MALTESE SEEKING ITS WAY OUT OF NATO-EU BLOCKAGE

C O N F I D E N T I A L BRUSSELS 004843

SIPDIS

NOFORN

DEPARTMENT FOR EUR/ERA AND EUR/RPM
VALLETTA FOR DCM GRANT
ANKARA FOR DAVID BERGER

E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/09/2014
TAGS: PREL PGOV MT CY TU EUN NATO USEU BRUSSELS
SUBJECT: MALTESE SEEKING ITS WAY OUT OF NATO-EU BLOCKAGE

REF: A. BRUSSELS 4082 B. BRUSSELS 4295 C. IIR 6 917
0014 05

Classified By: USEU Political Military Officer Jeremy Brenner for reaso
ns 1.4 (b) and (d).


1. (C) Summary. Malta's Ambassador to the EU will propose to
Valletta that Malta should declare its PfP agreements from
1994 remain in force, although the country has withdrawn from
active participation. Under this approach, Malta would make
the argument that they satisfy the requirements for
participation in EU-NATO strategic discussions. End summary.


2. (C) In the course of an introductory meeting with Major
Martin Xuereb, Maltese Attache to the EU for Military and
Foreign Policy Affairs, USEU polmiloffs discussed the current
Cyprus/Malta blockage in EU-NATO cooperation. Also present
was Deborah Mangion, Maltese First Secretary for Legal
Affairs.


3. (C/NF) Membership in PfP, or even subscription to the
Framework Document as required by the EU-NATO Security
Agreement, face difficult obstacles in the closely divided
Maltese political environment. Malta Officials estimated
that popular sentiment is running 50/50 over Malta re-joining
NATO PfP. Malta's neutrality clause is also an issue that
enjoys strong support among the population. Given the
current stalemate over the NATO security agreement and
political challenges of Malta re-joining PfP, the question
arose whether Malta had withdrawn completely from PfP in
1996, or simply ended its active participation and its
Individual Partner Program (IPP). In seeking a way forward,
it was suggested that if Malta had simply ceased active
participation in PfP -- but had not formally withdrawn from
the agreements -- it might be possible for Malta to reaffirm
that their prior PfP agreements remained in force. This
would spare the Maltese government from requesting a divisive
Parliamentary vote to join Pfp, and could set the stage for
Malta to participate in EU-NATO strategic discussions.


4. (C/NF) In a follow-on discussion with Maltese Ambassador
to the EU Richard Cachia-Caruana, he told us that he was, in
fact, advocating precisely such an approach to Valletta.
According to his interpretation, the Government of Malta can
argue that they never withdrew from or renounced the security
agreement they had entered into with NATO as part of their
PfP membership, nor did they rescind their adherence to the
Framework Document. Such an approach would obviate the need
to return to Malta's Parliament to request approval of a
(new) subscription to the PfP Framework Document, and also
eliminate the need to negotiate (and ratify) a security
agreement with NATO. Ambassador Cachia-Caruana said that he
hoped this could be done before the December decision on
Turkish accession to the EU, so as to avoid any linkage
between the two issues.


5. (C/NF) Comment: This Maltese initiative presents some
potential for movement toward breaking the logjam that has
grown increasingly frustrating to both EU and NATO
representatives. If Valletta declares unilaterally that the
pre-existing agreements remain in force, Turkey's legitimate
legal concerns based on its reading of the two relevant
documents will be addressed -- at least in the case of Malta.
Turkish acquiescence to a solution for Malta might allow a
possible way forward to emerge, as Cypriot representatives
have already expressed a willingness to consider subscribing
to the PfP Framework document (ref B). Ambassador
Cachia-Caruana is scheduled for a courtesy call with
Ambassador Schnabel in the coming days. We anticipate he
will raise the Maltese proposal in that meeting, and seek any
Washington guidance on this idea.

McKinley