Government policies come and go, victims of trends and fickle public opinion. The Swiss attachment to neutrality has the most staying power. Historians disagree whether it was formally adopted in 1515 or only in 1648, or perhaps as recently as 1815. Somehow the idea that Switzerland should steer clear of foreign military entanglements has proved almost as durable as the alpine backdrop and discreet banks. Other countries have copied it. Half a dozen European countries declared themselves neutral before Russia invaded Ukraine last February. Once upon a time this approach had an enlightened tinge: virtuous foreign policy of the well-run Nordic type. These days it seems hopelessly naïve, if not bad. Some countries have rejected the concept while others have stuck to their pacifist guns.
Whether Switzerland—Europe’s 20th most populous country, with only 9 million people—is pitching in to a conflict is hardly noticeable to any belligerent. Yet the question has gained unexpected importance in recent weeks. The Bern government’s attachment to neutrality included not sending weapons made in Switzerland to war zones, nor allowing countries that had previously purchased Swiss weapons to re-export them without prior approval. Such authorization has been denied to Spain and Germany, which want to push Swiss-made kit and ammunition into their arsenals to help break Ukraine away from Russia. The Swiss stubbornness has been fiercely criticized by those on the front lines. “Ukraine sees this not as neutrality but as undermining our defense capabilities,” tweeted Anton Gerashchenko, a government adviser in Kiev.
Reports suggest that the Swiss may find a way to circumvent their principles. It would be the latest blow to a policy that has not aged well. Five other countries have adopted some form of neutrality in Europe for different reasons. Finland and Austria were aligned with this to shake off the Soviet yoke: declaring themselves neutral was a condition for regaining their independence after World War II. Sweden has claimed neutrality for two centuries; Tiny Malta adopted it in 1980 to avoid being crushed by Cold-War rivalry. Ireland, out of the way and close to both the US and the UK, has been neutral since at least the 1930s. (Cyprus is an honorary member of the club: it is not in NATO, but only because Turkey would block its accession.)
As war broke out on the continent, Sweden and Finland took the opportunity to join their non-neutral allies. Both applied to join NATO in May when public opinion swung against the military standoff. The coalition wants them, but needs all 30 current members to ratify their accession. Turkey’s autocratic president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, is holding Sweden to ransom, demanding it extradite Kurdish militants who have sought refuge there. A deal may be near; Even if not, the Finns and Swedes have already chosen their sides. Finland has said it may offer advanced Leopard 2 battle tanks to Ukraine along with other allies. Finland and Sweden have both signed a security pact with the UK, and are considering one with the US. (Arguably, joining the EU was in itself a sacrifice of neutrality, given that the club’s rules included a mutual-aid clause.)
Finland has long tried to distance itself from the idea of neutrality, which is a reminder of how the Kremlin once limited its foreign-policy options. At least its “non-alignment” was not a way of skimping on defense. Finland devotes 2% of its GDP to its military budget, which is in line with NATO guidance that only a handful in the alliance have met as of late. This is perhaps not surprising given the country’s 1,340 km (830-mile) border with Russia. To other neutrals, mayhem is part of the appeal. Sweden spends 1.3% of GDP, much criticized Germany. Before the war Malta, Switzerland and Austria devoted 1% of GDP to their armed forces; Ireland is the tightest in the EU at only 0.3%.
Apart from the Nordics, the neutral status quo is willing to tolerate without much questioning. Ireland has gone through diplomatic contortions to declare itself “not politically neutral, but militarily neutral”. Instead of sending guns to Ukraine, it has distributed first aid kits. Austria and Switzerland have confirmed their commitment to the principle. Both have offered their services. A much-hyped traditional role for neutrals, coordinator of peace talks between Russia and Ukraine (posh hotels in other countries are available when talks take place). “Austria was neutral, Austria is neutral, Austria will remain neutral,” said its Chancellor Karl Nehmer, pledging to boost military spending. Neutrality is popular and enshrined in its constitution.
Switzerland, for its part, recently reviewed its neutrality doctrine and found it appropriate. It would aid Ukraine if the UN Security Council condemned Russia – this is very unlikely, given that Russia exercises a veto there. Its most significant contribution to the war effort has largely been to mirror sanctions imposed by the European Union. It has frozen trading of Russian oil in Geneva and piles of oligarch cash hoarded in Zurich. But populists have criticized this as moving away from non-alignment.
Please don’t go to war, we are neutral!
Neutrality increasingly looks like a simplistic answer to complex geopolitical questions. The battle for Europe’s security is being fought in the trenches of Ukraine. Any country on the continent declaring itself neutral about the outcome is declaring that its own security is a matter of concern. The non-neutrals are annoyed by this. Their guns are clearly defending the likes of Austria, who splurge on more butter and boast of their own merit to boot.
Countries declaring themselves neutral may change their mind. Congress was so determined that the US should remain nonaligned that it declared its neutrality in 1935, 1936, 1937, and 1939. Yet by 1941 she had joined the Allies. Switzerland or Ireland throwing their weight behind Ukraine is unlikely to have the same effect. But connecting to the real world would be a welcome decision.
Read more from Charlemagne, our columnist on European politics: Fifty years ago, the EU solved the secret of its current success (January 5) Why Europe’s traditional foods aren’t always what they seem (December 20) A corruption scandal has shaken the European Union (15 December)
© 2023, The Economist Newspaper Limited. All rights reserved. From The Economist, published under license. Original content can be found at www.economist.com
catch all politics news And updates on Live Mint. download mint news app to receive daily market update & Live business News,