Global_Politics

The following essay addresses the contentious issue of neutrality. The main emphasis is to assess accurately to what extent a position of neutrality confers economic and security benefits upon a state. It is evident that a neutrality is still a significant and perennial phenomenon that is worth elaborating and has a huge impact on people. In some cases, a neutrality can be seen as a feature of national identity in the neutral countries such as Sweden and Switzerland. The essence of neutrality is to avoid of war. In other words,a neutrality is a status chosen by a state which refrains from taking part in a war between two or more other powers. Neutrality is a term used in international law. The main rights and duties of a neutral state in war times are anchored in the Hague Conventions V and XIII of 18 October 1907. According to these customary rules a neutral state must be non-participated in war, impartial and self-defended. In conclusion, the basic rules of neutrality are quiet simple. Firstly, a neutral state should not fight and secondly, belligerents have to respect the territorial integrity of a neutral state. Its roots reach deep into history as can be seen over the*** centuries there have been many debates about neutrality and its advantages and disadvantages. On the one hand neutrality offers the benefit of decreasing the posibility to get involved in the wars of other nations and furthermore, it brings increased sovereignty. On the other hand the main disadvantage of being neutral is the hindered possibility of burden sharing through collective security. In some cases, a position of neutrality can be also seen as a typical resource of weakness, an example of this is a neutrality as the official policy of the United States in 1939 – 41 (“American Isolationism“). Taken from: Möller, B.: "Small states, non-offensive defence and collective security"; In: Bauwens, W., et al. eds.: "small states and the security challenge in the new Europe", London, Brassey, 1996, p. 14*** In fact, a neutrality has been the main status chosen by most of European small states since the end of the First World War. For example, Denmark, Sweden, Ireland, Switzerland, Norway and Belgium were once considered as neutral countries. But many of these states lost their neutrality within the Second World War and did not adopt this policy again after it. Cox, M., McGinty, R.: "Farewell to a beautiful idea, the end of neutrality in the post cold war world"; In: Bauwens, W., et al. eds.: "small states and the security challenge in the new Europe", London, Brassey, 1996, pp. 122-137 (anyaltical point regarding loss of neutrality) Moreover, some neutral countries have also changed their policy towards a position of neutrality within the last 10 years. Nowadays there are not many states which can be considered as neutral, because countries need to discuss the common security and economics challenges and avenues of cooperation. The only state which is still persistently neutral seems to be Switzerland but in some points of view, countries such as Austria, Sweden, Republic of Ireland, Finland, Japan, Costa Rica, Malta and many others can be also recognised as “neutral“. Particularly, in this essay I decided to concentrate on two different neutral states – Switzerland and Sweden. Discussing aspects ( variation neutraility, advantages + disadvantages, security + economics, ) Provide pathway In fact, Swiss neutrality cannot be compared with Swedish neutrality in any aspects, because the circumstances which led to the adoption of this foreign policy can be viewed as slightly different. Generally, there are various types of neutrality such as permanent, armed, voluntary and others. Switzerland‘s neutraility can be seen as a permanent, selfdetermined, armed guarantee by other powers, based on treaties with neighboring states. The are five core elements which govern Swiss policy of neutrality. These factors are supposed to be tradition and its history, the international situation, the law of neutrality and the international interest. Absolute swiss neutrality as a principle of foreign policy is quite recent, generally, it dates back to the 15th Century and especially to the year 1674, when the Confederation regarded itself as a neutral state that did not participate in the war between other nations. A key factor for Switzerland's neutrality is the year 1815 when The Vienna Conference declared Swiss neutrality between European powers. Furthermore, Switzerland’s neutrality was anchored in international law. In World War I (1914-1918) Switzerland maintained its strict neutrality and after the war Switzerland joined actively the League of Nations (a predecessor to the UN) and Geneva became the main seat of the League. It is eveident that Switzerland managed to fallow armed neutrality also during the Second World War and was not involved militarily.In fact, Switzerland was sorrounded by facist troops such as Italy, Austria, Germany and was under heavy pressure from the fascist powers. Nevertheless, Switzerland immediatelly mobilised its army and asserted neutrality and independence. Within post-war period Switzerland realised that there were no allies left among the victorious powers and Federal Councillor Max Petitpierre was forced to change Swiss foreign policy to active neutrality and mentioned his famous leitmotiv “Neutrality and solidarity”. Apparently, Switzerland tried to fallow two principles. Firstly, it wanted to avoided remaining isolated from the international community and secondly, Switzerlan tried to adopt enough solidarity. As an example of this can be seen that during the Cold War Switzerland maintained one of largest land-based army in Europe and got involved in many various peace-keeping missions such as Korea