US embassy cable - 04BRUSSELS4843

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1994 remain in force, although the country has withdrawn from 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arose whether Malta had withdrawn completely from PfP in 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participation in PfP -- but had not formally withdrawn from 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