The Libyan warship that stopped neutral Malta’s search for oil

It’s Wednesday, 20 August 1980 in the middle of the Mediterranean Sea, south of Malta. Oil workers on an Italian rig contracted by Texaco are going about their daily routine on this floating outpost above the Medina Bank.

Texaco was one of several oil companies granted a concession by Malta in 1974 to drill the seabed in hope of finding oil or gas. Operations on the Medina Bank had started 10 days earlier.

But what was to be a normal work day, quickly turned into a foreboding experience for the workers on board the rig. A Libyan warship approached the platform with a threatening message. Workers were ordered to stop operations and withdraw the rig from the area.

On that hot August day, the Libyan government sought to resolve the long-standing dispute with Malta over the delineation of the continental shelf by using the threat of military force.

After the incident, Malta’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Victor J. Gauci, wrote to the Security Council to seek the UN’s protection. The exchange of correspondence reveals that the Libyan naval vessel remained moored to one of the buoys of the rig for several days until the unfinished well was plugged and the platform forced out of Maltese waters.

Malta sought the Security Council's protection after a Libyan warship forced a Maltese-authorised oil rig to stop drilling

“No country, particularly a small unarmed country, should have its legitimate activities unlawfully molested by others. That is an objective which all countries should respect,” Gauci wrote in one of the letters to the Security Council in September 1980.

Malta was deprived, at gun point, of the possibility to carry out oil exploration on the Medina Bank. Worse still, the aggressor was a neighbouring country with which Malta had “brotherly ties”, according to prime minister Dom Mintoff’s description of the bond between Malta and Libya in one of the letters he sent Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.

Malta’s Permanent Representative to the UN in 1980, Victor J. Gauci

The warship incident was the climax of a dispute over the continental shelf that had been brewing since 1972, at least. It was eventually decided by the International Court of Justice in 1985 after the UN mediated between both parties.

Searching for oil

Soon after the 1971 general election, a new Labour government led by prime minister Dom Mintoff negotiated a new and final lease extension for the British military base. The lease would expire in March 1979, marking the departure of all foreign military forces from the island.

Before reaching this milestone, the Mintoff government was intent on transforming Malta’s economy to be less dependent on the military base for income and employment.

Former prime minister Dom Mintoff: His incoming administration in 1971 sought to transform Malta's economy in preparation for the departure of British forces in 1979

Finding oil was one such priority, which necessitated the demarcation of the dividing line in international waters between Malta and Libya.

Malta defined this as the equidistance between the isle of Filfla, Malta’s southernmost shoreline, and the Libyan coast. Libya disputed this and argued that the dividing line should be determined by the geology of the seabed, identifying the rift south of Malta as the demarcation line. Libya also argued that if Malta’s principle of equidistance should be adopted, the median line must take into account Libya’s much longer coastline and compensate for it.

In 1974, Malta granted several concessions for oil drilling in areas to the south and southeast of the island based on its interpretation of where the median line should be.

Libya drags its feet

Libya objected and in 1976 the two countries signed an agreement to refer the dispute to the International Court of Justice at The Hague. Malta’s parliament ratified the agreement shortly after its signing but Libya kept delaying ratification.

Libya’s decision to drag its feet was the source of several representations by the Maltese government to try and convince the Libyan authorities to ratify the agreement.

Malta and Libya signed a special agreement in 1976 to refer the median line dispute to the International Court of Justice

The voluminous documents forming part of the acts of the case at The Hague contain several letters Mintoff wrote to Gaddafi, indicating Malta’s urgency to settle the matter.

“This lack of ratification is causing us great trouble,” Mintoff told Gaddafi in his letter of 3 December 1976. “The Opposition in parliament is accusing us that in spite of our close friendly relations we have been unable to agree on such a simple matter.”

Mintoff also emphasised the commitment Libya had given Malta to help transform the island’s economy from one dependent on the foreign military base to one of “development based on peaceful relations” with its neighbours.

Excerpt from Mintoff's letter to Gaddafi in 1976

“I need to explain to you that if we succeed in finding oil before 1979, we will make a great stride forward in eliminating the need for a military base,” Mintoff wrote, adding this was weighing on the Maltese government’s conscience.

Mintoff concluded his letter by reiterating Malta’s aspiration to be a neutral state after March 1979.

There was no progress registered from the Libyan side and in January 1978, Mintoff wrote another letter to Gaddafi in which he diplomatically expressed incredulity at Libya’s delay to ratify the 1976 agreement that would pave the way for the dispute to be referred to the ICJ.

Excerpt from Mintoff's letter to Gaddafi in 1978

“Of one thing I am sure: this [delay] is not being done capriciously or through carelessness because I am fully aware how hard both of us have worked to strengthen the friendship and brotherly ties between our two countries. This same bond of friendship makes it incumbent on me to inform you that the non-ratification of the May 1976 agreement is seriously demolishing all that we have succeeded to build together,” Mintoff wrote.