in the year 1953 (Swiss observers in the Demarcation Line in Korea). In fact, it is important to realise that Switzerland was supposed to play only a marginal role in the Cold War. It can be pointed out that Swiss government managed to establish close economics relations, because Switzerland become a founder-member of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) in 1960 and joined the Council of Europe in 1963 and got thus involved in European integration efforts. Indeed, the end of the Cold War ment a reconsideration of swiss neutrality which was changing into a more flexible policy. It was increasingly important for Switzerland “to reinforce its active participation in the efforts of the international community in favour of a peaceful international order. The decision was imposed by the international solidarity“ .Amtliches Bulletin der Bundesversammlung, 5.December 1990, Nationalrat, Aussenpolitik Personliche Vorstosse, p.991. Switzerland had attempts to become a part of a collective security system and country played an active role in many of the UN's specialized agencies. As an example can be seen the Gulf War (1990-1991), after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, Switzerland adopted economic sanctions against Iraq. Moreover, in 1993 the Federal Council published “Neutrality report“ in which Switzerland determined that neutrality alone could not protect country against new dangers such as organised crime or terrorism. Switzerland “will exercise its neutrality in a way that allows it to take the necessary military precautions for its own defence, also with respect to new threats. Depending on the threat, this could also entail international cooperation in the preparation of defensive measures.” KNIHA Moving away from its basic stance, Switzerland has been participating in NATO’s Partnership for Peace (PfP) since 1996 but it declined to become a member of NATO. According to Switzerland’s presentation document of 30 November 1996: “Switzerland is committed to permanent and armed neutrality. It does not intend to abandon its neutrality. It does not wish to join NATO.” Additionaly, Switzerland fallowed the same attitude to the European union. Even though Swiss territory is surrounded only by EU countries, Switzerland never joined the European union. A key factor for Swiss neutrality was the fact that in 2002 Switzerland was officially ratified as a member of the United Nations. This can be viewed as a paradox, because Geneva was host to the UN's European headquarters but Switzerland did not for many decades become a member of the United Nations. Nevertheless, Switzerland affirms: “Switzerland is a neutral state whose status is based on international law. Even as a member of the UN, Switzerland remains neutral.” Deeply rooted into switzerland’s history, neutrality has brought many security and economic benefits. It is evident that Switzerland as a neutral country has the low possibility of being drawn into a conflicts between other nation. Moreover, neutrality means protection for the sovereignty and the independence of the country. On the one hand Switzerland still remains a strict conception of its neutrality but on the other hand it tries to adjust its neutral policy to the changing European environment. Furthermore, Switzerland became an active participant in many alliances such as .... .According to its Security Policy Report the Federal Council states: “For the future it is important that neutrality does not become an obstacle to ensuring our security. Even under most stringent application of neutrality law, we have considerable scope which must be used more than in the past in the sense of a participative foreign and security policy.” Swiss policy of neutrality can be seen as economic benefit and positivness for ist economy. Switzerland maintained neutrality in both world wars and did not have to take a part in rebuilding phases which the rest of European states had to undergo. It appears that ist national sovereignty and separateness gave Switzerland a special role as the central venue for international deliberations. There is no doubt that nowadays Switzerland is supposed to be the centre of financial transactions. In fact, it presents itself as the guardian of the free market of the world, because in the past it pretended to be against all odds during the war. Following the Cold War, Switzerland joined the Bretton Woods institutions in 1992 and finally became a member of the Indeed, the end of the Cold war open… The Cold War enhanced the role of neutral Switzerland and offered the country a way out of its diplomatic isolation after World War II Switzerland joined the Bretton Woods institutions http://www.all-about-switzerland.info/swiss-history-traditions.html http://www.vbs.admin.ch/internet/vbs/en/home/documentation/publication.parsys.0008.downloadList.00081.DownloadFile.tmp/brochneutralitye.pdf http://www.questia.com/PM.qst'a=o&d=14632268Contrast Contrarily the neutrality of Sweden is voluntary not anchored in any treaty as it has no legal obligation to comply with policy of neutrality (streamline + alter to improve readablity). In general, Swedish neutrality can be considered as permanent, traditional and without international legal framework. Particularly, this type of neutrality gives Sweden an important formal freedom. Thus on the one hand, it is possible that a single government decision can easily change Swedish neutrality. On the other hand there are many restrictive aspects such as a tradition of neutrality and its deep roots in history. It can be pointed out that Sweden remained neutral in both world wars and after the postwar period, Swedish foreign policy had been recognized as “active neutrality”. Sweden traditionally followed a neutral policy also within