NATO Institutional Democratic Institutions Research Fellowships (1994-1996)

The research reports reproduced here are the responsibility of the individual authors. Their reproduction does not imply any form of official or unofficial endorsement by NATO. The reports are offered in unedited form, as presented by their authors, with a view to make their findings available to a wide audience. Belorussian Neutrality as a Factor Of National And European Security. Ural Latypov, Belarus [Back To Index] Changing Role of Neutrality in Provision of National and European Security. Since the beginning neutrality primarily has carried two main functions: defense of a neutral state from military aggression and contribution to provision of international security. Both of the functions showed its effectiveness during the "Cold War" period. At that time European neutrals not only safeguarded their security but also played a remarkable role of a bridge securing mutual understanding between the opposing military-political blocks. In connection with Belorussian option it is very important to find out if neutrality in modern conditions will serve as a reliable instrument of national and international security policy instrument.

2.1 Belorussian Discussions on the Role of Neutrality in Post "Cold War" Period. The option for neutrality was made by Belarus in 1990 when it was a part of the former Soviet Union. Although "Cold War" was close to its end, effectiveness of neutrality as a national security instrument in bipolar world was practically undisputed at that time. Several years later when Belarus began to realize in practice the Declaration concerning neutrality, the European neutrals began to view it as questionable. Therefore, it was quite natural for Belorussian policy-makers to discuss the future of neutrality in post "Cold War" period and atmosphere of European integration, since Belarus opted for it.9 Two major points, of many other existing however, should be mentioned: First is in the fact that European neutrality in multi-polar world and absence of military threats loses its significance as the main instrument of provision of national and international security. Supporters of this point of view deny the importance of neutrality at present entirely , considering it as a useless heritage of "Cold War" with no future. Hence, the conclusion is obvious: Belarus should not try to obtain the status becoming extinct in international relations. Second, radical point of view supporters consider neutrality as an absolute value regardless of particular historic conditions. Its supporters insist on the point that neutrality even in conditions of intensifying European integration remains to be a goal for Belarus, acquisition of which could lead to security and prosperity of the state. Those who are against close cooperation with Russia are the most active supporters of the idea, for instance, former head of Belorussian Parliament S. Shushkevich. Indispensable value of neutrality was used as the main argument by those who opposed Belarus's joining the CIS collective security system. Therefore, the answer to the question what happens with the institution of neutrality and what its future is, mainly predetermines future development of events in this sphere in Belarus. However, comprehensive analysis of present condition and dynamics of development of neutrality institution during last decades shows that these two radical points of view do not reflect the real situation. Rather widespread characterizing of what is happening with this status as "crisis of classical neutrality" also seems to be too simplistic. In reality we see the process of complicated and sometimes contradictional development which is composed of several tendencies. Analysis of last decade foreign policy of Austria, Switzerland, Sweden and other neutrals indicates that this process should rather be called an adaptation of neutrality to the processes of European integration. Full results of the study of evolution of contemporary neutrality will be described more widely in the end-product. In Final Report it seems to be enough to mention several tendencies which taken together determine trends of neutrality evolution.

