I think it would be a mistake if discussions about the possible updating of Malta's neutrality were to start from considerations regarding how much the island should be spending on its military and security commitments. These do constitute a vital factor in such a debate but starting from them would be like putting the cart before the horse.

An update of the neutrality concept - if there is truly a need for it: that's another factor which should be discussed - must commence with a clear explanation of what the political and diplomatic content of Maltese neutrality should be. This would then have to be related to the international realities of today and to Malta's membership of the EU. Subsequently, the conclusions would need to be framed in a security policy covering both internal and external concerns, as well as a defence doctrine that should certainly not be limited to the military dimension. It is at this stage that considerations about the financial allocation required for security and defence would arise.

In the group "Peace and Neutrality" that was set up by Sammy Meilaq we had made good progress along these lines. It's a pity that as far as I know, the group has become dormant.

***

SECTORS

Frequently reviews about the Maltese economy stay too general in their approach. From data that cover the economic growth rate as a whole, according to GNP benchmarks, wide conclusions are derived that assess whether such growth has been satisfactory.

However it is still important to track how the economy is performing in its differeent partitions. In each sector, a competitive logic applies according to rules that function differently from sector to secor. Links exist between diverse sectors that mutually reinforce how they grow or decline.

A separate analysis needs to be carried out of each sector's fundamental features, like its financing, what has been invested in it, its market base, the workers it employs, the wages it offers and the profit margins it sustains.

***

A DISHEVELLED NATO

It's difficult to recall a period when the NATO alliance could have been so confused as it seems to be today. This time the issue is not what the alliance should be doing about some external military challenge, as much as about the American position.

It has become clear that regarding the Ukraine, the Trump administration is quite prepared to calculate what needs to be done all by itself. If they wish, other NATO members could tag along with what it decides. "Worse" than this: with the new American emphasis on letting the Europeans take care of their own security, because the US wants to focus on other regions of the world, many of NATO's objectives are being undermined.

Mark Rutte, NATO's secretary general has a mammoth task ahead of him in the coming months to maintain the coherence of the military block he's managing (if "managing" is the proper word). Statements coming from Washington sound like a direct contradiction of proposals Rutte had already made in the short time he has been in his post, especially with regard to Ukraine  and to relations with Putin's Russia. Issues about how the Europeans have been spending or saving on defence do not by themselves explain why recently NATO has appeared to be in such a dishevelled state.