What does it mean to be neutral in a polarised world?

Countries like Sweden and Finland, who have long been associated with neutrality, have now joined Nato. Photo: Nato Newsroom

Russian President Vladimir Putin has attributed his invasion of Ukraine to the country not being 'neutral'. Russia is not prepared to end the war until Ukraine abandons its intention to join Western defence alliances such as Nato. 

This move has forced Switzerland, a neutral country, to reconsider its own concept of neutrality, long regarded as a foreign policy conducive to peace and stability in Europe. 

Sweden and other neutral countries are being forced to follow a similar policy. Neutrality has been a source of inspiration and an ideal for many states in the twentieth century. Many EU countries support elements of neutrality in their foreign policy. Indeed, neutrality is generally associated with peace and prosperity.

Switzerland, Austria, Sweden, Finland, and Iceland are among them. However, many countries seem to have abandoned their neutrality internationally and domestically in the wake of Russia's attack on Ukraine. 

Switzerland has broken with tradition by joining Western countries in adopting sanctions against Russia that are so far-reaching and severe as to amount to economic warfare. Sweden maintained a controversial neutrality during the Second World War, as did Switzerland. It has now embarked on this path by promising direct military aid to Ukraine.

Calling Moscow a beneficiary of the current crisis in the Middle East (West Asia) resulting from the unprecedented Hamas attack on Israel on 7 October has become a baseless fatwa. The argument goes that Israel's war against Hamas has diverted Western attention from the military conflict between Russia and Ukraine and could even disrupt Kyiv's military supplies. 

If this is true, the growing tensions in the region also present a significant challenge for Russia, which now has to tread carefully with partners who are each other's near-friends, near-enemies, or adversaries.

Since 2015, when Russia intervened in the Syrian civil war by sending its air force and a limited military contingent, Moscow has been seen as a major power broker in the Middle East. Outside Syria, Russia has positioned itself as a mediator and stabilising force. 

Middle Eastern powers have been reluctant to follow US sanctions against the Russian economy because of their own imperative to maintain healthy relations with Russia. Instead, they have become logistical centres for the supply of vital goods and materials to Russia. 

Russia's economic ties with Turkey are intensifying. Iran has become a strategic partner and supplier of critical defence equipment to Russia. Saudi Arabia coordinates its oil production closely with Russia to control oil markets and prices effectively, while the United Arab Emirates (UAE) offers a safe haven for Russian capital. Egypt has maintained its neutrality in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine and has resisted calls to send arms to Kyiv.

However, the conflict in Ukraine has affected Russia's position in the region. Bilateral relations with Israel have been strained, particularly under the government of Prime Minister Yair Lapid. Relations have become more balanced since Netanyahu's return to power, perhaps due to his personal relationship with President Putin. 

Moscow praises Israel for refusing to supply arms to Ukraine, although it has been outspoken about Russia's actions in Ukraine. Although economic cooperation and close people-to-people links are important drivers of Israeli-Russian relations, this partnership is limited by Tel Aviv's proximity to Washington.

In Sweden, an EU member state, the national conservative Sweden Democrats party has called for a radical break with the previous interim government and membership in the Nato group. There is no doubt that Russia's aggression in Ukraine is damaging the security of the neighbouring Nordic countries (Norway, Finland, Iceland, and Sweden). 

On the other hand, Denny's Centre Democratic Union deplored the EU's sanctions against Russia. The team described it as a decisive sacrifice. 

Unsurprisingly, they consider Switzerland's accession in 1951 'compatible with neutrality' and now oppose Switzerland's temporary seat on the UN Security Council. Neutrality cannot be defined by the question of prohibition. It is neither a question of international law nor a condition for a secure state.

Hegemony allows independent sovereign states to form and export, not to keep countries at war. At the beginning of the 20th century, the coordination of refugees around the world by multilateral powers was still an important element of international humanitarian law, even if it did not respect it. 

From a historical point of view, absolutism is a contemporary of democracy. Absolutism and democracy were both invented in the city-states of ancient Greece. At the beginning of the 19th and 20th centuries, the model of the world election was still subject to many interpretations. 

Switzerland has been a neutral country since 1815, including during the Second World War. Sweden declared itself a neutral state in 1834. From a political point of view, neutrality means that a country will not take the side of a belligerent party in a particular conflict and will continue to refrain from waging war. 

The African countries of Ghana and Rwanda have joined the current neutrality movement. Neutrality is a veritable history of the country. Although Ireland, Austria, and Finland are considered members of the European Union, they can no longer be controlled since their accession to the EU.

But there are also many examples where neutrality has failed to protect a state from aggression, such as Belgium, which was attacked by Germany during the First World War, or Cambodia during the Vietnam War, which was attacked by both North Korea and the United States. 

Neutrality is only successful when it protects the interests of all parties, or at least when it does not appear to be an existential threat to any of them. The inter-state conflicts of the twentieth century have given rise to new forms of neutrality. These include innovative solutions for disputed territories, such as the Baltic islands of Åland between Sweden and Finland (1920) or the Spitsbergen Treaty of 1925, which still guarantees peace in the Arctic islands of Svalbard today.

In 1959, the Antarctic Treaty led to the "neutralisation" of an entire continent. Neutrality is currently a hotly debated issue in Asia. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the Pacific Island nation of Taiwan are both considering a path of neutrality to protect themselves from military tensions between China and the United States. 

As long as there are international conflicts, neutrality will have a future. The big question is how we can apply it to advance peace.

Shahidul Alam Swapan is a crime compliance security expert in private banking, a poet and a columnist.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of The Business Standard.