Neutrality, Security, and Civilizational Realism: A Conundrum with Lessons for Russia and Ukraine
Remarks by Professor Nicolai N. Petro (University of Rhode Island), delivered at the “Reimagining Neutrality” international conference in Kyoto University, Japan, on October 25, 2024.
The Conundrum of Neutrality
It can be argued that the strategic ambition of Regional Great Powers, like Russia, is to prevent the emergence of a global hegemon by promoting global nonalignment. And yet, its own identity is in many ways tied to dominating in its own sphere of interest. Can a self-professed “civilization-state,” such as Russia or any other, define its sphere of interests in a way that is not threatening to others?
Part of the answer may lie in how Lesser Regional Powers, like Ukraine, view neutrality. When they turn to neutrality as a security strategy, such states face a stark choice. Passive neutrality allows them to serve as a buffer zone, where rival powers can disengage, at least temporarily. Or, they could adopt an assertive neutrality and play rival powers against each other by constantly shifting allegiance. Both strategies strengthen national political autonomy, an essential attribute of sovereignty.
But is neutrality, either passive or assertive, compatible with Western alliance structures like NATO and the EU? As we have seen in the case of Hungary, Slovakia, and Turkey, many see neutrality as being at odds with the values of the alliance, and therefore a potential threat to them.
Thus, neutrality poses a conundrum. On the one hand, the ability to pursue policies that reflect the distinctive cultural and political values of the nation are an essential aspect of national sovereignty. But, too much independence could weaken the security shield offered by the alliance, and make them more vulnerable to threats from aggressive neighbors.
As a result, since 2022 NATO and the EU have taken unprecedented steps to restrict the ability of member states to act independently, insisting on the enforcement of an overarching values consensus in the interests of collective security.
Sometimes the criticism leveled at dissidents in Hungary, Turkey, and Slovakia is simply that their disloyalty undermines the security of the alliance. But this, in turn, rests on the idea that NATO reflects a distinctive civilizational identity, and that the security benefits that derive from membership obliges states to accept this specific, liberal civilizational identity.
This liberal civilizational identity is no longer limited to the cultural confines of Europe. It is assumed to extend globally, which makes the expansion of NATO “to include Japan, Australia, South Korea, the Philippines, and any other democratic country that, like Argentina, expresses a wish to join,” as suggested in a recent open letter signed by more than a hundred former and current political and military officials, the re-incarnation of what Francis Fukuyama once termed "the end of history."[1]
Meanwhile, the BRICS+ countries are promoting a very different view of the relationship between sovereignty and security, one that offers more space for both political and values neutrality. Whereas NATO presumes that the cultural and political ideals of states must conform, lest global security be undermined, the BRICS alliance is premised on the idea that it is political and cultural diversity, rather than unanimity, that enhances global security.
We can now grasp why the struggle between Russia and the West over Ukraine has global significance. It is a conflict of visions.
NATO assume that its outcome will determine the fate of its core ideology—the belief that the expansion of liberal values will lead to global peace and prosperity. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, this has become NATO's defining belief and core mission.
BRICS also assumes that the outcome of this war will determine the fate of its core ideology—the belief that cultural and political diversity are key to global peace and prosperity. Its defining belief and core mission increasingly lie in the institutionalization of civilizational multipolarity.
I argue that Civilizational Multipolarity—which I call the BRICS ideology—is more sophisticated than most analysts assume, since it borrows much from the concept of Sovereign Democracy that Russia has pursued domestically since the early 2000s. At first there was no foreign policy component to sovereign democracy, since Russia was at that point committed to integrating into the West.
The hope that sovereign democracy might serve as a means of anchoring Russia in the West survived for a decade, but when it was abandoned, it was the emphasis on sovereignty that allowed Russia to transition smoothly from a pro-western foreign policy, to a policy of civilizational multipolarity. Since 2022, Russia has, in addition, begun to define itself as a “civilization-state.”[2]
The meaning of this term is still evolving, but one scholar who has thought deeply about the relationship between civilizations, multipolarity, and security is Moscow State University Professor, Boris Mezhuev.
Mezhuev makes the case that Liberal internationalism is philosophically at odds with foreign policy Realism, and that this incompatibility is preventing the resolution of many conflicts around the globe. The challenge facing world leaders is how to prevent this tension from escalating into a conflict that consumes the entire globe. Mezhuev suggests that there is a framework within which this conflict need not become existential. He calls this framework Civilizational Realism.
