In today’s Europe, the concept of neutrality is being challenged. With Finland set to become a NATO member, only a handful of European nations will remain non-aligned militarily. While advocates of neutrality argue that it is under threat, opponents claim that it is a luxury that European states cannot afford.
The war in Ukraine has brought more attention to countries such as Switzerland, Ireland, and Austria, who remain non-aligned militarily. These countries have imposed sanctions on Russia but have not sent any weapons or personnel to the battlefield. Sweden and Finland, once bastions of neutrality, have applied to join NATO, with Finland set to become a member in the next few days.
The question remains: does neutrality still matter in today’s world? Or is it an outdated concept?
To explore this issue, Cyril Vanier hosts a panel discussion on Inside Story. The guests include Jori Arvonen, Chairman of the European Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats and former Finnish undersecretary of state for European Union affairs; Jean-Marc Rickli, Head of global and emerging risks at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy and a specialist on military policies of European neutral and non-aligned states; and Richard Boyd Barrett, Member of the Irish parliament representing the People Before Profit party and leader of the Irish anti-war movement.
Arvonen argues that neutrality is still relevant in today’s world, especially in the face of hybrid threats such as cyber attacks and disinformation campaigns. He believes that neutrality allows countries to maintain their independence and sovereignty while still engaging in international cooperation.
Rickli, on the other hand, believes that neutrality is an outdated concept. He argues that in today’s world, security threats are global and interconnected, and that countries need to work together to address them. He also points out that non-aligned countries often rely on alliances with larger powers for their security, which undermines their independence.
Boyd Barrett takes a middle ground, arguing that neutrality can still be relevant in certain contexts, but that it needs to be redefined for today’s world. He believes that countries should prioritize diplomacy and conflict resolution over military alliances, and that they should work together to address global challenges such as climate change and inequality.
The discussion highlights the complexity of the issue of neutrality in today’s world. While some argue that it is an important principle that allows countries to maintain their independence and sovereignty, others believe that it is an outdated concept that undermines global security. Ultimately, the question of whether neutrality still matters depends on the specific context and challenges facing each country.