It's curious and sometime also funny, how a word in one language can be understood completely differently in another. This was surely felt by many Maltese emigrants in majority English-speaking lands, when commenting the first time about some rainstorm, with those around them probably thinking they were swearing (a play on the sound of the Maltese word for rain, xita, pronounced 'shee-ta').
Recently, the acronym SOFA was mentioned several times in the Maltese media, and certainly not in the context of a comfortable place to sit.
The letters SOFA refer to the Status Of Forces Agreement, an agreement between one country that wants to station or take its military forces to another, that establishes rights and privileges of foreign military people in the host country. This type of agreement is made by many countries including Australia, foremost amongst which is the United States of America which has around a hundred such agreements.
Why is a SOFA such a hot topic? There are several reasons for this.
Firstly, there are matters related to the nature of the agreement itself. a SOFA agreement generally covers legal matters tied to the people forming part of the military contingent and the property they use, whether when based at a place or when visiting. Civil matters include the employment of soldiers and other people in the contingent, whether they are subject to local taxes etc and also for example if there are any damages how these will be compensated. Criminal matters include what happens when someone commits an act such as stealing, physical or sexual violence and even a killing.
Controversy immediately arises as a SOFA generally specifies that foreign courts, not local ones, have jurisdiction on at least some criminal acts that are committed by the people in uniform. This goes straight to the heart of the principle of sovereignty of the country hosting the foreign military forces, and is politically controversial.
For Malta, there is also the fact that having a military force in the country by agreement can be seen as going against the constitutional principle of neutrality, especially when the country sending its military is the United States which can be said to be involved in a substantial part of major conflicts around the world.
Regarding neutrality, it was interesting, and quite intelligent in my view, the attempt by the Maltese government (from what I can understand, as details are not very forthcoming) to offer an agreement under the NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) program called Partnership for Peach (PfP). Malta had joined the PfP in 1995 under the Nationalist government, which membership was suspended by the Labour government of Alfred Sant a year later, who then saw this membership being against the neutrality principle.
Therefore, probably the government calculated that the neutrality objection for a SOFA as part of the PfP would be limited.
There was some speculation that the inking of a SOFA agreement could be one way of encouraging the US to influence MONEYVAL not to be so critical of Malta. I scratch yours, and you scratch mine, more or less.
God forbid that the country is as desperate as needing to prostitute its principle to get a favourable report by a foreign committee, instead of implementing necessary changes to be considered a good citizen in the fight against money laundering. If this was the truth, I would feel it worse and far more insulting than a SOFA agreement that could go against the letter or spirit of Malta's constitutional neutrality.
----------------------------------
Huwa fatt kurjuż u kultant umoruż, kif kelma f'lingwa waħda tinftiehem kompletament differenti f'oħra. Żgur li nħasset minn ħafna emigranti Maltin f'pajjiżi b'lingwa tal-maġġoranza Ingliża, meta kkummentaw għall-ewwel darba fuq xi maltempata bix-xita, b'dawk ta' madwarhom jaħsbu li qegħdin jitkellmu ħażin.
Dan l-aħħar, l-akronimu SOFA ssemma kemm il-darba fuq il-midja Maltija, u ċertament mhux f'kuntest ta' mod komdu fejn issorġi.
L-ittri ta' SOFA jirreferu għal Status Of Forces Agreement, ftehim bejn pajjiż wieħed li jrid jistazzjona jew jieħu l-forzi militari tiegħu f'pajjiż ieħor, li jistabbilixxi d-drittijiet u privileġġi tan-nies militari barranin fl-art li qed tilqagħhom. Dan it-tip ta' ftehim isir minn ħafna pajjiżi inkluża l-Awstralja, u l-iprem fosthom hija l-Istati Uniti tal-Amerika li għandha xi mitt ftehim ta' dan it-tip.
Għaliex ftehim SOFA huwa daqshekk jaħraq? Hemm diversi raġunijiet għal dan.
