It is natural for EU countries in central and eastern Europe to be pre-occupied with issues of defense. They have been facing the fallout from the Russian invasion of Ukraine, day-in day-out, for three years. It was also understandable for Sweden and Finland to renounce their neutrality and join NATO. They did this after arriving at the logical conclusion that a declared neutrality is worthless if it cannot be sustained.

When Malta determined its policy on neutrality in 1979, after the closure of the British military base, it did so on the political understanding that this declared neutrality was guaranteed by four countries. NATO countries France and Italy joined non-aligned Algeria and Libya as guarantors of a neutrality which was subsequently embedded in the Constitution in 1987.

Malta’s defense and security requirements rarely, if ever, make it to Parliament’s agenda. One curious exception was in October 2023 when a motion to authorise Parliament to seek associate membership status in the NATO Parliamentary Assembly was presented for Parliament’s consideration. The motion was read, and not one single member of Parliament stood up to air his or her views. It was then unanimously approved. All this took just 69 seconds of Parliament’s time.

Earlier this week, Prime Minister Robert Abela, in the context of the European Council’s informal discussion on defense, stated that he would like to have a serious discussion on Malta’s defense and security needs. He qualified his statement by emphasising that such a discussion has to be carried out within the parameters of the country’s neutrality as defined in article 1 of the Constitution of Malta.

This discussion is definitely long overdue. It would have been preferable if such a discussion was held on the eve of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Such a discussion could also have been carried out after observing the various cases of sabotage being reported to the infrastructure laid on the seabed in the Baltic Sea. Government is definitely worried about the matter as Malta can come to a standstill if the seabed infrastructure laid in the Malta-Sicily channel is targeted similarly to what has repeatedly materialised in the Baltic Sea.

In fact, it was reported that Ian Borg, Foreign Minister, last month, in Brussels, during an EU Foreign Ministers’ meeting, drew comparisons between the Baltic Sea sabotage and what could happen in the Mediterranean. Ian Borg called for joint action to protect energy and communication cables from any attack or threats similar to that current in the Baltic Sea.

A discussion on defense and security issues would undoubtedly examine the current situation in the Mediterranean. Of specific interest to Malta is the Russian presence in the Mediterranean Sea, alternating its attention between the Tartus military base in Syria and the various naval and military facilities in Libya. Observers have noted, in the past months, that substantial Russian military equipment has been transferred to the Libyan air-bases at Al Khadim and Al-Jufra.

Facilities at the Libyan Al-Qardabiyah air-base have been upgraded with runways being resurfaced and improved. In view of the uncertain future of the Russian hold on the Tartus base in Syria, these developments on our doorstep should generate much more than a fleeting interest.

Europe’s security, it is repeatedly stated, is also dependent on the state of play in the Mediterranean Sea.

The question which requires a clear answer, however, is the relevance of Malta’s declared neutrality in today’s world. There exists a basic national consensus that Malta should never again be a military base. Additionally, most agree that Malta should not form part of a military alliance. We also agree that we should not, as a country, participate in anybody’s war. Beyond that, I believe that matters are not very clear at all.

Ukraine’s invasion by Russia has sent a very clear message to all. It is however not just Russia’s behaviour which is threatening. US President Donald Trump has voiced his clear views on the Panama Canal as well as on Greenland and the related security issues. Whether he will follow through on his threats is anybody’s guess.

It is very important to understand that nations do not have friends. They only have interests which they pursue relentlessly.

Who has an interest to come to our defense, should the need arise? Further, in this age of transactional politics, what is the price that we will have to pay to ensure that, effectively, our defense is guaranteed? At the end of the day this is the only significance of having our neutrality guaranteed.

Robert Abela, has stated that we may need to spend much more of our annual budget on defense than we have been accustomed to date. Whether we spend more on defense is a moot point. With so much happening on our doorstep, it is more important to establish clearly as to the guarantees of our neutrality and present-day security.

Parliament needs to dedicate much more than 69 seconds to the matter.

Carmel Cacopardo, Deputy Chairperson

First published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 9 February 2025