The success of Malta’s future neutrality policy will depend, to a large extent, on the wisdom and prudence of its politicians. In periods of great turmoil, as the one we are experiencing now, their challenge will be to continue steering the country away from potential conflicts while adopting a friendly approach to all nations without surrendering any of the United Nations and EU core values we adhere to: sovereignty, territorial integrity, peaceful resolutions of conflicts, peace, security, development, democracy, human rights and rule of law.
Last year, months before Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered his forces to invade Ukraine, two out of every three Maltese believed that Malta should remain neutral. Have the Maltese changed their mind?
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has shifted public opinion in Sweden and Finland. The majority of Swedes and Finns used to be against joining the US- led military alliance of NATO. Now the majority are in favour. But most citizens in three other neutral countries in Europe: Ireland, Switzerland and Austria, are still in favour of remaining neutral.
There are 21 countries in the world that declare themselves neutral either as a voluntary and unilateral constitutional obligation or as part of a previous treaty or peace agreement. The 21 countries are: Austria, Costa Rica, Finland, Ireland, Japan, Liechtenstein, Malta, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Moldova, Panama, Rwanda, San Marino, Serbia, Singapore, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Vatican.
120 countries are members (another 17 countries are observers) of the Non-Aligned movement which means that they have adopted an independent policy based on the coexistence of states with different political and social systems. They consistently support national independence movements. They do not belong to any military alliance or host foreign military bases involved in great power conflicts.
So, 158 out of 193 states in the world are either neutral or non-aligned or both and do not belong to any military alliance involved in great power conflicts.
In its Constitution Malta declares itself to be both neutral and non-aligned, “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.” This means that “no foreign military base will be permitted on Maltese territory” and that “no military facilities in Malta will be allowed to be used by any foreign forces.”
But the Constitution also makes clear that the Government of Malta can allow foreign military forces into Malta as “self-defence in the event of any armed violation of the area over which the Republic of Malta has sovereignty” and “whenever there exists a threat to the sovereignty, independence, neutrality, unity or territorial integrity of the Republic of Malta.”
The Government of Malta can also allow Malta to be used by foreign military forces “in pursuance of measures or actions decided by the Security Council of the United Nations.
Moreover the Constitution restricts the use of local shipyards by naval ships. It specifies that “the shipyards of the Republic of Malta will be used for civil commercial purposes, but may also be used, within reasonable limits of time and quantity, for the repair of military vessels which have been put in a state of non-combat.”
In accordance with the principles of non-alignment, it prohibits the use of local shipyards for the construction of military vessels “of the two superpowers”, the United States and the Soviet Union.
Since our Constitution was amended 35 years ago to include our unilateral and voluntary neutrality and non-alignment obligations, the world has changed. A veteran diplomat says: “It was tailored for the international situation at the time, based on neutrality in a confrontation between the two superpowers at that time: the USA and the Soviet Union which has since then ceased to exist. Does it refer to China today? Does it refer to a dispute between a superpower and a state that is not a superpower?
Since those days Malta's strategic position in military terms has greatly diminished. Ships do not need frequent bunkering, the range of missiles is vastly superior, and they can be fired from aircraft and seacraft far away from any land base.”
The tale of two countries
Another crucial change came with Malta’s membership of the European Union which is currently in the process of developing a Common Foreign and Security Policy. On May 1, 2004, Malta withdrew from the Non-Aligned Movement when it became a full member of the European Union. If through its Common Foreign and Security Policy, the EU forms its own European army and military capability, what implications will that have for our neutrality? Is neutrality an objective-in-itself, or a means of, in the words of our Constitution: “actively purs[uing ] peace, security and social progress among all nations”? Is neutrality as defined in the Constitution 35 years ago the best way to pursue these goals?
In the case of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, we have made it clear that our military neutrality does not stop us from taking side, in accordance with the principles of sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and the peaceful resolution of disputes. But it stops us from participating militarily.
In the last 18 years, more than any other neutral EU member state, Malta has declined from participating in the EU’s military operations. When the EU used the framework of the European Peace Facility to vote to send weapons to Ukraine to defend itself against the Russian invasion, Malta did not veto the decision, which requires a consensus. But nor did it send any lethal weapons and instead sent humanitarian aid.
Another neutral member state, Austria, also declares in its Federal Constitutional Law (Neutrality Act) that it “will not join any military alliances in the future and will not permit the establishment of military bases by foreign states on its territory.”
Austrian constitutional experts believe that Austria’s neutrality has been de facto ‘narrowed’ with the country’s membership of the EU and other constitutional decisions adopted since then. Since 1995 Austria has updated its Federal Constitutional Act, stating that “Austria shall participate in the common foreign and security policy of the European Union on the basis of Ch. 1 and 2 of Title V of the Treaty on the European Union, as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon, in particular Articles 3(5) and 21(1) …”. This includes tasks (Art. 43(1) involving “civilian and military means” as well as sanctions through restricting or terminating economic and financial relations with a third country or more. Art. 50(4) applies to decisions of the European Council on common defence.
In the light of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, 50 prominent Austrians – scientists, diplomats, authors and ex-politicians - have written an open letter to the Federal President Alexander van der Bellen calling on him to have independent experts examine whether Austria's "neutrality" is still up-to-date in today’s world. Is it time for a similar initiative in Malta?
We must not simply imitate other countries. We need to think for ourselves and keep our geopolitical reality in mind, protecting our prosperity, and our values in an extremely polarised world where we strive to have good relations with as many different countries as possible. We are at the centre of the Mediterranean Sea that touches the continents of Europe, Africa and Asia. We need to stay on good terms with all three of them.