Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/604914
27 maltatoday, SUNDAY, 22 NOVEMBER 2015 Editorial MaltaToday, MediaToday Co. Ltd, Vjal ir-Rihan, San Gwann SGN 9016 MANAGING DIRECTOR: ROGER DE GIORGIO MANAGING EDITOR: SAVIOUR BALZAN EXECUTIVE EDITOR: MATTHEW VELLA Tel: (356) 21 382741-3, 21 382745-6 • Fax: (356) 21 385075 www.maltatoday.com.mt E-mail: maltatoday@mediatoday.com.mt Quote of the week 'Decisions are being taken by people, many of whom are not elected… MPs learn of much of these decisions from the media.' Former Labour MP Marlene Farrugia tells all of the apparent lack of consultation inside the PL parliamentary group What response to the Paris attacks? Last weekend 's ferocious terrorist attack in the French capital has altered the dynamics of Europe's entire approach to counter-terrorism. As Europe's treaties clearly establish, an attack on any one member state is an attack on the EU as a whole. In this sense, the Paris attack in itself has inexo- rably drawn the rest of the EU into the struggle against the Islamic State: not unlike the USA was lured into W WII by Pearl Harbour. Already there has been a distinct shift in European political rhetoric towards IS. France has urged other EU member states to assist "in any way they can" its planned military operations in Syria. Defence Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian has called on his European counterparts to help "either by taking part in France's operations in Syria or Iraq, or by easing the load or providing support for France in other operations." In that entreaty there is an echo of the 'Coalition of the Willing', invoked by former US President George W. Bush to promote support for his planned inva- sion of Iraq in 2003. Both countries were responding to terrorist attacks on their own soil; both had deservedly received the solidarity and moral support of the rest of the world for the attacks of 9/11 and Paris respectively. There is, however, a difference… one which has a direct bearing on Malta's position as an EU member state. France has not merely requested military sup- port as a gesture of solidarity. Presi- dent Hollande argues that the terms of the Lisbon Treaty make such support mandatory among all EU countries. And by referring the matter to the United Na- tions Security Council – where France will call for UN approval for a global war on ISIS – the jurisdiction may spread beyond the confines of the EU. It remains to be seen whether a UN mandate will be issued. And while a military response may not be the ideal reaction – it certainly wasn't in the case of 9/11, as even the proponents of the Iraq war now admit – France is certainly within its rights to expect a collective European response. But is a collective response even pos- sible? And if so, what part should our country play? These questions bring to the fore a problem we already recognise within the structures of the European Union. There is no common defence policy among its 28 member states; nor can there be one for the present, while each individual sovereign country retains policies which are vastly different and often incompat- ible. Malta finds itself uncomfortably posi- tioned in this dilemma. Our Constitu- tion declares the country to be a neutral and non-aligned state; and this clause (Article 3) has traditionally been cited to exempt Malta from active participation in military campaigns (or, for that mat- ter, from joining military alliances). It is by no means clear, however, wheth- er Constitutional neutrality extends to participation in civilian operations con- ducted in support of military campaigns. There are other levels of involvement – humanitarian, medical, intelligence gathering, etc. – that do not immediately breach the essentially pacifist nature of our State. It is questionable too whether our Constitution exonerates Malta from obligations that arise from EU member- ship. The Lisbon Treaty's article 42.7, for instance, compels states that if a member of the European Union is the victim of "armed aggression on its ter- ritory" other states have an "obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power." Already the argument has been raised (among others, by former prime minister Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici) that Malta's Constitution precludes our country from complying. But is this really the case? One can naturally argue for or against involvement on its own merits… but the argument that it would be 'unconstitu- tional ' does not seem to hold water. Two issues immediately arise. The first concerns precedence: the Constitution is the highest law of the land, but Malta is signatory to numerous international treaties, some of which take precedence over local law. The Lisbon Treaty is one of them: it is often described (mislead- ingly) as the 'European Constitution' for this reason. Legally, it is debatable in the extreme whether the Constitutional neutral- ity clause can overrule an obligation imposed by the Lisbon treaty. But even if this were the case: Article 3 of the Constitution actually contemplates the possibility of such involvement any way. It states that: "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: (i) in the exercise of the inherent right of self-defence in the event of any armed violation of the area over which the Republic of Malta has sovereignty, or in pursuance of measures or actions decided by the Security Coun- cil of the United Nations." There is now a very real possibility that the UN Security Council may issue pre- cisely such measures. If so, the neutrality argument will start to look weak indeed. This leaves us with the unanswered question: What role, if any, should Malta be expected to play in any form of of- fensive against a very real threat to peace in our time? It is not a question we can afford to postpone indefinitely. Editorial