Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1533839
2 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 30 MARCH 2025 ANALYSIS KURT SANSONE ksansone@mediatoday.com.mt NEUTRALITY may mean different things to different people but a careful reading of the Constitution shows that it is not as iso- lationist or limiting as many believe. Indeed, some of the wording used has be- come historically obsolete – the concept of non-alignment with 'the two superpowers' as defined in the Cold War era. The Constitution is clear that no foreign military base could be set up but it does not bar the use of Maltese military facilities by foreign forces at the invitation of the gov- ernment in defined instances. But contrary to popular belief, the Con- stitution makes no specific reference to the Armed Forces of Malta's participation in military or peacekeeping missions. The only inference is the opening section, which de- fines Malta as a neutral state "actively pur- suing peace, security and social progress". The Constitution also ignores the post-2004 reality of Malta being part of the EU. The neutrality clause (Subsection 3 of Article 1) was added to the Constitution in January 1987 as part of a quid pro quo arrangement to introduce amendments to ensure that the party with the absolute ma- jority of votes is ensured victory in an elec- tion. Since then, it has never been amended. The following is a sentence-by-sentence explainer of the neutrality clause to try and understand the limitations, the opportuni- ties and the problematic aspects. The Constitution (Subsection 3 of Article 1) GENERAL PRINCIPLES What the Constitution says: (3) Malta is a neutral state actively pur- suing 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: Explainer: This part defines the general principles upon which neutrality is based. The key words are: "actively", "non-alignment" and "military alliance". Malta has an active obligation to pursue peace but also security among all nations. Malta has no obligation to remain aloof in front of world events that lead to aggres- sive action or threats against other states. The Constitution does not stop Malta from taking an active stand against Russian and Israeli aggression in Ukraine and Gaza, re- spectively. In its widest interpretation this allows the Armed Forces of Malta to be part of inter- national military missions if these are in- tended to pursue "peace, security and social progress". Nonetheless, the principle of active neu- trality is qualified by non-alignment and a ban on participation in military alliances. At this stage, non-alignment is not defined but later on this is defined within the his- torical context that characterised the period when this clause was inserted in the Consti- tution. The reference is non-alignment with the world's two superpowers at the time – the US and the Soviet Union. The refer- ence to "any military" alliance is a clearer concept, which means that Malta can never join an alliance like NATO, which is a mili- tary organisation. This immediately raises the question mark as to whether Malta's participation in NATO's Partnership for Peace programme is in breach of the Constitution. Legal ad- vice the Maltese government had obtained in 2008 stated that PfP could not be consid- ered a military alliance. As a PfP member, Malta chooses what training programmes it wants to be involved in. More significantly, it raises the question as to whether Malta is barred from participat- ing in EU defence and security programmes and arrangements. In 2017, the Muscat ad- ministration had decided to opt out of PE- SCO, an EU arrangement allowing member states to jointly plan, develop and invest in defence integration, out of concerns it could go counter to the Constitution. Malta had adopted a wait and see approach to see how this new set-up was going to develop. Today, Malta remains the only EU member state not to form part of PESCO. The legal reasoning adopted back in 2008 to justify Malta joining NATO's PfP could possibly also justify Malta's participation in PESCO. FOREIGN MILITARY BASE What the Constitution says: (a) no foreign military base will be permit- ted on Maltese territory; Explainer: This is the most straightforward proviso in the neutrality clause that builds on the historic context of Freedom Day when the last of the British forces left Malta in 1979. The use of the word 'base' implies a per- manent and long-term presence and this clause ensures no foreign military base will ever be permitted. MALTESE MILITARY FACILITIES What the Constitution says: (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: Explainer: This section speaks of Maltese military fa- cilities and how these cannot be used by for- eign forces unless requested to do so by the Maltese government. However, any such request is also limited by the conditions laid down in the Constitution (see below). DEFENCE AND UN MISSIONS What the Constitution says: (i) in the exercise of the inherent right of self-defence in the event of any armed vio- lation 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 Explainer: Malta may allow its military facilities to be used by foreign forces if it needs to defend itself from armed aggression but also in the event of UN-sanctioned actions. This section recognises Malta's interna- tional obligations as a UN member state. Foreign forces operating on a UN mandate may be allowed the use of Maltese military facilities. However, no distinction is made be- tween UN-led missions (the blue hel- mets) and missions led by some country or countries in the UN's name. Neither is a distinction made between UN-man- dated peacekeeping missions like that in Lebanon, and peace-making missions that have an offensive nature such as the 1991 Gulf War. This means that during the first Gulf War in 1991 when the UN Security Council authorised the US and its allies to liberate Neutrality explained: Breaking down