Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1533839
6 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 27 MARCH 2022 OPINION 2 maltatoday EXECUTIVE EDITOR KURT SANSONE ksansone@mediatoday.com.mt Letters to the Editor, MaltaToday, Vjal ir-Rihan, San Gwann SGN 9016 E-mail: dailynews@mediatoday.com.mt Letters must be concise, no pen names accepted, include full name and address maltatoday | SUNDAY • 30 MARCH 2025 Why revisiting the neutrality clause makes sense Editorial THE neutrality clause in the Constitution was intro- duced in January 1987 as part of a quid pro quo ar- rangement between the Labour government and the Nationalist Opposition. With months away from a general election dead- line, the government had proposed amendments to the electoral system to avoid a repeat of the 1981 election result. That election saw the PN win an absolute majority of votes but a minority of parliamentary seats, which meant the PL was elected to government on the strength of its par- liamentary majority. Five years of political and so- cial turmoil followed with the PN insisting on the need for changes to the electoral system. Without the constitutional amendment, the May 1987 election would have been a repeat of the 1981 result because the PN had once again won fewer seats than the PL despite having an absolute ma- jority of votes. The amendment meant that the PN was awarded extra parliamentary seats to end up with a majority if one seat and thus be in govern- ment. But in proposing the electoral amendment, the Labour government also threw in the hat the neu- trality clause that had long been a pet subject for former Labour prime minister Dom Mintoff. This context is important to understand why cer- tain aspects of the neutrality clause remained un- changed despite misgivings at the time over some of the wording used. In parliament, the Opposition had warned that references to "two superpowers" could become obsolete – prophetic words that an- ticipated the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War by two years. Nonetheless, there was no time and political will to engage on the wording of the neutrality clause because the more immediate and legitimate con- cern just a few months before a general election was getting the electoral amendments through. Since 1987, the international landscape has changed radically. The Soviet Union no longer ex- ists and most of the countries that formed part of the Communist bloc joined the European Union in 2004. Malta also joined the EU, creating a complex interplay between the Constitution and the State's new obligations within a supranational institution. And yet, the neutrality clause has remained un- changed with parts of it fossilised in a bipolar world that no longer exists. This does not mean that the neutrality clause should be removed. There appears to be cross-par- ty consensus in favour of neutrality. There also seems to be widespread public support for neu- trality and within the context of a small island state it continues to make sense even today. But while certain wording no longer makes any sense, certain aspects require clarity to avoid re- strictive interpretations that are borne more out of ideological inclinations than proper legal reading of the Constitution. The neutrality clause defines Malta as a neutral state "actively pursuing peace, security and social progress among all nations". And while it bars Malta's participation in any military alliance it says nothing about participation in military oper- ations, whether of a defensive or offensive nature, that may be sanctioned by the UN or the EU. Successive administrations have been given le- gal advice that participation in UN peacekeeping missions such as those in Lebanon and Georgia do not fall foul of the Constitution. Similar advice had been given when the Armed Forces of Malta joined the EU's anti-piracy naval mission off So- malia, the Red Sea operation to offer commercial ships protection from Houthi rebel attacks and the military training mission for Ukrainian soldiers. Rather than different administrations having to rely time and time again on legal advice, shouldn't the Constitution be clear enough that participa- tion in UN-sanctioned missions and others under- taken by the EU of a security and defensive nature is permissible? The Constitution does not prevent the govern- ment from investing in lethal weapons despite re- cent statements made by Prime Minister Robert Abela. Indeed, the Constitution as it stands today, even allows the government of the day to seek for- eign military assistance if the country is facing a threat or has come under attack. The logic behind this part of the neutrality clause is that a country has a legitimate right to defend itself. Within this context, shouldn't the Constitution be worded in such a way as to make it clear that participation in EU-wide military cooperation programmes when it comes to research and devel- opment, procurement of weapons, interoperabil- ity of systems, intelligence sharing and defensive mechanisms is, ok? This is not an appeal to abandon neutrality but a call for sincere and open dialogue on a constitu- tional clause that has defined Malta's foreign poli- cy for the past 38 years. There is no need for a wholesale overhaul but there is scope for a mature debate on amending the neutrality clause to reflect modern-day reali- ties, including Malta's membership of the EU. Quote of the Week "Malta will continue to fight for the strengthening of human rights but only where it is merited." Prime Minister Robert Abela in parliament as he justified his statement that Malta will put human rights reform on the agenda of its Council of Europe presidency. MaltaToday 10 years ago 29 March 2015 Cafe Premier owner's lawyer was Lands' consultant STEFANO Filletti, the lawyer rep- resent- ing Café Premier shareholder Mario Camill- eri, was also a consult- ant for the Govern- ment Property Division at the same time that Cities Entertainment Ltd was negotiat- ing with both the government, as well as en- trepreneur Anglu Xuereb to sell their public lease on the Valletta cafeteria. Filletti – unavailable for comment until going to print yesterday – is flagged by the NAO report into the €4.2 million govern- ment reacqui- sition of the Café Premier lease as having played an "ambiguous" role in the affair. The report shows that although the GPD, which paid Filletti a monthly €2,500 retainer until Janu- ary 2014, said the lawyer with- drew from the process in view of his con- flict of interest, Filletti was actually involved at an advanced stage of the reacquisition. MaltaToday has established that in late June 2013, Cities Entertain- ment's co-share- holder, Neville Cur- mi, had reached a deal to sell the en- tire company to Anglu Xuer- eb's AX Holdings for €3.5 million. But on the day scheduled for the signing of the contract, Mario Camilleri failed to show up. The deal fell through. In the background, unbeknown to Curmi, Camilleri was negotiating with the OPM's advisor John Scib- erras, having in June 2013 been of- fered a handsome €4.2 million, net of capital gains tax, for the Café Pre- mier lease. The chronology clearly suggests that Camilleri was confident he would get a better deal from the government, and that he made an attempt to take over the entire com- pany before securing the deal. ...