Last weekend I had the opportunity to travel to Brussels for a short while to meet with some former colleagues. Before I left, a short clip spawned out of nowhere on my social media. The footage showed Dom Mintoff being interviewed. I clicked on the video to listen to it. Apparently, the footage went viral on the social media TikTok.
The interviewer referred to Dom Mintoff’s quote of thieves when referring to NATO forces, even going at length to say that what Malta got out of the US’s Sixth Fleet presence was just venereal disease (STDs). The interviewer said that the narrative does not strike Americans as very friendly talk. Dom Mintoff was listening with great assertiveness. His reply was that “if you think that you can make friends out of people by depriving them of their freedom, so that you can lord it over their region, then you must be very wrong”. Indeed, you cannot achieve friendship in this way. Dom Mintoff explained that when NATO came to Malta on the pretence that they were safeguarding western democracy, in truth, they were depriving us Maltese of our freedom, and in his view, they were thieves in that respect. Dom Mintoff explicitly stated that he apologises to nobody (hilarious), while defending the narrative that Malta should certainly not apologise for the past.
And this reminded me of my opinion piece, “Well someone had to say it”, which I wrote in March 2024. Indeed, Mintoff referred to Malta’s participation in the second World War, saying that it got nothing out of that war, with Marshall Aid donated to the Germans, and to West Germany. Mintoff closed by saying “you gave them all the help, but you gave nothing to Malta”. What struck me most though, was the interviewer’s face after Mintoff’s defiant reply. He looked speechless and a little annoyed with such an unexpected reply. However, Dom Mintoff’s reply was spot on. It reminded me of the face of one of my former superiors while discussing neutrality and the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) in his office. Obviously, I will not go into further detail, as it would not be fair to him and could come across as somewhat insolent.
Technically, the EU signs different Status of Forces Agreements with other third countries, especially when establishing a military mission. If I am not mistaken, the instrument for the EU SOFA ratification came into force in 2019, as there was still a member state’s signature missing. The Treaty of Lisbon provides for the context of the preparation and execution of the tasks referred to in Article 17(2) of the Treaty on European Union. Among others, these include exercises of the military and civilian staff of the member states, which are put at the disposal of the EU under the EU-SOFA. In spring of 2020, there were rumours that Malta and the government of the USA were close to sign a Status of Forces Agreement. Not sure what was being discussed, because most of the questions I used to receive from random staff at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, related primarily to what the EU’s requirements are when signing a SOFA, and what the Treaty of Lisbon states with specific attention to Ireland.
Ireland and Austria did include a declaration/reservation on their neutrality under this instrument. Malta introduced a declaration upon accession, although not specifically for the EU SOFA. Malta’s declaration on neutrality states that “Malta affirms its commitment to the common foreign and security policy of the European Union, as set out in the Treaty on European Union. Malta confirms that its participation in the European Union’s common foreign and security policy does not prejudice its neutrality. The Treaty on European Union specifies that any decision by the Union to move to a common defence would have to be taken by unanimous decision of the European Council adopted by the member states in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements”.
Besides, in my former capacity of PSC Ambassador, I had to deal with countless requests to gather information even from colleagues. Obviously, it was part of my job. However, recently, I saw a statement declaring that our greylisting was related to our neutrality. Conversely, the reasons given were a little inconsistent. Personally, I do not think it had anything to do with neutrality. Maybe, the reference to neutrality relates to the intrinsic legal nature of the SOFA. Or perhaps, it relates to other matters, which we are not privy to. But surely not neutrality by itself. For instance, if Malta signed the SOFA with the USA, the interest would have been inter alia on Hurd’s Bank. The same area that was mandated to be patrolled with the establishment of the EU’s Operation IRINI. The operation’s core task was the implementation of theUN arms embargo on Libya, among others, using maritime assets, satellite images and UAVs. Indeed, Operation IRINI’s mandate was to execute inspections of vessels on the high seas off the coast of Libya, which were suspected of carrying illegal arms and other associated material out of, or into, Libya, in line with UNSCRs 2292/2016.
Now that security and defence are high on the agenda of the EU, with the MFF being redesigned to cater for today’s realities, I personally think that Malta must stick to its longstanding foreign policy on neutrality. As I had the opportunity to debate during the European Parliament’s election campaign, being neutral does not mean that you do not take a stand or participate in research, defence and civilian missions, where possible. However, any measures must be aligned to the security and foreign policy architecture of Malta’s Constitution. Not sure what Malta was negotiating with the USA in 2020, and certainly I did not ask. However, I am positive that the problem was not Malta’s neutrality. The SOFA and the neutrality clause are not directly connected when the EU signs an agreement, for the same reasons I explained in my preceding paragraphs, that under the Treaty of Lisbon, the EU signs different SOFA agreement, irrespective of Malta’s declaration on neutrality. Even under the European Peace Facility, Malta still participates and covers its share of funds for security and defence, albeit differently.
What Malta should certainly not condone is the EU’s rushed negotiations on security and defence once they are presented in Council. Else, we would be risking our own stability. Whatever the format of the negotiations, be they at EU level, or bilateral negotiations with other countries, Malta must remain assertive. And I hasten to add, more assertive than Dom Mintoff was in the 1970s for Malta’s security and economic stability!