L-ewwel ħaġa, hemm affarijiet marbutin man-natura tal-ftehim innifsu. Ftehim SOFA ġeneralment ikopri kwestjonijiet legali marbutin mal-persuni li jiffurmaw parti mill-kontinġent militari u l-proprjetà li jużaw, kemm jekk ibbażati f'post u kemm jekk waqt żjara. Affarijiet ċivili jinkludu l-impjieg tas-sultati u nies oħra tal-kontinġent, jekk ikunux suġġetti għat-taxxa lokali eċċ u jekk ikun hemm xi ħsarat kif dawn jiġu kkumpensati. Affarijiet kriminali jinkludu x'jiġri meta xi ħadd jagħmel xi att bħal serq, vjolenza fiżika jew sesswali u anke qtil.
Il-kontroversja tqum mallewwel għax is-SOFA ġeneralment jispeċifika li l-qrati barranin, u mhux dawk lokali, jkollhom il-ġurisdizzjoni fuq tal-inqas xi atti kriminali li jkunu twettqu min-nies tas-servizzi. Dan jolqot fil-laħam il-ħaj il-prinċipju tas-sovranità tal-pajjiż li jkun qiegħed jilqa' għandu l-forzi militari tal-barrani, u huwa politikament kontroversjali.
Għal Malta, hemm ukoll il-fatt li jkollok forzi militari f'pajjiżek bi ftehim jista' jiġi mħares bħala kuntrarju għall-prinċipju kostituzzjonali tiegħu ta' newtralità, speċjalment meta l-pajjiż li qed jibgħat il-militar tiegħu huwa l-Istati Uniti li tista' tgħid li hija involuta f'parti sostanzjali tal-kunflitti l-kbar madwar id-dinja.
Fuq in-newtralità, kien interessanti, u pjuttost intelliġenti, l-attentat tal-Gvern Malti (milli nista' nifhem, għax id-dettalji huma mistura) li joffru ftehim taħt il-programm tan-NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) jismu Partnership for Peace (PfP). Malta kienet issieħbet fil-PfP fl-1995 taħt Gvern Nazzjonalista, u din is-sħubija kienet sospiża mill-Gvern Laburista ta' Alfred Sant sena wara, li dakinhar kien jara din is-sħubija li tmur kontra l-prinċipju ta' newtralità.
Kien hemm min spekula li l-iffirmar ta' ftehim SOFA ikun mod biex jinkoraġġixxi lill-Istati Uniti tinfluenza lill-MONEYVAL biex ma tkunx daqshekk ħarxa ma' Malta. Inti tħokkli tiegħi, u jien inħokklok tiegħek, xi ftit jew wisq.
Allaħares il-pajjiż huwa daqshekk iddisprat li jkun lest iqaħħab il-prinċipji tiegħu biex ikollu rapport favorevoli minn kumitat barrani, minflok li jimplimenta t-tibdiliet neċessarji biex ikun ikkunsidrat ċittadin tajjeb fil-ġlieda kontra l-ħasil tal-flus. Kieku din kienet l-verità, kont inħossha insolenti u iktar gravi milli ftehim SOFA li seta' mar kontra l-kelma jew l-ispirtu tan-newtralità kostituzzjonali ta' Malta.
1https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/us-says-no-to-maltas-diet-sofa-proposal.822133
2https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/news_7192.htm, retrieved 7/10/2020
3https://www.coe.int/en/web/moneyval/jurisdictions/malta, retrieved 7/10/2020
4https://newsbook.com.mt/en/abela-defends-sofa-dismisses-links-with-moneyval-test/, retrieved 7/10/2020
1https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/us-says-no-to-maltas-diet-sofa-proposal.822133
2https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/news_7192.htm, retrieved 7/10/2020
3https://www.coe.int/en/web/moneyval/jurisdictions/malta, retrieved 7/10/2020
4https://newsbook.com.mt/en/abela-defends-sofa-dismisses-links-with-moneyval-test/, retrieved 7/10/2020