The Maltese prime minister reiterated the importance for Malta to drill for oil in the hope of making a successful discovery.

“I know, Mr Secretary General, that you will appreciate that the people of Malta are anxious for exploration work to start, because if oil is found by 1979 our island would be able to face its future as a neutral country with greater courage,” Mintoff insisted.

Malta decides to drill

This letter was followed up by another one in May 1978 in which Mintoff expressed disappointment that Libya had come forward with a proposal concerning the demarcation line that “put the clock back at least six years”.

Mintoff also urged Gaddafi to reach an agreement by which Libya would guarantee Malta’s future status as a neutral country.

In November 1979, during a visit to Tripoli, the Maltese Attorney General informed the Libyan authorities that Malta had decided to go ahead with drilling operations. The Libyan counterparts warned this would endanger relations between the two countries. Malta was willing to consider a 15-mile-wide corridor above the median line as a disputed area and avoid drilling in this zone.

Dom Mintoff and Muammar Gaddafi at Castille: Despite the friendly relations, Libya threatened the use of force to stop Malta from drilling for oil before accepting to refer the matter to the ICJ

It was agreed that a further meeting should take place soon enough to leave enough time for Libya to submit the matter to the Popular Congresses for ratification in January 1980.

However, the Libyans ignored the January target date and during a visit to Tripoli in April 1980, Mintoff notified the Libyan authorities of Malta’s intention to commence drilling.

Libya’s prime minister insisted Libya would protest and resist such an action.

On 10 May 1980, Libya sent Malta a Note Verbale denouncing what it described as a violation of its rights and declared its “non-recognition of acts which would affect its sovereignty”. This was Libya’s first diplomatic protest in respect of the concessions granted by Malta in 1974.

In its reply on 21 May 1980, the Foreign Affairs Ministry of Malta rejected as “unfounded and inadmissible” Libya’s claims to areas of the continental shelf over which Malta had granted concessions.

The growing tension culminated in the military ship incident that effectively shut down Malta’s oil exploration on the Medina Bank.

Eventually, in 1985, the ICJ delivered its judgment that shifted the demarcation line drawn by Malta upwards to take into account the vastly larger Libyan coastline. Malta’s continental shelf limit was thus reduced but the court only pronounced itself on a small section of the zone since there were competing claims from Italy and Tunisia to the southeast and southwest of Malta’s continental shelf.

Malta’s search for oil has had no success.

NEUTRALITY NO DETERRENT FOR ROGUE ACTIONS

At the time of the oil rig incident Malta was in the process of concretising its neutral status by seeking security guarantees from several countries.

In his letters to Muammar Gaddafi in the run-up to the 1980 incident, Dom Mintoff repeatedly reiterated Malta’s yearning to become a neutral state after the British military’s departure in March 1979.

Nonetheless, this was not enough to prevent Libya from using the threat of force to stop Malta from drilling for oil on its continental shelf.

This incident may hark back 45 years but it remains a pertinent reminder of how neutrality is not enough to ward off a belligerent state that decides to use force to resolve real or perceived disputes with Malta.

The oil rig incident involved what was supposed to be a ‘friendly’ country that had committed to help Malta transform its economy as it transitioned away from dependence on the foreign military base. When push came to shove, Libya ditched friendliness and pointed the gun towards Malta.

Map showing submarine cables passing beneath the Mediterranean Sea. The coloured cables represent the electricity and data connections pertaining to Malta. Apart from the interconnector, owned by the Maltese government, by which electricity is imported from Italy, the seabed between Sicily and Malta also hosts critical data cables owned by Go plc, Melita and Epic. Another subsea cable is the fibre optic link between Malta and Gozo, which is the only data link to the sister island. The blue cable is the Peace International Network that runs from southeast Asia to France. Go plc owns the Malta branch. Source: submarinecablemap.com

This context is pertinent in current circumstances where the EU is seeking to increase military investment to be able to defend itself better in the wake of the Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the US’s apparent disengagement from Europe.

Malta’s neutrality does not prevent it from beefing up its own defence as part of this EU-wide effort. The risks of aggression can never be underestimated, especially in the context of hybrid warfare.

Malta has critical subsea infrastructure – electricity and data cables – connecting it to Sicily, which if sabotaged can bring the country to a halt. Cyber-attacks from state and non-state actors can also disrupt critical public and private services.

Malta’s Constitution bars it from being part of a military alliance but this should not mean staying out of arrangements that can boost the country’s defence capabilities. Ostensibly, it is these defence arrangements more than neutrality that could deter belligerent actors from harming Malta’s interests.