Savvy or Trump-cowed? Malta’s foreign policy choices deciphered

In a flash US special forces swooped in on Venezuela’s capital Caracas and kidnapped the country’s president, Nicolas Maduro. 

Pre-empted by bombing raids, Maduro’s capture was audacious and kicked off a chain of events that has upended an already precarious world order. 

But as the world slowly woke up to the news of Donald Trump’s decision to bomb Venezuela, across the Atlantic Ocean and into the Mediterranean Sea, Malta’s leaders remained silent. For more than 24 hours there was no official communication. When a statement was demanded by the media, it was austere, contained no condemnation and made vague reference to international law. 

And it was not a one off. In the days that followed, as Trump upped the ante on his ambition to acquire Greenland from Denmark—even by military force if necessary—the Maltese Government remained silent. 

The question is all too obvious. Is Malta’s foreign policy being conditioned by fear of retribution from an increasingly assertive and rogue Trump administration? 

A well-placed source within the foreign ministry, who was granted anonymity to speak freely about internal matters, provided an insight into the thinking going on at Palazzo Parisio in Valletta’s Merchant Street, as Malta navigates these complicated times. 

When the question was put to them, the source replied with another question: “Is it wrong to be tactful and avoid provoking retribution?” 

While not dismissing the concern, the same source emphasised that Malta’s primary motivation for exercising prudence is to preserve its image as a “credible interlocutor”. Moreover, Malta’s soft power is enhanced by the strength of its diversified economy which shields it, to a certain extent, from retribution. 

Indeed, a Central Bank of Malta (CBM) report last June on new trade tariffs introduced by the Trump administration showed that Malta had limited exposure to the US. Nonetheless, the report had concluded that while direct tariff exposure was low, uncertainty and slowing global demand will affect Malta. The CBM projected that GDP growth could experience a cumulative drag reaching 0.4 percentage points by 2027 as a result of the turmoil caused by US tariffs. 

This limited exposure gives Malta the space to act in a “savvy and prudent” manner, according to the source. 

“Over the past decades we have set our house in order, and we are not easily threatened by anyone, but Malta’s moves in foreign policy are noted and have consequences,” the source said. “You have to be careful to use the right words… there is a tactical element in this approach, even in order to achieve positive outcomes.” 

But does this approach not result in a loss of dignity, ultimately undermining Malta’s credibility as a principled nation?

Protecting soft power 

The answer, according to the source, is that speaking too much, all the time, could be counterproductive because it undermines the only soft power Malta has: “Being regarded as a trusted interlocutor and a bridge for dialogue.” 

This strategy did seem to bear fruit during Malta’s tenure presiding over the UN Security Council, when in 2023 it succeeded in presenting a resolution for humanitarian pauses and corridors during the war in Gaza, which was approved without US opposition. It was the first such resolution in the conflict—a rare feat even if its impact on the ground was short-lived and limited. Another spinoff was Malta’s role in the OSCE, where Foreign Minister Ian Borg was elected to chair the organisation in 2024 after Russia objected to Estonia taking over the presidency. 

“If we set out to condemn everyone and everything, we will lose the trust needed to take on such roles,” the source said, giving a glimpse of the soft strategy guiding Malta’s foreign policy choices. “We may be a small country in a world where might increasingly makes right, but it is better to achieve results at an ant’s pace than to squander our chance to serve as a bridge for dialogue.”

A question of pragmatism 

Malta chaired the OSCE in 2024, replacing Estonia after Russia objected to the Baltic state taking the helm of the organisation (Photo: OSCE)

But prudence is also accompanied by pragmatism, which may not always sit well with principle and ideology. On Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Malta has taken sides, making it clear that invading a sovereign country is a red line not to be crossed without consequences. But the same source notes that Malta has been more pragmatic than some other EU member states, which are “now stuck in their own rhetoric like a hamster in a wheel”. The official warned against raising rhetorical expectations beyond what the EU can actually achieve or deliver. 

Malta’s pragmatism saw it join an ad hoc alliance with countries like Italy, Bulgaria, and Belgium in opposing the use of Russian frozen assets to fund Ukraine. But still, while Malta publicly condemned Russia for invading Ukraine, it fell short of condemning the US attack on Venezuela and Trump’s declaration that he intends running the country and controlling its oil reserves, in flagrant disregard of international law. 

“We cannot condemn every episode happening in the world, because then you would have to be consistent and condemn every other country doing the same. In doing so, one ends up chasing the wind,” the source said.  

However, they did acknowledge discomfort with US actions in Venezuela. Nonetheless, the source said that by calling for respect to the principles of international law, Malta is applying the same yardstick for everyone.

Trump’s Greenland threat 

And then there is Malta’s complete silence in the face of Donald Trump’s renewed threats to take over Greenland from Denmark, even hinting at military action. The foreign ministry official invoked consistency: “If you speak out about Greenland, you have to express yourself on similar threats made by the US against Mexico, Cuba, and Colombia.” 

But Denmark is part of the EU and any act of war against it will unwillingly drag Malta into the equation. Silence may not be a judicious option. But the source insisted that Malta’s voice will be heard where it matters—within EU structures, which are expected to come up with a strong and common position. 

However, the source cautioned that it remains to be seen whether the EU will show the same unity and solidarity toward Greenland and Denmark as it did with Ukraine, especially in the face of Trump’s attempts to sow divisions in Europe, possibly by using the threat of differentiated tariffs. 

“We have to listen to Denmark rather than simply express our opinions,” the source added, pointing out that one major dynamic is the impact of this dispute on NATO, of which Malta is not a member. Denmark has shown willingness to talk with the US, while insisting on sovereignty. 

This does not mean Malta is unconcerned by the dawn of a new world order based on the doctrine that might is right; or by the risk of the world divided between great powers calling the shots in their respective spheres of influence. 

The concern in these dangerous times, however, demands “prudence and caution” rather than excessive “protagonism”, the source insisted, underscoring that respect for international law remains a fundamental principle.