and hope he recovers soon.

But really one has to question the IQ of our armed forces. Do we really expect schoolboy pranks from men who are meant to be part of our security service?

Having said that, I am sure that it is not only our army that has its fair share of immature young men who get themselves into trouble, but I get the feeling that our army has no sense of purpose.

I wondered whether that was down to our neutrality. After all soldiers are trained for combat and if our Constitution tells us that we refuse to take part in a war between other powers, the only reason for having an army is to defend our island.

Unfortunately though our army is neither trained or equipped enough to do that. That is why our men in the army lack a sense of purpose.

Being neutral, I assume means not taking sides. But our Prime Minister has declared that Gaddafi’s position was no longer tenable, meaning we have taken a stand against him.

Malta has condemned the Gaddafi regime for killing and shooting civilians from the beginning of the uprising and its condemnation was clear.

However, our government has cited the neutrality clause in the Constitution, which makes it clear that no foreign military base will be permitted on Maltese territory and that no military facilities in Malta may be used by any foreign forces.

Unless of course we actually ask for it because we are threatened.

A state of neutrality also states, “Belligerents may not invade neutral territory.” But how can one ensure that a belligerent does not do that. It amuses me that some people think that we are out of danger because we cite neutrality.

They remind me of the UK local councils which were declaring their areas as a non-nuclear zone in the eighties. As we have seen from the Japan nuclear crisis, such complex issues are far reaching and never predictable, neither is aggression from a besieged neighbour.

In the case of Libya, the current crisis has shown that so far the only belligerence Gaddafi has shown has been towards his own people. He threatened that he was going to show “no mercy and no pity” towards the people of Benghazi and make “everyone’s life hell”.

However, Gaddafi also threatened, “Military intervention would lead to military and civilian air and sea traffic in the Mediterranean being targeted. “The Mediterranean basin will be exposed to grave danger, not just in the short term but also in the long term,” he warned.

So it is no wonder that Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi and Opposition leader Joseph Muscat have taken a common stand on putting national safety as the country’s top priority and have exerted “the need for prudence” in the ongoing Libya uprising.

However, under the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, neutrality, as a permissive legal status, disappears for those members that the Security Council “calls upon” or requires in specific instances to take military or other measures of coercion against an aggressor (Articles 41, 48).

So is Libya an aggressor? Its regime towards its own people certainly, but as to outside Libya do threats count as aggression?

Our government and the Opposition are not the only ones worried by Gaddafi’s threats. The UK’s Justice Secretary Ken Clarke also warned that Gaddafi might seek “revenge”.

He said yesterday that Britain has a real interest in stopping Col Gaddafi staying in power in Libya and seeking revenge.

He cited the Lockerbie bombing − in which 270 people died in 1988 − saying people in Britain remembered the “curse of Gaddafi”.

“Gaddafi back in power, the old Gaddafi looking for revenge, we have a real interest in preventing that,” he told The Guardian.

Mr Clarke said he thought the British people would support the action “as long as they are satisfied we are doing it for reasons we said, and we are not getting ourselves into the occupation of another complicated tribal country of uncertain politics”.

Yet, the UN resolution precludes direct attacks on Gaddafi. But the whole issue is murky. Nato is taking over control of enforcing the no-fly zone in the coming days.

That would mean Nato also attacking Col Gaddafi’s ground forces if they were seen to be threatening civilians.

Besides as Clarke stated he was not “totally convinced anyone knows where we are going now” and he is not the only one. There are some who think that the only solution is to get rid of Gaddafi but most are being cagey about that and since the no-fly zone does not include attacking Gaddafi, there is an impasse.

Few would relish a divided Libya with Gaddafi still in power in Tripoli but if the coalition led by Nato follow the UN resolution to the letter, they can only go as far as protecting civilians.

Getting back to our predicament, as the Prime Minister rightly said, Malta only had one airport, a “national asset”, which could not be endangered. My fear is that our neutrality will not save us if Gaddafi decides he wants revenge for us even saying he should go.

Anyway, is neutrality still viable and what does it really mean? An argument for neutrality is that one must be ready to be highly militarised, like Switzerland or Sweden. The latter is reputedly the oldest neutral country in the world, but is it?

Sweden, which is part of the European Union, has a conscript army. By 2014, it will have around 50 000 soldiers in either full-time or part-time duty, with eight mechanised infantry battalions instantly available at any time and the full force of 67 battalions ready to be deployed within one week, which includes participation in international operations.

Sweden remains committed to keeping its forces in war-torn Afghanistan. So is it truly neutral?

Switzerland is the second oldest neutral country in the world and it also has conscription; it has not fought a foreign war since its neutrality was established by the Congress of Vienna in 1815. Its army is designed to ensure external security.

Since 1989, there have been several attempts to curb military activity or even abolish the armed forces altogether. A referendum on the subject was held in1989 and, although defeated, did see a significant percentage of the voters in favour of such an initiative. However, a similar referendum, called for before, but held shortly after the 9/11 attacks, was defeated by over 77 per cent of voters. The Swiss army has been part of several peacekeeping missions around the world, so again, is it really neutral?

Keeping the peace abroad, more often then not means getting involved in armed conflict. By comparison, our state of neutrality is recent and we are certainly not highly militarised. Malta’s neutrality was established in its Constitution in 1987. It states: “Malta is a neutral state actively pursuing peace, security and social progress among all nations by adhering to a policy of non-alignment and refusing to participate in any military alliance.

“Our army has the responsibility for the security and integrity of the Maltese Islands in peacetime and in a crisis. Its objectives are to maintain a military organisation with the primary aim of defending the Islands’ integrity. This it does by emphasising on the maintenance of Malta’s territorial waters and airspace integrity.”

But realistically it does not have the military power to enforce it. If we ever come under attack we are going to need all the help we can get. Therefore, while our non-alignment means we refuse to participate in any military alliance, we are certainly going to need foreign military alliance to help us out.

So do we need an army? Liechtenstein has been neutral since its army was dissolved in 1868. But can it be really neutral since joining the United Nations and the European Union?

The neutrality of some countries now in the European Union has been under dispute for a while, especially as the EU operates a Common Foreign and Security Policy.

The Finnish Prime Minister, Matti Vanhanen, supported this view five years ago, while speaking to the European Parliament as Council President,

“Mr Pflüger described Finland as neutral. I must correct him on that: Finland is a member of the EU. We were at one time a politically neutral country, during the time of the Iron Curtain. Now we are a member of the Union, part of this community of values, which has a common policy and, moreover, a common foreign policy.”

Outside Europe, Costa Rica has been a neutral country since 1949, after abolishing its military. Nonetheless, aside from the regular forces belonging to the Civil Guard and the Rural Guard, there are paramilitary organisations in Costa Rica.

The United States, Panama, Venezuela, South Korea, Taiwan, Israel, Japan, Argentina and Spain all provide them with military assistance. The Kissinger Report proposed that the US train and organise Costa Rica’s police. This would probably amount to creating an army that, sooner or later, could put an end to the country’s neutrality.

[email protected]