the Cold War. Nevertheless, it can be pointed out that Sweden did not maintain a position of strict neutrality in neither the Second World War nor the Cold War. As an example of this is supposed to be supplying Finland with arms and troops within 1939–40 and extensive cooperation with NATO. (Dagens Nyheter 1999) In fact, Sweden realized that the main danger lied in being left out of European affairs and political, economic and dynamic context. It was necessary to change a foreign policy that no longer had any logic. Sweden thus decided to become a member of the UN in 1946 and participate in some of the European Recovery Program benefits. Furthermore, Sweden was instrumental in creating the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) in 1960. Within a decade after the end of the Cold War, Sweden has considered further its policy of neutrality and Defense Minister Anders Bjorck (1991 – 1994) said: „Sweden planned to remain neutral in the event of war in our vicinity, but nonetheless expected to move steadily closer through the 1990s toward full participation in European defense activities. Sweden, he said, was ready to help Europe develop enough military muscle to handle future regional crises“. http://www.nytimes.com/1992/06/05/news/05iht-swed.html Since May 1994 Sweden thus has participated in NATO’s “Partnership for Peace” , which is a functional program between NATO and non-NATO countries. It can be viewed that Sweden cooperated with NATO more extensively than any other non–member and sometimes can be classified as “unofficial member”. (Dahl,1995) Additionally after a referendum in 1994 (passed with a 52.3% majority), Sweden officially joined the European Union on 1 January 1995, and shortly thereafter became a WEU observer. It is evident that a membership at the EU can be seen as the final removel from ideological neutrality to “non-alignment“.( DAHL, 1998). A famous advocate Rolf H. Lindholm said: „ Since Sweden joined the EU several steps have been taken which threaten our policy of neutrality and non-aligned position. Sweden has joined the North Atlantic Cooperative council (NACC), Partnership for Peace (PFP), gained observer status in the WEU, sent troops to Bosnia and joined the Western European Armaments Group“. (Lindholm, 1998:156). He summerised that a position of Sweden is nowadays getting hard to defend. According to historical evolution of neutrality it can be viewed some core security and economics benefits. Generally, Swedish neutral policy brought the low possibility of being drawn into a conflicts between other nation. Furthermore, its nonalignment and neutrality are significant in terms of sovereignty, because Sweden can determine defence spending on its own, in comparison to states that are alliance members. These security benefits are quite obvious and might never change. Nevertheless, the integration in Europe is going further and getting more political, it is a risk for Sweden to stay out of European and international affairs. That is supposed to be one of the reason why in 2002 Sweden classified its security position from neutral to one of non-alignment in peacetime with the option to cooperate with military alliances in peacekeeping missions. It is evident that Sweden has also a positive view of EU’s role in its security policy and it acknowledges NATO as a pillar of European security and is often considered as the next main candidate. It is important to realize that neutrality in times of war is regarded in Sweden only as a possibility, not as the only alternative. Sweden did not take a part in rebuilding phases which the rest of Europe had to undergo after wartimes. In my opinion, that can be viewed as a main economic benefit. It is evident that Swedish neutrality was a key factor for establishing a developed mixed economy with high standard of living. On the contrary, now Sweden can be considered as semi-permanently neutral, because its “ stay-out-of-Europe” policy could not survive in a changing Europe. Moreover, Sweden is a relatively small country that cannot stay isolated outside the economic framework and that is why Sweden is an active participant in many trade organizations such as WTO, EU, OECD, OSCE and others. Read more: http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Europe/Sweden-HISTORY.html#ixzz0WjfN47Kt There was always the fear of economic sanctions Why neutrality is benefit....., diadvantages of a neutrality....why is significant'....nature of a neutrality...impact of a neutrality on people...find examples of pros and cons. Some of the questions from introduction-brief questions..examples of secutity and economic benefits...central arguments..reason of arguments...factors for that arguments. Ne-uter neither one nor the other. This word is hiding numerous possible definitions, neither of which is not accurate and can not be applied without reservation. In general,a neutrality is a status chosen by a state which refrains from taking part in a war between two or more other powers. Traditionally, the understanding of neutrality derives from custom, partly codified in Hague Conventions V and XIII of 1907. Once a state decides on a position of neutrality, it has to take steps to prevent its territory, the lives and livelihood of its inhabitants. http://lsr.nellco.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi'article=1142&context=nyu_plltwp that does not participate in a war between other nations Switzerland refused to enter the emerging structure of transnational bodies such as the United Nations. Sweden took the opposite road to universality: its foreign policy objectives were symbolically channelled through the UN and other new international structures According to Dante Alighieri “the hottest place in hell is for those who are neutral“.