Malta Takes Political U-Turn On NATO’s PFP Membership: A Shift In Neutrality Stance

Malta’s political landscape has witnessed a surprising turn of events as the Labour government proposed reaffirming the Partnership for Peace (PfP) agreement that it had vehemently opposed in 1995.
This development, which caught the attention of Beppe Fenech Adami, a seasoned politician from the previous Gonzi administration, reflects a significant shift in the country’s stance on PfP membership and its constitutional neutrality.
In 2012, Labour strategically targeted Richard Cachia Caruana, Malta’s permanent representative to the EU, over his alleged manipulation of Malta’s reactivation in the PfP program in 2008.
This manoeuvring was accused of bypassing parliamentary ratification, resulting in a vote of no confidence that ultimately cost Cachia Caruana his position.
NATO membership, even a lite version, has always been a contentious issue since Dom Mintoff tried to ensure Malta never joins the US-led military alliance by embedding neutrality in the Maltese constitution.
According to a report by Malta Today, Beppe Fenech Adami, who was a member of the Cabinet at that time and now serves on the parliamentary foreign affairs committee, expressed his satisfaction with Labour’s change of heart.
He stated, “The government is politically vindicating what the Nationalist Party has been saying all these years… that participation in the PfP does not, in any way, breach our constitutional neutrality”.
Fenech Adami highlighted the Nationalist Party’s consistent support for Malta’s participation in the PfP, emphasising that it aligns with the legal opinions of the State Advocate and NATO’s legal office.
Foreign Minister Ian Borg, representing the Labour government, proposed the renewal of the PfP agreement, emphasising that it adheres to Malta’s constitutional neutrality limitations, as stated in the memorandum.
However, apart from Fenech Adami’s intervention, little discussion took place on the matter within the parliamentary foreign affairs committee.
To comprehend the significance of this recent political shift, it is crucial to revisit the PfP saga of 2012. Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi had confidentially informed the United States ambassador of Malta’s intention to reactivate participation in the PfP ahead of the 2008 re-election. However, popular sentiment regarding PfP membership remained divided along party lines due to Labour’s longstanding opposition since 1996.
Cachia Caruana devised an inventive solution by informing the Americans that Malta had “simply ceased active participation” in PfP without formally withdrawing from the agreements, as Labour had done in 1996.
This procedural workaround, known as a “procedural band-aid,” allowed Malta to bypass the need for House ratification. Cachia Caruana’s proposal directly contradicted Labour’s previous stance of “unconditional withdrawal” from PfP, as outlined in George Vella’s 1996 letter to NATO.
In 2008, the Nationalist Party reactivated Malta’s PfP membership immediately after the elections, catching the politically weakened Labour Party off guard and leaving them unable to offer a substantial response. This move was later criticised by the Opposition for circumventing the Treaties Act, as joining PfP required a parliamentary resolution.
It wasn’t until Wikileaks leaked the US embassy cables in 2011 that Labour took the fight to the parliamentary foreign affairs committee, questioning Cachia Caruana’s role in reactivating PfP membership and proposing a motion of censure. Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando, a dissatisfied government MP, supported the Opposition’s motion, leading to Cachia Caruana’s dismissal.
With the recent proposal to retain Malta’s participation in the PfP, the government’s U-turn on the matter signifies a significant departure from its previous stance. This change opens up new possibilities for Malta to maintain its PfP membership within the limitations of its constitutional neutrality.
Do you agree with bolstering our connection to this powerful military alliance?