2.2 Neutrality and Solidarity. Analysis of foreign policies of neutral states shows that they cease to view neutrality as the main political and legal instrument of safeguarding of national security. In this context national security includes military-political and economic aspects. It happened so because neutrality ceased to be a source of indisputable advantages it gave in "Cold War" period. Since the threat of military aggression in Europe disappeared, neutrality status can no longer play the role of the main factor preventing involvement of a state into an international military conflict. The understanding of neutrality as an institution characteristic to conditions of confrontation is rather widespread. According to the opinion of Z.Brzezinski: "The concept of "neutrality" is somewhat outmoded because neutrality implies a status between two antagonists" Finish prime Minister A. Aktisaari also thinks that the notion of neutrality is determined by a conflict of parties. According to what he said there is a totally new situation in Europe were regardless of absence of some countries' membership in European community all European countries are democratically oriented. Approximately the same view was expressed by former Prime Minister of Sweden Mr. K. Bild. He said that political neutrality had sense when Europe was divided into two main blocks. In connection with that it should be mentioned that neutrality is quite specific instrument of foreign policy, with a rather limited range of operation. Being an effective measure of sovereignty protection, preventing involvement into a military conflict, it is hardly useful for opposing new threats to European security. Terrorism, ethnic conflicts and other challenges to European security may be defeated only by united efforts of all countries of the continent. In sphere of economics neutrality (at least in its classical understanding) is becoming not an instrument of defense of national interests but rather an obstacle on the way of country's economic development. At "Cold War" time economic costs of non-involvement in any political block were compensated by obvious advantages of cooperation with both of the blocks. There is no such alternative now, therefore a neutral state not involved in any union might appear apart from European breakthrough into XXI century. In these conditions European neutral states give priority to the principle of European solidarity for the sake of protection from new threats and provision of social and economic development. The leading role of European solidarity principle in safeguarding of European security and national interests is recognized by all neutrals of the continent. Even Swiss government in an official document "Report on Neutrality" recognized solidarity as a fundamental element of Swiss external policy. Federal Council considers this factor of great significance, since in many cases it is possible to safeguard national security only by actively participating in decision making process concerning major international problems as well as by voluntary accepting new responsibilities and obligations. In practice, domination of the solidarity principle over neutrality may be seen in the fact that Austria, Ireland, Sweden and Finland entered European Union. Although Switzerland has not become a member of European Union in the above-mentioned report it acknowledged compatibility of neutrality with the EU membership. At the same time it is easy to notice that there is an inevitable contradiction between neutrality and solidarity principles. Restrictions imposed by neutral status sometimes complicate execution of responsibilities following solidarity. "Classical neutrality" imposed such requirements that made impossible to meet requirements following from the principle of solidarity. Only a resolute revision of neutrality restrictions could make neutrality and solidarity compatible.

2.3 Contemporary Stage of Neutrality Evolution Neutrality as a political-legal institution has been evolving permanently. The evolution comprises of emergence and improvement of neutrality models as well as changes in the list of rights and responsibilities of neutral states. Sometime it was considered appropriate for a neutral state to render equal support up to military help to both conflicting parties. It is a common place now that a neutral state must refrain from aiding any of conflicting parties. Following neutrality evolution from its beginning (one of the first examples was neutralization of Delphes - which was a center of 12 Greek states union) one cannot but see that neutrality nowadays entered the most dramatical period of its history. Neutrality has not always been effective previously. Sometimes neutrals status was violated. For a example one may refer to German violation of Belgian neutrality in the beginning of World War I. Neutral states themselves not always observed the restrictions imposed by neutral status (Swedish-German relations during World War II are a remarkable example). But all above-mentioned and other cases concerned separate states. Never has existed a risk of disappearance of neutrality as an institution of international law from the practice of international relations. Still there has not happened entire abandonment of neutrality as an instrument of foreign policy. Public opinion in European neutral states is one of the reasons. Neutrality is most widely supported in Switzerland where nearly all political parties and movements are for retaining of neutral status. Public discussion on the "Report on Neutrality" showed that majority of citizens approved the provision that Switzerland would further follow the course of permanent neutrality. More than 70% of Austrians expressed views in favor of neutrality. Social democrats think that some elements of Austrian neutrality may be used in the process of European security system creation.13 According to a public opinion poll held in 1995 in Finland 59 % of its citizens were in favor of the country's neutrality preservation.14 A considerable part of Swedish society also expressed views in favor of continuation of traditional neutral policy. There are, however, some other reasons of practical nature except public opinion. Practically all European neutral states consider neutrality useful for protection of national interests in new conditions. In the above-mentioned "Report on Neutrality" it is