Acting Labour leader Charles Mangion’s declaration on Freedom Day that his party does not rule out amending the neutrality clause in the Constitution breaks one of the party’s long-standing foreign policy taboos.

Malta’s neutrality in the Constitution 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. Such a status will, in particular, imply that: (a) no foreign military base will be permitted on Maltese territory; (b) no military facilities in Malta will be allowed to be used by any foreign forces except at the request of the Government of Malta, and only in the following cases: (i) in the exercise of the inherent right of self-defence in the event of any armed violation of the area over which the Republic of Malta has sovereignty, or in pursuance of measures or actions decided by the Security Council of the United Nations; or (ii) whenever there exists a threat to the sovereignty, independence, neutrality, unity or territorial integrity of the Republic of Malta; (c) except as aforesaid, no other facilities in Malta will be allowed to be used in such manner or extent as will amount to the presence in Malta of a concentration of foreign forces; (d) except as aforesaid, no foreign military personnel will be allowed on Maltese territory, other than military personnel performing, or assisting in the performance of, civil works or activities, and other than a reasonable number of military technical personnel assisting in the defence of the Republic of Malta; (e) 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 or for the construction of vessels, and in accordance with the principles of non-alignment the said shipyards will be denied to the military vessels of the two superpowers.

A brainchild of Dom Mintoff who envisioned Malta’s role as a Switzerland in the Mediterranean back in 1958, neutrality was enshrined by a Labour government in the Maltese Constitution in 1987 in a tit-for-tat deal with the Nationalist opposition in return for accepting the notion of majority rule in the same Constitution.
A convert to neutrality by necessity rather than conviction, the Nationalist Party, which before 1971 wanted Malta to join NATO, refrained from any formal attempt to change the status quo after being elected in 1987.
Yet by opening Malta’s ports to continuous visits by military vessels, even those participating in the US war in Iraq, and twice applying to join NATO’s Partnership for Peace, its commitment to neutrality was always suspect.
Back in 2001, the PN government also clashed with the militant wing of the General Workers’ Union, which objected to repair works on the US military ship the USS La Salle citing the Constitutional ban on repair works on the ships belonging to the two superpowers, a full decade after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Yet since any constitutional change requires a two-thirds majority, Labour is in now in the comfortable position of setting the agenda on the necessary changes by dictating its own terms. In so doing Labour can assume a leadership role just a month after losing the election.

Setting the agenda
The Constitution’s major shortcoming is the reference to the two superpowers in a clause which denies access to vessels belonging to the United States and the former Soviet Union to the Maltese shipyards.
Yet in amending this part of the Constitution, the MLP must choose between a more open or a more restrictive interpretation of Malta’s neutrality.
The MLP could choose to remove any reference to superpowers, effectively removing any obstacles to repair works on the US fleet in the dockyard. But it could also choose to keep the restriction on repair works to the fleet of the remaining superpower. Another plausible solution is to restrict access to vessels involved in military action which lack the approval of the United Nations.
The other major lacuna is the absence of any reference to Malta’s participation in peacekeeping or humanitarian missions.
By updating the passé reference to the two superpowers, the MLP can dispel the notion that its foreign policy is a relic of the past. In doing so it could be effectively safeguarding the essence of Maltese neutrality, whose relevance increased with the US war on terror, and the illegal invasion of Iraq.
The MLP can also convincingly argue that neutrality gives a small nation like Malta greater legitimacy to its role as a bridge between the European and the Arab shores of the Mediterranean Sea.
Labour could also use this historic moment to enshrine constitutional safeguards regulating Malta’s participation in peacekeeping and humanitarian missions. Such participation is already envisioned in the Lisbon Treaty and by Malta’s application to rejoin NATO’s offshoot for former Soviet states, the Partnership for Peace (PfP).

Defence concerns
The Lisbon Treaty foresees that Member States can make available civilian and military resources to the Union for the implementation of its Common Security and Defense operations.
However, any Member State has the right to oppose such operations and all contributions to them will be always on a voluntary basis. By joining the PfP, Malta can also join humanitarian and peacekeeping missions on a voluntary basis.
So far the Constitution does not say a word on Malta’s participation in these missions, leaving the door open for the participation in military actions camouflaged as humanitarian interventions. By requiring the rubber stamp of the United Nations for any such mission, the MLP could close the doors for any such eventuality.
As it stands, the Constitution already allows Malta’s military participation in actions approved by the United Nations’ Security Council.
Whether Labour’s move will be perceived as a betrayal of a core Labour principle and a second major U-turn in the party’s foreign policy, will depend on the wording of the MLP’s proposal.
Education secretary Wenzu Mintoff, who was the first Labour exponent to express a willingness to discuss this issue “without any ideological hang-ups” – has set two parameters which address the concerns of those who fear that the erosion of neutrality will pave the way to capitulation to EU interests.
In an interview with MaltaToday Mintoff insisted that any changes should not result in Malta becoming “a lap dog of the world’s only remaining superpower” and that Malta “gives priority to Third World issues.”
In this sense Malta’s passive neutrality could be transformed into an active one – a sort of neutrality which is more in tune with civil society’s concerns on human rights, environmental sustainability and global social justice.
Charles Mangion also referred to “new economic superpowers that could potentially be military superpowers” – a definition which would could apply to emergent powers like China.
The debate on Malta’s neutrality made the headlines after the government announced it had applied to rejoin the PfP, days after winning the general election by a whisker and without consulting the opposition.
So far the MLP’s major objection to PfP membership has dealt with the method rather than the substance of joining the NATO offshoot. The MLP has now counter-attacked by throwing the ball back in the government’s court by offering its disposition to change the Constitution.
In so doing the MLP has also broken with a far more dangerous taboo – that of opposing everything without proposing anything.

jdebono@mediatoday.com.mt