Editorial • 28 September 2003

Neutrality and all that

The second coming and going of the US Navy ship La Salle has been a non-event, unlike the first time the ship visited the Drydocks for repairs, when all hell broke loose.
But there is a major lesson to be learnt here. Neutrality and non-alignment are non-issues for the vast majority of the population including devout Labourites.
It is in this context that the leaders of this country must find the courage to re-assess neutrality as drafted in the Constitution.
The atrocities in Bosnia-Herzegovina in the early nineties, Kosovo in the late nineties and September 11 have changed the meaning of military intervention and war.
Does it make sense to be neutral in face of mass murder? How can neutrality protect a country from the indiscriminate clutches of terrorists on a death wish?
When neutrality and non-alignment were entrenched in the Constitution in 1987 the world was a different place than it is today.
Besides, neutrality was used as a brokering chip by the Labour Party to push forward electoral reform demanded by the Nationalist opposition of the time. It is fair to say that the Nationalist Party would have done anything to secure electoral reform to prevent another perverse electoral result. The debate at the time was not exhaustive and impregnated with party political overtones.
Today, Malta 2003 has to contend with a neutrality clause that does little to reflect the times we are living in and worse than that there is a reluctance in the political class to debate the issue.
The biggest stumbling block is Labour’s unwavering position, which has made neutrality a central principle to the party. Not that neutrality is bad for the country but it has to be re-dimensioned to reflect the signs of the times.
Come next May, Malta will be joining a block of nations that is increasingly playing a major role on the world stage. We must not be engulfed by the changes, and this makes it imperative on us to be participants in the drafting of the EU’s common foreign and security policy.
Having a coherent national foreign policy is a must. Malta can use its central Mediterranean position and traditional peace-loving role to be a pro-active player for peace on the world stage. Having an active foreign policy on the same lines as Norway would immensely enhance this country’s stature.
Why shouldn’t this country be an active player in the Middle East crisis as a broker for peace? Why can’t the country make good use of its friendly relations with Libya to bring Europe closer to North Africa?
The answers to these questions have to emerge after a thorough, mature and widespread debate on Malta’s role in Europe and the world stage.