Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1494132
maltatoday | SUNDAY • 5 MARCH 2023 OPINION 11 Brendan Zerafa Neutrality, its obligation and limitations THE debate concerning the neutrali- ty clause found in the constitution of Malta has been ongoing for years, dec- ades even. Every time that the state has taken stances vis-à-vis international political issues, individuals who are in disagreement with such stances have often invoked constitutional neutrality to strengthen their arguments. However, when neutrality is invoked in relation to political issues and po- litical stances of the state, it is done so erroneously. This is because Malta's neutrality, as found in Article 1 (3) of the Constitu- tion, only deals with military neutrality and not political neutrality. While it is true that as things stand, Malta is pro- hibited from joining a military alliance such as NATO, the country was not prohibited from joining the European Union, which is a political and eco- nomic union. Obviously, we are talking as things stand today in this regard, for if the European Union develops into a feder- ation with its own military, then that might run counter to Maltese neutral- ity. With that being said, as things stand today, the EU has no army, and accord- ingly, membership in the Union is fully compatible with military neutrality. When it comes to making statements or taking stances in relation to issues such as Russian aggression in Ukraine, I would argue that Malta not only has a right but also has a duty to speak out. The international order is based up- on a set of rules that are accepted by all states, and once those set of rules start being broken left, right, and cen- tre, then anarchy takes over. Such a world of anarchy would be of consid- erable detriment to Malta in the long run. This is especially the case since in a world where might is right, the inter- ests of small states would end up being jeopardised in the interests of other larger powers. The way the neutrality clause is writ- ten, it is clear that it seeks to promote the international legal order. This is especially the case because of Article 1 (3) (b), which provides a number of exceptions when it comes to military facilities in Malta being used by for- eign powers. One of these exceptions concerns the pursuance of measures or actions de- cided upon by the Security Council of the United Nations, which Malta cur- rently presides. This is significant be- cause according to the Charter of the United Nations, resolutions of the Se- curity Council are binding on all states, and therefore they have the highest force of international law. Needless to say, although the Secu- rity Council has considerable power on paper, it is often rendered tooth- less owing to the veto provided to the five permanent members (the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China, and Russia). However, that is a debate for another day. When it comes to neutrality, one thing is clear: Malta's constitution obliges the state to actively pursue peace, and the pursuit of such peace requires all nations to follow interna- tional law. For this reason, the state is not on- ly morally right to condemn trans- gressions but is also arguably legally obliged to do so. Obviously, there are those who might disagree with neutrality as it stands to- day. Some might prefer it if Malta were to join NATO, for example. I, myself, am not one of these people. In fact, I believe that Malta's interests are best suited by being neutral, mili- tarily, as we are today. This is especially because Malta's neutrality clause does not prohibit the country from asking for assistance "whenever there exists a threat to the sovereignty, independence, neutrality, unity or territorial integrity of the Re- public of Malta". Accordingly, in the case of such events taking place, Malta can turn to- wards the European Union, even more so because the Mutual Defence Clause in the Treaty of the European Union obliges member states to help each other by all means in their power in case of armed aggression. Lastly, as stated in the Constitution of Malta, Malta is a country that is ac- tively pursuing peace. And that's why we are neutral militarily. However, military neutrality also needs to be complemented by strong political responses in relation to trans- gressions of international law in order for the international legal order which guarantees our neutrality to survive in the first place. And for this reason, I'm afraid I have to disagree with those who say that Malta should shy away from condemn- ing aggressors. by botanist Jeffrey Sciberras as having "a crucial role to play in pollination, apart from the importance garigue patches in urban areas have in absorbing rainwater, which otherwise ends up" – wait for it – "FLOODING THE ROADS[!!!]" Got that, folks? Three weeks after we were told that 'Project Green' is guided by principles that include, among oth- ers, 'flood-risk management', 'protect- ing biodiversity', and 'providing access to green spaces, for residents in dense- ly-populated urban areas'… … the Lands Department – which is ul- timately answerable to the same Labour government - goes ahead, performs an action which spectacularly contradicts all three of those lofty 'green' objectives, at once. Unfortunately, however, the Mellieha example is not the only one; nor even the most calamitous that we've seen recent- ly. For while the loss of precious 'green space' – to be replaced by more con- struction; more noise; more dust, etc. – will prove detrimental to the health (including mental health) of those Mell- ieha residents… it almost pales to insig- nificance, compared to some of the en- vironmental 'sacrileges' currently being performed in other parts of Malta and Gozo. Like my own, long-suffering neigh- bourhood of Gzira, for instance: now officially - as per the last National Census - the 'most densely populated, over-developed' town in the Maltese islands (which also makes it one of the most-densely populated parts of the en- tire planet, full-stop); and also, one of the most exposed to 'health inequalities', on account of its burgeoning traffic prob- lems (with all the related air-pollution). Right: I'll keep this part brief, because I've already written about it countless times before: but in Gzira, not only has the government failed to provide any new 'open green spaces', to compensate for all the public land we've already lost to the nearby Manoel Island project; but – as a result of that same project, please note – it is now in the process of 'snatch- ing away' a sizeable chunk of Gzira's only public garden, within a radius of around five miles: to hand it over to a private commercial operator, for sole purpose of building… … I kid you not… … a Petrol Station, of all 'un-Greenly' things! Which not just blatantly con- tradicts ALL the stated aims of Project Green, in the most 'in-your-face' way imaginable… but it even defies the same government's declared aim, to phase out 'ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) ve- hicles', by 2050! But in any case: already, I suppose, you can see what Kermit might have actually meant, by 'it's not easy being Green'. For while it's simple enough, to 'CLAIM' to be Green – by tagging that word onto all your projects and initiatives, for instance - 'BEING' Green also implies that you have to actually deliver on all those lofty Green promises, sooner or later. And if, so soon after having made those promises (and with such fanfare, too!), the government has not only 'failed to deliver': but actually delivered the clean opposite - 'Project Greed', instead of 'Project Green' - well, it sort of makes it slightly difficult for anyone to actu- ally BELIEVE any of this new-fangled 'Greenwash' bullshit… doesn't it? Dr Brendan Zerafa specialises in politics and international law, and holds an LLM in Diplomacy and International Law from Lancaster University Kermit The Frog sang so wistfully about all the difficulties he faced, as a direct consequence of his own skin-colour