Neutrality in Foreign Policy: Relevance and Impact in the 21st Century

The concept of neutrality as a topic of international studies existed as long as the advent of the conflicts between states. The first mention of neutrality in occidental writing is in Thucydides' The History of the Peloponnesian War (431 BC), which details the Melian Dialogue. The island of Melos attempted to remain neutral throughout Sparta's war with Athens, but lost due to power politics.

Illustration by The Geostrata

Even in this contemporary era, with conflicts returning in large numbers and geopolitical changes, we see neutrality being revived as a contemporary topic of discourse and study.

The United Nations defines neutrality as a state that is "not participating at all in the war, and adopting an 'openness', or 'impartiality' to the war that enables this non-participation".

This focus on only wartime definition of neutrality overlooks concepts like peacetime neutrality, foreign policy neutrality, neutralisation or ad hoc neutrality. In many ways the characterisation of neutrality has been unfairly limited and does not only apply or is reserved for the smaller states. In fact, throughout the multipolar world today, which is increasingly characterised by constant wars, friendshoring, and new strategic frontiers, neutrality as a tool of statecraft is still a viable and legitimate concept.

THE SHIFTING MEANING OF NEUTRALITY IN GLOBAL POLITICS:

Switzerland's formal acceptance of permanent neutrality in 1815, after the Napoleonic Wars, represents one of the earliest examples of modern history operationalising neutrality as a strategic posture. Since then, Switzerland has distanced itself from major wars and has become a trusted player in being a diplomatic host and a host for multilateral organisations.

Belgium was also declared neutral in 1839, but its subsequent invasions at the emergence of both World Wars point to the reality that neutrality does not always protect a state in periods of intense geopolitical interests. Countries like Denmark and Norway used neutrality in the interwar period but faced occupation during World War II, while Spain, Ireland, Turkey, and Portugal remained non-belligerent throughout World War II for a variety of reasons, such as political calculations, domestic priorities, and geographical circumstances.

When it comes to neutrality in the Cold War period, such stances are both more nuanced and complicated. Switzerland continued its neutrality stance as it always has, and Austria in 1955 announced it would declare and maintain permanent neutrality, which also allowed them to host the IAEA. Finland's strategy of ‘Finlandization’ is also a good example where it was able to balance Soviet proximity with Western economic ties.

At the same time, the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) emerged in 1961 with countries like India, Egypt, Yugoslavia, etc, promoting strategic autonomy and balancing against imperialist interests.

NEUTRALITY AS A CONCEPT

Neutrality is more complex than simply not just taking any side. The political theorist Pertti Joenniemi (1993) offers a helpful typology in classifying neutrality as: temporary neutrality, permanent neutrality and neutralisation through international law. 

• Ad hoc or temporary neutrality occurs when states declare neutrality during a war or in a circumstance of war with their belligerents. Examples of such type of neutrality have been found many a times. Iran, for example, remained neutral during the 1990-91 Gulf War in order to avoid Western reactions and to mend ties with Iraq.

• Neutralisation is when an international agreement has been reached which determines the neutrality of a state. Finland in particular, has institutionalised neutrality through legal means, as evident by its post WWII treaty with the Soviet Union. 

• Finally, there is the specific case of permanent neutrality in which the state has voluntarily become neutral. Switzerland may be the quintessential example of permanent neutrality, adopted in 1815. The international community still acknowledges Sweden's and Ireland's de facto neutrality too, even though they have not signed any international agreements and still uphold neutral policies.

For this purpose, neutrality continues to be misunderstood as a passive or weak stance. Practicing neutrality involves numerous diplomatic moves, to pose a balance in the efforts, and above all, gaining credibility to all parties in a conflict.

In today's fragmented era of geopolitics, neutrality is surprisingly not regarded as a lack of politics; increasingly, it is a calculated strategy.

MODERN APPLICATIONS OF NEUTRALITY

Neutrality today is not just sitting on the sidelines - it is operating in the domain of power politics without being drawn into them. The Russia–Ukraine war made this very clear. India for example, has continued its ties in defence and energy sectors with Russia, while at the same time tightening those relations with the U.S. and the EU too.

India's Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar in 2022 said, ‘we will not be restricted to binary options.’ This is a form of pragmatic and interest-based neutrality. Neutrality in West Asia is as complex as the regional ties among the countries. Qatar and Turkey position themselves as mediators in the recent war in 2023 between Israel-Gaza, but as with their diplomatic aligned statements, they favour Palestinian responses to Israel's actions.

Egypt continues taking the role of mediator in the region but balances its domestic concerns with sending humanitarian aid for the crisis. Neutrality can also serve economic and diplomatic objectives. The UAE and Qatar are pursuing ‘strategic neutrality’ exemplified through their hosting of peace talks, good offices and shuttle diplomacy. Simultaneoulsy, they are also stronlgy maintaining ties with rival powers - the US, China, Russia and Iran.

Their capability to facilitate diplomacy enhances their international profile without unfavourable alignment. Even authoritarian regimes use neutrality. Turkmenistan, depite being an authoritarian country, has positioned itself as neutral in its foreign policy.

It even successfully lobbied the UN to recognise December 12 as the International Day of Neutrality.

This is an illustration of how neutrality is a flexible instrument chosen by varied political systems as a harbour of their sovereignty, bolstering their global relevance, and dealing with the pressures of multipolarity.

CONCLUSION

Neutrality has adapted to the realities of a complex multipolar world. Conventional methods of neutrality may seem outdated against the backdrop of digital coercion and grey-zone conflict, but the strategy of pursuing strategic autonomy is as salient as ever. Countries, especially in the Global South, are adopting flexible types of neutrality that may be issue or interest-based and actively non-aligned.

These flexible forms of neutrality allow selective engagement, informed by the preservation of sovereignty and disengaged from great power rivalries. In short, 21st-century neutral engagement is about being proactive, rather than passive, while retaining the realistic ability to know when to engage, when to abstain, and where to preserve resilience in an increasingly disaggregated global order.

---

BY ARUSHI JAIN

TEAM GEOSTRATA

info@thegeostrata.com