Comment received from retired Maltese diplomat Evarist Saliba
A case of mistaken identity by somebody commenting on this website drew Evarist Saliba’s name into the equation. Mr Saliba, a former career diplomat who is now retired and living in England, sent in this response. I am highlighting it here because of the important points he makes about neutrality.
————
Evarist Salba:
“Seeing that I have been mentioned, even though in a grossly mistaken way, I feel that I should have my say.
I have been a diplomat who served in Tripoli both during the time of King Idris and Col. Ghaddafi, and as such I acted on the instructions of my foreign ministers (who were also prime ministers) Borg Olivier and Mintoff.
As for the neutrality clause in our Constitution, I had nothing to do with its formulation, and had my advice been sought I would never have suggested anything like it.
For the record, Gaddafi had nothing to do with its formulation in a unilateral declaration by the government of Malta which was deposited with the United Nations, and later attached to the friendship agreement with Italy.
Its inclusion in the Constitution was a condition imposed by Mintoff to give the winning party in an election the right to govern if it obtained 50 per cent plus one, or more, votes. This blackmail vitiates its legitimacy.
Neutrality is presented as a positive contribution to peace when history shows that it is not, and in fact it is often a screen for pusillanimity and self interest. In our case, Mintoff used it as a bargaining chip in his rounds for financial subvention from other countries, claiming that Malta’s neutrality can only be maintained if other governments helped it to be economically sound through their financial aid.
Many comments betray an ignorance, or an impaired idea of what the neutrality clause contains, and this has not been helped by the constantly changing interpretation that it is being given by those who defend it to make it relevant to our times.”
25 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Breaking news on Sky:
1. Gaddafi offers ceasefire to rebels so that they surrender.
2. The UN approved a motion to help rebels short of foreign troops landing on Libyan soil.
So much for that clown Seif’s ultimatum of 48 hours.
It hasn’t approved the motion yet.
The neutrality clause is clear enough and just because “Many comments [here] betray an ignorance, or an impaired idea of what the neutrality clause contains,” does not reflect much except the cobwebbed minds of those who posted those comments, many of whom agree with what you’ve bestowed on us here today, for which we are most grateful.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110317/local/libyan-residents-mull-protest-over-visit-by-senior-gaddafi-figure
Can this be considered as UN sanctions-busting ?
There is at least one positive side to our neutrality clause.
With the class of prime ministers of the likes of Mintoff, KMB and Alfred Sant, it has ensured that, officially at least, we never take a position with some foreign force that will end up with Malta being, officially, on the wrong side of history. Like with Gaddafi, for instance.
From the Constitution:
“Malta is a neutral state actively pursuing peace, security
and social progress among all nations by adhering to a policy of non-alignment and refusing to participate in any military alliance.
Such a status will, in particular, imply that:
(a) no foreign military base will be permitted on Maltese
territory;
(b) 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 Council of the
United Nations; or
(ii) whenever there exists a threat to the sovereignty, independence, neutrality, unity or territorial integrity of the Republic of Malta;
(c) except as aforesaid, no other facilities in Malta will be
allowed to be used in such manner or extent as will amount to the presence in Malta of a concentration of foreign forces;
(d) except as aforesaid, no foreign military personnel will
be allowed on Maltese territory, other than military personnel performing, or assisting in the performance
of, civil works or activities, and other than a reasonable number of military technical personnel assisting in the defence of the Republic of Malta;
(e) the shipyards of the Republic of Malta will be used for
civil commercial purposes, but may also be used, within reasonable limits of time and quantity, for the repair of military vessels which have been put in a state of non-combat or for the construction of vessels;
and in accordance with the principles of non-alignment
the said shipyards will be denied to the military vessels of the two superpowers.”
It is very clear from b(i) above, that the Government may, if there is a UN Security Council decision, permit Malta to take part in military action.
It is therefore clear that Malta’s neutrality is not a shy one, but a pro-active one which believes in the international legal order under the auspices of the UN.
E. Saliba is therefore right that a lot of nonsense has been put forward in the guise of informed opinion.
Actually, the reference to “the two superpowers” is limited to the shipyards.
It is probably that part, and only that part, of the this clause which is now historically irrelevant.
The rest still offers us room for maneouvre.
You people are so exasperating. It is with the pacifist interpretation of that neutrality clause that some of us take issue. The constitution, like all laws, should serve the common good, not straitjacket our policies or provide convenient excuses.
