Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1471185
maltatoday | SUNDAY • 19 JUNE 2022 OPINION 11 Malta at NATO REDUNDANT. You know what's coming next, so I'll limit myself to a single quote from Wednesday's paper: "When the Speaker called the vote on the changes being pro- posed by government, the Opposition did not call a division, which means they sup- ported the Bill." And once again – just like that, from one moment to the next; and without any form of explanation, that I have seen so far – the Nationalist Party abruptly turned its entire 'bioethics' policy-plat- form, clean on its head. (Until, I suppose, it finds another aspect of IVF to 'morally object' to: whereupon, the entire process will just play out, all over again, on an endlessly repeated loop.) Sorry, but… this can't exactly go on for- ever, you know. And yes, yes: I am per- fectly aware that this article may appear 'unbalanced', in that it only picks on the U-turns performed by one out of two par- ties… But there are two things I'd say to that: 1) it is undeniable that the PN's feats of political acrobatics are a good deal more 'surreal'– and therefore, more 'entertain- ing' – than Labour's; and 2) I actually in- tended to include a certain Labour Party U-turn in this article (hint: it involves a certain Facebook update by former PL President Jason Micallef: who once de- scribed environmental activists as 'ene- mies of the State'… only to suddenly, erm, 'become one himself'). But it deserves a whole article unto itself, so I have decided to save it for later. In any case, you can probably already see the connection between those two cases for yourselves. They are both examples of political 'yo-yoing', that quite frankly leaves the ordinary voters with no choice at all… on anything, really; but especial- ly, when it comes to the matters that they themselves 'hold dear to their own hearts', too. In the PN example, it might be those voters who (rightly or wrongly; not for me to say) still subscribe to the old 'Reli- gio et Patria' motif of the old Nationalist Party they were brought up to recognise. In Labour's case, it might be the sudden, ghastly realisation that… 'Woops! Aren't we now doing EXACTLY what we used to criticise PN governments for, in the not-so-distant past? And doesn't that mean that… erm… WE'RE the 'bad guys', now?!" Either way, however: it still leaves the ordinary voter facing the same dilemma. What is the point, anyway, in actually voting for a political party, that seems to literally flip-flop from one position – to its clean opposite, and then back again – in almost literally the time it takes to draw a single breath? And from that perspective: everything else about that last election result sudden- ly makes that much more sense, too. Not just the PN's catastrophic performance, of course… but – more significantly for Labour (and hence, I imagine, Jason Mi- callef's sudden panicky outburst) – also the inauspicious drop in voter turn-out… with all its possible future ramifications, for the current Labour government. There is, after all, a limit to how often you can take your own voters for a ride, before you end up losing their trust com- pletely. And I am sorry to have to conclude on such a dismal note, but: let's face it, both Nationalist and Labour Parties have am- ply surpassed that limit, years - if not dec- ades - ago… Frank Psaila is a lawyer specialising in international relations Frank Psaila PRIME Minister Robert Abela will attend an informal dinner on the fringes of a NATO summit this month in Spain. Concerns that Malta's participation at this event infringes upon Malta's neutrality, enshrined in our Constitution, do not hold. Dialogue is an important tool in the peaceful resolution of conflicts and Malta cannot, and should not, shy away from this role. More so, Malta is now a non-per- manent member of the United Na- tions Security Council, thus giving Malta a stronger political muscle in global events. Malta's neutrality stance is not, and should not, be considered as glorified fence-sitting. Faced with Russia's aggression of Ukraine, Malta, whilst remaining a neu- tral country, cannot be passive in front of flagrant breach of in- ternational law. Inaction is not a morally justifia- bly alternative. It never is. When two Lib- yan fighter jets landed on the Luqa runway in 2011, the Law- rence Gonzi ad- m i n i s t r a t i o n , faced with an u n p r e c e d e n t e d dilemma, and the eventuality of military aggres- sion by the then Libyan regime, refused an official request for the return of 'stolen' Libyan govern- ment property. That was the right thing to do. Malta's foreign policy strategy has, consistently, sought to create awareness on matters of human rights. It should remain so. There seems to be widespread agreement, across Malta's polit- ical divide, that striking off the neutrality clause from our Con- stitution remains off the cards. A survey published shortly before the war in Ukraine showed that 63% of the Maltese population is in favour of the island keeping that stance. Arguments for its rewording however, factoring in issues of peacekeeping, human- itarian assistance, and security matters ought to be taken into consideration. Malta's role, us- ing non-violent means to in vio- lent situations – as is the war in Ukraine – by providing medical care to Ukrainian refugees and the supply of food and medical items to the Ukrainian people, for instance, should continue to be encouraged. Malta's neutrality is not consid- ered to be an obstacle to the role Malta plays in the peaceful reso- lution of conflicts. Malta's seat at the UN Security Council is proof that the United Nations respects Malta's neutrality stance – as it does in the case of Ireland and Switzerland. NATO summit meetings nor- mally involve member coun- tries only. How- ever, and provid- ed Allies agree, n o n - N A T O countries are oc- casionally invited to participate – in other formats. Russian Presi- dent Vladimir Putin has only himself to blame for NATO's rein- vigoration – de- clared as becom- ing 'braindead' by French President Emanuel Macron in 2019. Russia's inva- sion of Ukraine is expected to top the agenda of the summit in Madrid on June 29-30. The NATO informal din- ner is an opportunity for Malta to put forward, as one of the small- est EU member countries, and as a Mediterranean country – now a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council, its perspec- tive on matters of international security. Malta's perspective adds value to the debate. It is another excellent occasion for Malta to voice its Euro-Med- iterranean concerns on the inter- national stage. Faced with Russia's aggression of Ukraine, Malta, whilst remaining a neutral country, cannot be passive in front of flagrant breach of international law