emphasized that in conditions of new international environment neutrality may be useful for protection of Swiss interests as a reliable and flexible instrument of foreign policy. Trying to retain elements of neutrality in their foreign policy arsenal, these states transform their status in the form that even some years ago would seem impossible. Suffice it to say, that sometime neutral status and membership in the UN were considered incompatible.15 Representative of France at discussion of draft UN Charter proposed to make direct indication of incompatibility of neutrality and UN membership. However, he specified that it concerned only permanent neutrality. Representatives of majority of states agreed with such point of view. The indication was not made, since it was considered obvious that art.2 (points 5 and 6) of the UN Charter specified it clearly. Later, four permanent members of the UN Security Council changed their position and supported Austrian application for membership regardless of its permanent neutrality status. Other UN member-states also welcomed Austrian membership and by that expressed that they did no longer consider membership in the UN and permanent neutrality status to be incompatible. That is what concerns international practice. But from theoretical point some issues of compatibility of neutrality and responsibilities according to the UN Charter are questionable. It may be noticed that Switzerland being more strict than others in understanding of neutrality refrains from becoming a UN member. Even more problems arise from compatibility of neutrality and membership in regional political-economic organizations. European Union which is an organizational form of solidarity principle implementation is most frequently meant. Positions of the neutral states has changed in this sphere dramatically. In late 80s all European neutrals viewed neutrality and obligations arising from participation in the process of European integration incompatible. It is rather easy to see that above-mentioned points of view carry an indication of real contradiction between obligations following neutrality status (especially in its classical understanding) and responsibilities of a community member. Austria, Ireland, Sweden and Finland have become EC members recognizing by it a compatibility of neutrality with membership in this organization through reducing the number of restrictions following neutral status. EU no longer insists on incompatibility of membership in the organization with neutral status . At the same time Austria, Ireland, Finland and Sweden were suggested to 'think out neutrality ideas in a new way". Preservation of neutral status meant retaining of additional benefits in comparison with other members of EU. The contradiction could have been resolved only by agreements, in which other countries may agree with presence of such rights. Neutral status of EU member-state becomes an instrument of safeguarding of special interests of neutral state by preventing its involvement in military actions which might be conducted by a union. Such a State has some advantages in comparison with other member-states. No doubt, not all are satisfied with such a situation. Some experts compared Austrian policy of neutrality with "riding in a European train without a ticket". According to them since Austria fully joined activities of the community it may not refer in discussion of security issues to its neutral status. Brussels, so to say, gave a five year term to Vienna to revise its neutrality policy. End-product of this project provides detailed analysis of different aspects of Austria's combining neutral status with membership in EC. A new phase in understanding of neutrality was opened by discussions on compatibility of neutrality and membership in different military-political unions. Austrian People's Party elaborated a model providing joining of West European Union or NATO, however, preserving a neutrality status. According to the model Austria could use all its rights and responsibilities in the framework of military unions. At the same time in case of military action on the territory of a member-state or behind the boundaries of the alliance it could be given a right to decide independently whether to send troops to the region of conflict or to refrain from that step taking into consideration its neutral status. Ireland, also considers joining military unions possible saying that in case of creation of a collective defense of EU "traditional Irish neutrality policy would not suffer even if Ireland enters the defense union". More consistent looks an official position of West European Union which in 1993 definitely showed that neutrality and membership in this organization were incompatible: "it is impossible to participate in WEU and to preserve neutrality". One more tendency contributing to the evolution of neutrality is in the fact that restrictions following neutrality status directed at participation in peacekeeping operations and combatting UN Charter violations (except use of military forces) are being weakened. Even Switzerland being the most consistent follower of the neutrality policy does not exclude adaptation of the status to particular situations. Switzerland supported international boycott against Iraq and during the war in former Yugoslavia it permitted foreign aircraft with humanitarian cargo to transfer through its territory. It is one more indication that striving for openness does not automatically mean neutrality abandonment. However, the issue of possibility of participation of neutral states in peacekeeping operations is being widely discussed. This problem caused disagreement in Austrian coalition at power in connection with possibility of country's participation in peacekeeping operation in former Yugoslavia. While Austrian People's Party considered that neutrality may not be an obstacle for sending troops and their functioning under NATO command, social democrats were sure that such a step would be incompatible with neutral status of the country. Although Turkmenistan tied its status "of constructive permanent neutrality" with non-involvement in any organization, it views sending peacekeeping forces to Tajikistan appropriate. This description of evolution of neutrality is of top priority for Belarus since it bases its option for neutrality on its modern understanding and dominant role of solidarity principle.