Malta Mentioned on Irish Television over Its Low Defence Spending
Malta was mentioned on Irish television last night during a discussion about Ireland’s exceptionally low level of defence spending.
“We shouldn’t be down on a league table competing with Malta and Cyprus for the lowest spenders on defence in Europe,” said Fionnán Sheahan, Ireland Editor of the Irish Independent.
His comment was intended primarily as a criticism of the Irish Government. Nevertheless, it also draws attention to Malta’s position near the bottom of European defence-spending tables.
Ireland currently spends approximately 0.2 per cent of its gross domestic product on defence, while Malta’s expenditure is generally estimated at around 0.4 to 0.5 per cent. These figures are far below those of most other European countries. Malta and Ireland are also among the four EU states that do not belong to NATO, together with Austria and Cyprus.
However, Cyprus should not really be placed in the same spending category as Malta and Ireland. Because of the island’s division and its continuing security concerns, Cyprus spends a considerably higher proportion of its GDP on defence. Sheahan’s comparison was therefore more political than statistically precise.
The more important question for us is why Malta continues to spend so little on defence and national security.
Malta’s constitutional neutrality is frequently invoked in such discussions. Yet neutrality does not mean that a country has no need to defend itself. On the contrary, a neutral state must possess sufficient capabilities to protect its territory, territorial waters, airspace and strategic infrastructure without depending entirely on military alliances.
Malta may be geographically small, but its strategic importance is considerable. It lies at the centre of the Mediterranean and close to one of the world’s busiest shipping routes. The country must monitor an extensive search-and-rescue region and protect its ports, airport, energy installations, communications systems and maritime borders.
Modern defence also extends far beyond conventional armies, warships and combat aircraft. It includes cybersecurity, intelligence gathering, drone detection, surveillance, the protection of submarine cables and preparedness for attacks on vital infrastructure. Malta’s dependence on digital services, imported energy and maritime transport makes it particularly vulnerable to disruption.
The Armed Forces of Malta already carry responsibilities that extend well beyond traditional defence. They are involved in maritime surveillance, search-and-rescue operations, border protection, bomb disposal and assistance during national emergencies. The question is whether they are being given sufficient personnel, equipment and technological resources to perform all these duties effectively.
Malta cannot and need not attempt to compete militarily with larger European states. Nor does its neutrality oblige it to follow NATO spending targets. Nevertheless, the country requires a serious public discussion about what neutrality means in the present international environment.
The debate should not simply concern whether Malta reaches an arbitrary percentage of GDP. It should begin by identifying the threats facing the country and determining whether our existing defence, surveillance and emergency capabilities are adequate.
It is significant that Malta is now being cited on Irish television as an example of how little a European country spends on its defence. While the remark was directed at the Irish Government, it should also serve as a warning to Malta.
Neutrality cannot become an excuse for neglecting national security. A country that wishes to remain neutral must also possess the means to protect that neutrality.