Two weeks ago, Prime Minister Abela informed Parliament that the United States had invited Malta to participate in the Peace Board established by the Trump administration through the UNSC Resolution 2803. While briefing Parliament on the outcomes of the European Council and responding to the Opposition, the prime minister emphasised the importance of maintaining diplomatic cooperation when addressing other countries’ positions. He argued that de-escalating rhetoric is essential when economic and military superpowers disagree over trade and security.
Certainly, when global powers are in conflict, small states must act with caution, deliberation, and strategic calculation. However, the context is significant, as the European Council discussion was not merely about random diplomacy but specifically concerned Malta’s stance on Greenland. From a geopolitical perspective, Malta must retain its neutral, non-military-aligned status while aligning with the European Union’s positions, particularly on NATO and European security. Well, Malta is not a member of NATO. Furthermore, there have been instances where Malta did not support the EU’s stance on military missions, such as Operation Irini, nor did it participate in PESCO projects. I recall these issues distinctly, having served on the Political and Security Committee in Brussels, where I directly observed the decision-making process.
I also remember the 2020 discussion about the peace plan for Palestine. However, the Quartet was still alive and brought some recalibration. Now it is completely dead. That was the last format under international law to have a mandate to accompany the Two-State Solution process. Given that Russia was part of the Quartet, after the invasion of Ukraine, we can conclude that it is officially dead. Back in 2020, I saw how Palestine was split and what conditions were proposed to achieve peace, including the idea that Palestine would only have civilian police while its security would be handled by Israel. Even the Jordan Valley, was annexed. Jared Kushner led the process and is also currently on the Board of Peace. Surely, I agree with the concept of such a board under the auspices of the UNSC.
However, we need to see the governance of the new Board of Peace, as it currently lacks diplomatic depth. What needs improvement is the governance structure, transparency around the proposed fees, and clarity about the board’s actual purpose. If Malta were offered a place at the table, then, as a country that has recognised Palestine as a state, the best outcome would be to influence decisions. We can change outcomes. This should not be taken lightly. We were the ones who achieved a partial ceasefire agreement, or a de‑escalation, when we presided over the UNSC seat. That was not a coincidence. It was the result of diplomatic skill, credibility, and the ability to speak to all sides.
We must also remember that the United Nations is effectively paralysed because the structure allows it. The permanent members of the UNSC have different political interests and, even when they block each other on unrelated matters, are incentivised to use their veto. This is the system’s structural flaw. What we lack today is pragmatism. The European Union is also paralysed. We saw fanfare when Israel was attacked by Hamas, with the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, visiting and effectively blessing what followed. There seems to be a lot happening behind the scenes to keep up with the Trump administration’s approach. Ursula von der Leyen seems out of breath.
This is where strategy, diplomacy, and game theory intersect. When we study game theory as economists, we also study strategy. The first‑mover strategy and knowledge are important. Equally important is the Nash equilibrium, the point where each player’s strategy is the best response to others. In diplomacy, this means no country can unilaterally improve its position without triggering a counter‑reaction. Small states like Malta must understand this deeply. If the United States offers a seat at the table and the EU struggles to articulate a coherent position, Malta must calculate its moves. A seat at the table is not a gift. It is an opportunity to shape outcomes. Though guiding outcomes requires credibility, consistency, and the competence to navigate between competing powers without losing accordance with our European commitments.
Malta’s neutrality is often misunderstood. Neutrality does not mean silence or absence. It means strategic independence within a framework of alliances and partnerships. We are neutral, but we are also EU members. We are not NATO members, but we benefit from NATO’s security umbrella through our EU membership. We do not participate in PESCO projects, but we cannot pretend that European security does not affect us. We also cannot ignore that the EU’s diplomatic posture has weakened significantly. The paralysis in Brussels is visible. The fragmentation in the Council is real. The Commission’s leadership has struggled to preserve coherence amid worldwide crises. And I can tell you, because I sat in the meetings in Council, that there aren’t more than 10 member states that believe in the Palestinian cause.
This is why Malta must approach the Peace Board with seriousness. If we have a seat, we must use it effectively to promote Malta’s values and strategic aims. We should steer outcomes through engaging with other members and bringing an equitable perspective. Our credible track record, shown during our UNSC presidency, is an asset we should leverage. At the same time, we must insist on clear governance, transparent fee structures, and clarity about the board’s purpose and direction before fully committing. Our actions should strengthen our credibility and align with our diplomatic goals, not diminish them. Alas, the UN is paralysed, and the EU’s current leadership is struggling. The United States is recalibrating, or better, revising its foreign policy.
And Malta, small as it is, must manage this landscape with intelligence, memory, and tactical foresight. We have done it before, so I do not see why we cannot do it again. But only if we recognise that diplomacy is not a show but a strategy and ignore those with no experience at the international level. Indeed, empty vessels make the most sound!
