Political scientists have told The Malta Independent on Sunday that calls made by European Parliament President Roberta Metsola to boost the EU’s defence budget do not go against Malta’s neutral status.
Answering questions by this newspaper, Andre Debattista that her call does not contradict Maltese neutrality, and in terms of affecting it, “its impact on Malta’s neutrality will be minimal, if any at all,” he said.
Professor Roderick Pace said that “nothing should be allowed to impair Europe’s right to defend itself according to the UN charter.”
Metsola called for the European Union to increase the size of its defence budget in order to bolster EU defences in the face of increasing pressures near the EU’s external area. This proposal was put forward due to the series of conflicts in the Union’s vicinity plus the modern developments in hard power politics.
However, back home, Metsola’s suggestion stirred some debate. Prime Minister Robert Abela criticised this in public, stating that the Labour Party “wants peace, while others want war.” He also said that his party is more interested in investing in “people and peace”, calling this investment focus as “the key to economic and social progress.”
Nationalist Party leader Bernard Grech countered these comments last Sunday by endorsing Metsola’s call and saying that increasing Europe’s defence capabilities does not distort Malta’s constitutionalised neutrality.
Non-alignment does not impede humanitarian aid, it complements it
The Malta Independent on Sunday contacted two political scientists – Professor Roderick Pace (RP) and Andre Debattista (AD) – from the University of Malta’s Institute for European Studies to discuss Malta’s neutrality following suggestions made on the European Union’s defence by European Parliament President Robert Metsola, and the reaction in Malta.
1. European Parliament President Roberta Metsola has recently been promoting the notion that Europe must spend more on defence to "strengthen its defence industry and get practical about its strategic autonomy". Does her stand to increase EU defence spending go against or affect Malta's neutrality?
AD: I don’t believe this goes against Malta’s neutrality, and its impact on Malta’s neutrality will be minimal, if any at all. Roberta Metsola’s comments were given in her capacity as President of the European Parliament and, therefore, must be interpreted within that role. The European Union is becoming increasingly aware of its need to be more strategically autonomous and less dependent on some of its long-standing partners. Trump’s recent comments sent shockwaves across European capitals and must not be treated as empty threats given his history of unpredictable behaviour. The calls for greater strategic autonomy reflect the need for the EU to think of its own defence interests particularly given the changing dynamic in the Black Sea, the evolving situation in the Near East, China’s global posturing and the prospect of a second Trump presidency on the horizon.
RP: I agree with President Metsola’s call. Nothing should be allowed to impair Europe’s right to defend itself according to the UN charter. In a world where all the powers are rearming and modernizing their weapons, it is wise and prudent for the EU to strengthen its defence against all forms of threats. A credible defence deters aggression, makes potential hostile powers think twice before they act against us. Malta has often declared that its ultimate security guarantee is Article 42.7 in the EU treaty, a sort of mutual defence clause. But then it is only a well-prepared EU where all its member states are carrying their fair share of the collective defence burden, which can effectively honour this pledge.
European defence means more than just the defence of territory. It means defending our democratic institutions and way of life, the market economy and welfare state, the human and civil rights achievements which we enjoy. Malta’s neutrality cannot be unhinged from its security in the wider meaning of the term. The EU is also developing alternative energy resources, which puts it at the cutting edge of technological innovation and greener economies in the future. Malta needs to remain at the heart of all these developments.
2. Does Malta contribute to the EU's defence budget, and does increasing the budget contradict its constitutional refusal to participate in a military alliance?
AD: Defence remains primarily a national competence and the EU is not a military alliance in the same way that NATO is. Nonetheless, given the evolving nature of the security scenario, there is a need to collaborate on defence issues and security issues, without necessarily having to be part of a military alliance. The situation in Ukraine drives this point home. Moreover, given the political and economic interests of the EU, there will be times when its defence and security infrastructure will be under pressure due to these interests. In view of this, it would be entirely within Malta’s best interests to take part in such programmes. The Constitutional provision for neutrality was never intended to be a source of insecurity but, rather, as a guarantee that Malta does not form part of one military block or another in a highly charged security environment. Given the changing security scenario, Malta seems to be evaluating its options on a case-by-case basis under the over-arching umbrella of international law. This, I believe, is a good strategy.
RP: According to the European Defence Agency in 2022 Malta increased its defence spending by 7.2%. I do not have the figures for 2023. But Malta is one of the EU member states whose defence investment is below the benchmark. Increasing defence spending and investment is not contrary to a policy of neutrality. I have never read that self-defence is prohibited for neutral countries. We need to treat our armed forces as an important pillar of our democratic way of life.