Civilizational Realists believe that the current international system will not survive the clash between a Liberalism that justifies the use of force to make states submit to a universal moral framework, and a Realism that justifies the use of force to ensure the survival of every individual states. Both of these visions lead to conflicts that persist, deepen, and eventually cross national borders.
Liberalism should therefore re-conceive itself as but one voice among many, rather than as the sole legitimate voice for all of humanity. Relinquishing liberalism's claim to universal moral authority is the key to global stability and peace, because liberal imperialism has become intertwined with efforts to establish Western hegemony in military, politics, and economics, all of which rest on the claim of moral superiority for Western liberal values.
Realism must likewise be re-conceived, so that sovereignty and power no longer serve as absolute moral justifications for state actions. Instead, a newly conceived state system should adopt the philosophical premise of multipolarity, in which values neutrality is the summum bonum, and thus even countries with incompatible value systems, must learn to co-exist.
How plausible is such a transformation? Mezhuev is cautious, saying only that it would be "a major upheaval in the system of international relations." But there is historical precedent for it. In the 17th century Europe, leaders exhausted by a century of incessant warfare, chose to reduce the role of religious values in international affairs. I believe that what Civilizational Realists are calling for is, in effect, a new Treaty of Westphalia that, like its predecessor, would put an end to the proliferation of values based warfare.
The point of Civilizational Realism, says Mezhuev, is to make multipolarity functional, to institutionalize it as the representation of diverse civilizational poles, each one with its own cultural and political sphere of influence.
To get there, he says, we must "replace the dominant political language" of IR. This may seem rather farfetched, until one recalls that it is also the prescription of one of the West’s most prominent school of IR—social constructivism, which argues that new political opportunities can emerge from the elite’s choice of a new political language.
"Replacing the dominant political language" could begin by diagnosing our global malaise as due to fragmentation, and suggesting new political discourse that envisions a global society rooted in common ideals, shared identity, and meanings, thereby avoiding the pitfalls of Liberalism and Realism, both of which lead to binary thinking.
Any Social Constructivist solution, however, will take generations to implement, and the world may not have that long. I would therefore like to see it paired with the common sense diplomatic wisdom of the English School, and neutrality.
Unlike Realism, ES acknowledges that values are fundamental to societies and must be taken into account when formulating policy; unlike Liberalism, however, it acknowledges that such values vary from country to country.
Like Civilizational Realism, the English School affirm the importance of values diversity. This diversity requires that nations strengthen Global Society, defined as the arena of interaction where national interests overlap. Effort to isolate any nation are considered irresponsible and dangerous, because they tear at the fabric of our Global Society. The proper task of diplomats can therefore best be likened to that of a marriage counselor where divorce is simply not an option.
How does Neutrality fit into the picture?
I believe that neutrality, especially with respect to values, fits nicely into the framework of Civilization Realism.
As I suggested earlier, neutrality is problematic concept. To the extent that it promotes distinctive national cultural and political values, it can potentially make the nation less secure. Political and values sovereignty (de facto—independence) are thus always in tension with national security.
But, as the English School likes to point out, the modern nation-state system owes much to the idea that, in a healthy society, religious values should not only be kept separate from politics, but also rival them in importance.
The ancient notion, that our deepest values do not derive from politics, but transcend politics, is what ultimately allowed leaders to embrace neutrality with respect to values, even religious values, rather than fight to the death over them. This eventually led to the Peace of Westphalia, the end of the Thirty Years Wars, and the subsequent emergence of Europe as a global powerhouse for the next three centuries.
We sorely need to recapture this type of neutrality today, if we wish to avoid another global confrontation over values, one that would dwarf the devastation caused by the religious wars in Europe.
[1] “Open letter: President Biden, this is how you can uphold your legacy by supporting Ukraine,” The Kyiv Independent, October 8, 2024. https://kyivindependent.com/open-letter-president-biden-this-is-how-you-can-uphold-your-legacy-by-supporting-ukraine/
A nice escape from what else is out there, wish more people would think and discuss :)
So glad I found your substack. Great to see some new ideas and common sense penetrating IR.