Pros and cons of PfP membership (2) - Michael Briguglio

The Times, Monday, 31st March 2008


The government's decision to reactivate Malta's application to join Nato's Partnership for Peace (PfP) project was rash, undemocratic and contrary to the spirit of neutrality. Parliament was not consulted, and there is no mention of the Partnership for Peace in the electoral programme of the Nationalist Party.

The Partnership for Peace is a branch and structure of Nato, whose aggressiveness was shown in recent cases such as Yugoslavia, and which, in the last instance, acts for imperialist interests rather than world peace and social justice. Partnership for Peace Member states are obliged to send their national military planning, programmes and budgets to Nato, which will thus have more geo-political influence. Nato will have more influence on Malta, thus going against Malta's constitutional neutrality.

Żminijietna - Voice of the Left believes that instead of having a stronger imperialist structure like Nato, there should be a reformed and more democratic United Nations which could take on necessary missions such as the timely prevention of genocide. Within this context, Malta and the European Union should emphasise the values of peace, equality, social justice and ecological sustainability.

As a small neutral state in the heart of the Mediterranean, Malta has much to offer for world peace. Through PfP membership Malta shall lose this positive characteristic.

Other Articles Main Page