And Evarist Saliba never said that “a lot of nonsense has been put forward in the guise of informed opinion.” You’re putting words into his mouth.
Baxxter
Read this again:
“b) 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 Council of the United Nations; or
(ii) whenever there exists a threat to the sovereignty, independence, neutrality, unity or territorial integrity of the Republic of Malta”
How on Earth can the above be construed as pacifist?
It can be construed as non-aggressive, but certainly not as pacifist.
It is explicitly stated that Government may allow Malta to be used by foreign military powers for:
(1) self-defence
(2) the implementation of UN Security Council decisions
(3) the repulsion of a military threat to Malta.
This is not pacifist. If Malta is attacked or if there is a UN SC decision, the Government may – in its discretion – allow Malta to be used etc etc
So, it is not a CONSTITUTIONAL interpretation, but a POLICY decision, whether Government resorted to para (b).
Without para (b), any Maltese Government might decide to make Malta join an alliance. Today, that alliance might be NATO. In the future, with a different Administration, it might be something else.
So stop being shallow.
In another words, dear Baxxter, if there is a UN Security Council resolution (a prerequisite Hillary Clinton has insisted on before committing to US intervention), then PM Gonzi can decide – and still abide by the Constitution, in spirit and in letter – to allow Malta to be used for military action against Col Gaddafi.
No pacifism, no nothing of what you have been harping on about.
From The Times:
Libya threatens air, sea traffic in case of attack
Libya warned today it could target military and civilian air and sea traffic in the Mediterranean in case of a foreign military intervention, the official Jana news agency reported.
“Any military operation against Libya will expose all air and maritime traffic in the Mediterranean to danger,” Jana quoted Libya’s defence ministry spokesman as saying.
“And any civilian or military moving traffic will be the target of a Libyan counter-offensive,” he said.
“The Mediterranean basin will be exposed to grave danger, not just in the short term but also in the long term.”
Hekk imissu Dr Gonzi, ma jibqax newtrali!
Gonzi jaf x’inhu jaghmel. Ma noqoghdux naghmlulu pressjoni zejda u bla bzonn.
The way it’s been PUT INTO PRACTICE is pacifist. I stand by my statement.
How many wars have Maltese soldiers taken part in?
How many Maltese soldiers have ever fired a rifle in anger?
Has the Malta Labour Party pledged to withdraw Malta from PfP, the European Defence Council, and the European Defence Agency?
Answer me, and then you can make your argument. Until then, I am right and you are not just wrong, but totally off track. Words mean bugger all, so you can cut and paste all you like. The facts speak otherwise.
If the rebels accept to surrender, wouldn’t it be a Gaddafi victory and Sajf would be proved right?
[Daphne – Silvio, if you’re going to spell his name in Maltese, at least spell it properly, given that we use the exact same word: sejf, meaning dagger.]
That means you can’t count. Saif said ‘within 48 hours’ and that was yesterday. The ceasefire is as of next Sunday.
Do you really think that by correcting my missspelling you are in any way helping the cause of the Libyan people. You could have left that to some of your bloggers. I expected a totally different approach, from you, to such a serious situation, lives depend on How We can help them. That is what they need, not spelling lessons.( I am now at your mercy) fire away I can take it, and with no hard feelings.
And in that case, silvio loporto would be been right all along, too.
Watch it, she might point out a mistake.
Silvio, how naive can one be to imagine that the rebels are going to surrender. They would rather die fighting than surrender and be slaughtered and tortured by Gaddafi’s men.
I sincerely hope so.
I didn’t get this; do you mean that you sincerely hope that the rebels die fighting rather then surrendering or be slaughtered by Gaddafi’s men or vice versa?
When did I say that they are going to accept to surrender? What I said was that if they do, it will be their end. Don’t you agree?
“Gaddafi offers ceasefire to rebels so that they surrender.” = give up and spend the rest of your life being tortured in a prison or we will kill you.
Frans Sammut doesn’t think so:
“Colonel al-Qaddhafi too has pledged pardon to all who lay down their arms. Most of the expected refugees would not even be people who took part in the hostilities, so there should be no problem at all.”
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110317/local/eu-bracing-for-massive-libya-refugee-crisis
He should use all his books to light barbecues, next summer.
maryanne
Behind bars at the Hague, do you mean?