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.
"But is neutrality, either passive or assertive, compatible with Western alliance structures like NATO and the EU?"
I believe the answer is, more so in the past but in practice not at all today. The NATO organization began as an alliance with considerable flexibility. This was one of its great strengths, because it left the door of the alliance open to the maximum number of new members joining. The crux of this is laid out in NATO's famous Article 5, which speaks to common defence:
"The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force..."
As you can see, should a partner nation be attacked, Article 5 does not *require* other NATO nations to act in the military sphere. If a NATO country renders assistance in that circumstance, it can come in any form - which I sometimes joke could be as little as a nice sympathy card and flowers. That open-ended arrangement gave all NATO states considerable political flexibility in how they would respond in the event of an armed conflict launched against a fellow member. They didn't have to immediately declare war against the other party to the conflict. Rather, they could continue their relationship with that party - at least at some level - keeping in mind their own needs and circumstances.
That relationship among NATO states appeared to persist even after the collapse of the USSR. An example of the flexible response each state could provide were shown in the aftermath of 9/11. Relatively few NATO countries signed on to collective military action when the USA subsequently went on a military rampage in Afghanistan and Iraq.
However, even at that point there were indications that NATO was losing its flexible approach. Recall that the USA excoriated France due to its unwillingness to join the military action. That loss of flexibility has now increased to the situation we see today, where no NATO country is granted the freedom to respond to armed conflict as it wishes. It must toe the line demanded by the USA, even when the conflict doesn't involve a NATO nation as with Ukraine!
My view is that neutrality, at a practical level, precludes being in a military alliance with other nations. The reality of such alliances is that they will always tend to greater and greater restrictions on the political choices that an allied nation can make. Worse yet, a military alliance which doesn't provide each country the iron-clad ability to 'sit this one out' risks being used as means to attack other nations. We see this dynamic with the modern R2P concept, wherein an alleged human rights violation in a country can be cited as a justification to attack it. (Libya, 2011) In other words, military defensive alliances (and R2P) are vulnerable to coercion and provocation by a party to the concept.
I believe that some nations, most importantly Russia and China today, recognize this reality. Despite their unprecedentedly strong mutual relationship, including in the military/security sphere, they are at great pains to declare that they are not a military alliance. Neither country is obliged to do anything should the other find itself in an armed conflict. Maximum political flexibility is preserved, which is also an essential ingredient of successful state neutrality.
Thus we can see that being in a military alliance, even one that is claimed to be strictly for self-defence, is incompatible with state neutrality. Conversely, not being in a military alliance enhances the possibility that a state can declare neutrality or successfully preserve the neutrality they have.
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.
"But is neutrality, either passive or assertive, compatible with Western alliance structures like NATO and the EU?"
I believe the answer is, more so in the past but in practice not at all today. The NATO organization began as an alliance with considerable flexibility. This was one of its great strengths, because it left the door of the alliance open to the maximum number of new members joining. The crux of this is laid out in NATO's famous Article 5, which speaks to common defence:
"The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force..."
As you can see, should a partner nation be attacked, Article 5 does not *require* other NATO nations to act in the military sphere. If a NATO country renders assistance in that circumstance, it can come in any form - which I sometimes joke could be as little as a nice sympathy card and flowers. That open-ended arrangement gave all NATO states considerable political flexibility in how they would respond in the event of an armed conflict launched against a fellow member. They didn't have to immediately declare war against the other party to the conflict. Rather, they could continue their relationship with that party - at least at some level - keeping in mind their own needs and circumstances.
That relationship among NATO states appeared to persist even after the collapse of the USSR. An example of the flexible response each state could provide were shown in the aftermath of 9/11. Relatively few NATO countries signed on to collective military action when the USA subsequently went on a military rampage in Afghanistan and Iraq.
However, even at that point there were indications that NATO was losing its flexible approach. Recall that the USA excoriated France due to its unwillingness to join the military action. That loss of flexibility has now increased to the situation we see today, where no NATO country is granted the freedom to respond to armed conflict as it wishes. It must toe the line demanded by the USA, even when the conflict doesn't involve a NATO nation as with Ukraine!
My view is that neutrality, at a practical level, precludes being in a military alliance with other nations. The reality of such alliances is that they will always tend to greater and greater restrictions on the political choices that an allied nation can make. Worse yet, a military alliance which doesn't provide each country the iron-clad ability to 'sit this one out' risks being used as means to attack other nations. We see this dynamic with the modern R2P concept, wherein an alleged human rights violation in a country can be cited as a justification to attack it. (Libya, 2011) In other words, military defensive alliances (and R2P) are vulnerable to coercion and provocation by a party to the concept.
I believe that some nations, most importantly Russia and China today, recognize this reality. Despite their unprecedentedly strong mutual relationship, including in the military/security sphere, they are at great pains to declare that they are not a military alliance. Neither country is obliged to do anything should the other find itself in an armed conflict. Maximum political flexibility is preserved, which is also an essential ingredient of successful state neutrality.
Thus we can see that being in a military alliance, even one that is claimed to be strictly for self-defence, is incompatible with state neutrality. Conversely, not being in a military alliance enhances the possibility that a state can declare neutrality or successfully preserve the neutrality they have.