3. Prime Minister Robert Abela has recently stated that his Labour Party "wants peace, while others want war", arguing that spending money on weapons contradicts the value of peace, and that his party prefers investing in people to foster economic and social progress. Meanwhile, PN leader Bernard Grech has endorsed Metsola's comments, comparing it to a bank hiring a security guard as a precautionary protective measure. What are your thoughts on these contradictory points? Within the neutrality context - who is correct in their points, i.e., is Metsola truly inciting for war or is her cry more like the security guard example?
AD: It is very sad to see that such a serious issue has been reduced to puerile political scoring by the two political parties, thereby betraying the more complex issues developing on Europe’s – our – border. Firstly, Roberta Metsola’s comments were made in her capacity as President of the European Parliament. Secondly, “war” has come to Europe through an illegal aggression on sovereign Ukrainian territory. Indeed, 2023 was a record year in terms of the EU’s defence budget spending. Thirdly, to invest in military and intelligence capabilities will only serve to strengthen the EU’s ability to respond to any future threats should (or when) they arise. Nor is the analogy with the security guard entirely correct; Europe faces these security threats as we speak. Whether or not one agrees with Metsola’s comments, there is a certain urgency in discussing where Europe stands in terms of its capabilities to meet its threats independently. This discussion is urgent and much needed. We dismiss or trivialise these debates at our own peril. This back-and-forth on serious complex issues is just another case of playing to the gallery.
Defence spending is not popular and hard to justify unlike other aspects of public spending such as health and education. Nonetheless, defence is imperative for the safe exchange of goods and services as well as political stability in both a country and in the wider region.
RP: I think that in these very uncertain times, with two full blown wars in the EU’s neighbourhood and the possibility of their expansion, we need less political rhetoric and more clear thinking. I think that what might have been intended was that there is a trade-off between increased spending on defence and other civilian goods such as health and education. Of course, this is hard to understand when at the same time so many millions are controversially spent in a dubious way. The EU’s quest for a stronger defence and strategic autonomy is not an incitement to war. I think that the whole of Maltese society is united in its commitment to peace and in general EU citizens abhor war. While building its defence capabilities, the EU insists with equal vigour on multilateralism in resolving regional and global issues and the peaceful resolution of conflicts, respect for Human rights, international law and borders. Malta could do more in this context by lobbying for greater democratic control of EU defence by increasing the powers of the European Parliament and national parliaments in the CFSP/CSDP. Our parliament has played a low-key role in international affairs but it needs to increase its activism for there is a lot more that can be done.
4. This week, a three-year-old Palestinian girl named Selah Hajras was flown to Malta to receive free medical treatment that was offered to her by the government after she suffered injuries from an Israeli airstrike that hit her house in mid-November. As humanitarian as this event may be, does the government's offer to provide free healthcare to a Palestinian girl technically contradict Malta's non-alignment stipulation in its neutrality clause?
AD: No, the Maltese neutrality clause is very clear – it is an “active” neutrality aimed at “actively pursuing peace, security and social progress among all nations.” I believe that the offer of humanitarian assistance does not contradict this but, rather, complements it.
RP: Free medical care to the victims of war does not soil our neutrality as much as doing nothing or being indifferent to human suffering wherever it occurs. That is why we should not allow neutrality to silence us in condemning the October 7 violence against Israeli citizens or in criticizing Israel for its disproportionate reaction and the killing and maiming of thousands of Palestinian civilians. We cannot just dismiss this as collateral damage, the end does not justify the means. And as the great German Philosopher Immanuel Kant wrote, the conduct of a war should be such as not to lead to so many grievances that the end of a war becomes in reality a temporary truce.
Hamas provoked this war and Israel has a right to self-defence but not a licence to kill. The laws of war need to be respected. The EU must continue to insist for an end to hostilities, a two-state, negotiated solution to the Palestinian question. The Palestinians have been dispossessed, thrown into exile, humiliated by both Israel, the West and its Arab ‘friends’ and it is more than overdue that justice is finally done to the Palestinian people. It is going to be tough. Religious radicalism is rampant on both sides and positions have hardened. But the EU has sufficient resources together with other powers, to give both communities, Israel and the Palestinians the guarantees they need for two states existing side by side in peace. The EU only loses credibility when it treats the question of Palestine differently from Ukraine.
