NATO in Crisis and the Enduring Logic of Malta’s Neutrality

Pressure is mounting in France to leave NATO. France has never been a comfortable partner within the Alliance. De Gaulle himself sought to distance France from NATO’s integrated military command, not from NATO as a political alliance, to safeguard French strategic sovereignty and make the country fully self-sufficient in defence. In 1966, he withdrew France from NATO’s military structure, expelled NATO headquarters and foreign troops from French territory, and developed an independent nuclear deterrent, the force de frappe, precisely because he did not trust France’s security to be subordinated to decisions taken in Washington.

Dom Mintoff followed in De Gaulle’s footsteps when, in 1971, he came to power. One of his first acts was the expulsion from Malta of the NATO commanding officer, the Italian Admiral Birindelli, without, however, distancing Malta from the Atlantic Alliance to the extent of breaking all practical links with it. On the contrary, he agreed to renew the British military presence in Malta until 1979. Since Britain was a member of NATO, its bases on the island continued to be used by NATO forces, thereby maintaining an indirect but tangible connection between Malta and the Alliance.

After the British withdrawal in 1979, Mintoff further consolidated his diplomatic strategy around the Mediterranean and strengthened his vision of a foreign policy grounded in active neutrality. Malta was no longer to be tied, even indirectly, to any military bloc, but was instead to position itself as an autonomous actor, pursuing balanced relations with both Western and non-aligned states. This approach echoed De Gaulle’s emphasis on sovereignty and strategic independence, while adapting it to Malta’s geopolitical reality as a small state in the central Mediterranean.

Now, a French MP has started the ball rolling once again. Whether France will eventually go so far as to leave NATO altogether remains to be seen. What is certain is that such a move would not augur well for France, as it would strengthen the credibility of the French far right’s claim that the country should also leave the European Union.

In any case, what is currently happening within NATO lends further credibility to this site’s longstanding position in favour of Malta’s neutrality. For this reason, this site welcomes Ian Borg’s decision to remain aloof from this conflict. It was a bold and politically mature move. It came at a time of pressure within Malta’s diplomatic structures, when so-called experts were pushing to convince Malta to align more closely with NATO. One can only imagine the consequences had the Maltese government followed the advice of these experts, who were themselves being amplified by the local mainstream media.

Malta’s neutrality remains the best option for our island.

Senior figures from France’s left-wing La France Insoumise (LFI) movement have reignited debate over France’s place in NATO, accusing the United States under President Donald Trump of actions they describe as blatant violations of international law.

Clémence Guetté, Vice-President of the French National Assembly and an LFI MP, said she would submit a proposed resolution calling for a “planned exit” from NATO, beginning with France’s withdrawal from the Alliance’s integrated military command.

In a statement published on X, Guetté claimed that “Trump’s United States kidnaps a head of state in Venezuela”, supports and provides military backing for what she described as “a genocide in Palestine”, and “threatens Greenland with armed annexation”. She further accused Washington of bombing peoples “in complete violation of international law”.

“More than ever, the question of France’s participation in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, a military alliance led by and in service of the United States, arises,” Guetté wrote.

Guetté’s position was echoed by Gabriel Amard, an LFI MP for the Rhône, who argued that France should first leave NATO’s integrated command structure and then withdraw from NATO altogether. Amard called for France to pursue a “non-aligned” strategic line, stating that the country’s nuclear deterrent and diplomacy must serve national independence rather than the agendas of major powers.

The fresh appeals have also brought up old examples. France was one of the first countries to sign the North Atlantic Treaty in 1949. In 1966, President Charles de Gaulle took France out of NATO’s combined military command but kept France’s political involvement in the Alliance. After that, NATO shifted its headquarters from Paris to Brussels, and US military sites in France were shut down. In 2009, President Nicolas Sarkozy brought France back under NATO’s military leadership.

Guetté’s plan is unlikely to cause a quick change in French government policy, but because of her position in the cabinet, it has political weight beyond what is spoken every day. Guetté is a Vice-President of the National Assembly and a significant player in LFI’s program leadership. Many people consider her as a strategic core member of the movement rather than a media-facing soundbite machine. So, her intervention is a clear attempt to bring the NATO issue back into France’s official legislative and state-policy apparatus. She is portraying it as a structured discussion over sovereignty, alignment, and strategic autonomy instead of a short-lived political response.

Within NATO history, Greece is another case of partial disengagement. In the aftermath of the 1974 Cyprus crisis, Athens withdrew from NATO’s integrated military command and halted its operational participation in key NATO military planning mechanisms, arguing it had been left isolated within the Alliance. Greece later reintegrated into NATO’s military structure in 1980, with Türkiye’s approval.