Questioned yesterday during a political press conference, Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Affairs Minister Ian Borg said that Malta was not going to take a position on Greenland, as there is no official EU position on the matter and that this is a NATO matter. He also said that he preferred to take a responsible position in the national interest rather than expressing his personal views on the matter. You can read the comments here.
Malta’s position on Greenland is opportunistic as it seeks the Trump dividend and this position may also be interpreted as being aligned with constitutional neutrality, however Malta is also party to the Treaty of the European Union which also calls for the defence of the Union members who suffer armed aggression. Malta’s constitutional neutrality is in contradiction with the current legal context of international events in Europe and its removal from the Constitution is long over-due. However, Malta is technically using this discordant concept in foreign affairs for opportunistic reasons, which is actually ingrained in the Labour Party’s foreign policy. Malta also took an opportunistic position on the frozen Russian assets in Europe.
Malta seeks and has close relations with the US for strategic economic and security reasons. The Deputy Prime-Minister nominated President Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize and also discussed gas purchases with the US government. The US Ambassador to Malta is Trump’s personal friend who has direct contact with the US President. It also clear that US government appreciates this special relationship with me and puts cosmetic attention to it. The Foreign Affairs Minister even attended President Trump’s inauguration ceremony.
Meanwhile, European leaders have united in defence of Greenland and Denmark over threats by President Donald Trump to annex the Arctic territory. Europe is uniting to seek further strength and unity on security issues in the backdrop of calls to turn Europe into a federal super-power that is able to directly compete and defend itself single-handedly against other powers, namely the US and China.
Malta’s foreign policy is risks falling behind the movement towards more European unity while seeking opportunistic pasture single-handedly. The US can offer a lot of dividends but it may also provide none at the end of the day and focusing excessively on the US puts Malta at risk of being on the wrong-side of history as the US foreign policy provides support to the far-right parties in Europe and supports Russian victory in Ukraine.
It is highly unlikely that it will be the Labour Party that will provide a fully-aligned pro-European policy in these times because the Labour Party’s ideological stance on neutrality is still well-ingrained among most of its politicians and a significant discussion still need to take place.
Website Editor
Historian and Publisher
Leave a Reply