5. How has Malta's neutrality affected its position within the UN Security Council?
AD: I think Malta’s neutrality is not viewed negatively; it is a state-of-fact and it has allowed Malta to develop a reputation as a non-partisan (in an international relations scenario) trusted interlocutor. At the UNSC, Malta is very ably led by Permanent Representative Vanessa Frazier who has a very difficult task of playing a balancing act at a very difficult and tense time.
RP: In my view Malta’s brand of active neutrality has allowed it to advance the cause of reconciliation on the hot issues of our time.
6. Neutrality was introduced during the Cold War period, albeit in its tail end. Since then, the geopolitical climate has changed, technology has advanced, and the world faces new/different threats. Hence, has neutrality become an outdated concept in the modern world? If not, is it headed in that direction, considering that Finland and Sweden have both done away with their neutral statuses in favour of joining NATO in light of Russian pressure? Could Malta potentially end up as the lone neutral EU Member State one day?
AD: I would argue that Malta’s history of neutrality pre-dates the Cold War. The Order of St John was famously neutral and promoted a policy of neutrality in Malta while, at the same time, not rescinding on its role in the region. This, in many ways, was a wise and sound policy to adopt.
The current provision on neutrality was introduced at a time of political tension and as a way of solving some political deadlock. The current wording in the constitution is clumsy and somewhat outdated. Moreover, as you rightly point out, technology has advanced and there are several new threats which differ considerably from the 1989 scenario. Nonetheless, despite the different changes in political administrations in Malta, neutrality has remained in place and there seems to be consensus – albeit an unwritten one – that neutrality serves Malta well. Therefore, I don’t envisage a change in this policy.
Moreover, given our propensity to politicise every single aspect of the debate, I fear that reigniting a political debate on neutrality may lead to the usual partisan tit-for-tat which would end up devaluing what is a very important issue.
In many ways, neutrality is consistent with the way several other small-states and small island-states behave in the international system. Neutrality is seen as the perfect guarantee against being embroiled in a conflict or in a military bloc which may have broader interests which may not always align to those of the small state. International law, rather than military might, is seen as the best guarantee for such states. This does not mean that the small state remains unaffected or should remain passive, but, rather, that the small state requires a certain degree of flexibility to navigate the complex dynamics of regional security while defending a multilateral system.
War in Ukraine and the unfolding conflict in Israel/Palestine has reignited the debate since it has brought war closer to home. What is certain is that even countries with a long-standing tradition of neutrality, such as Switzerland, have consented to the imposition of some sanctions. Moreover, humanitarian assistance has also been prized above everything else, suggesting an often-overlooked aspect of security – that of human security.
In other words, neutrality should not be equated with passivity or pacifism; it is rather a “means to an end” – and parts of the neutrality clause in the Constitution make this amply clear. This, I believe, should be one of the guiding principles in terms of Malta’s neutrality clause.
Within the EU, Austria and Ireland are also neutral and I think the dynamic there is different from the one experienced in Sweden and Finland. For the time being, I do not think Malta will end up being alone in adopting a neutral stand.
RP: In the history of international relations, neutrality has always been an ambiguous concept. From neutrality in times of war it has morphed into permanent neutrality and nonalignment. But the neutral states have often usurped neutrality and behaved awkwardly to maintain their security. Neutrality on its own does not guarantee a state’s security and we have seen how the Nazis bulldozed through neutral Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg and the Netherlands at the start of world war two and how the Soviet Union swallowed neutral Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in 1939 as part of the Ribbentrop-Molotov agreement which contained secret protocols on how the two powers were to divide among themselves Poland and other states in central and Eastern Europe. Students of International Relations are usually exposed to Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War written around 400 years before Christ where he recounts how the neutral city-state of Melos was swallowed up by Athens, then a great power, after diplomacy failed to produce a peaceful outcome. We have to understand the limitations of neutrality.
However, as a small state with negligible military power, no imperialistic ambitions Malta needs to be active with like-minded states in pursuit of international peace, be a friend to all, a foe of none. However, we also need to keep in mind that our security can ultimately only be safeguarded by countries with whom we share fundamental values of human rights, democracy and the rule of law.
It is impossible to predict whether Malta might eventually end up as the only EU neutral member state which would also mean that Austria and Ireland will have switched over to NATO just as Finland and Sweden have done. It all depends on the political context at any given time. For the moment the Maltese support neutrality.