At the St. Gallen Symposium, Swiss President Ignazio Cassis and Austrian Minister for the EU and Constitution Karoline Edtstadler discussed the historical and current relevance of neutrality in their respective countries, as well as its specific role in times of war, Switzerland and Austria have been neutral since 1907 and 1955 respectively, a decision both initially took to protect themselves and their societies.

Importantly, and as Edtstadler highlighted during the session, their neutrality is “military”. This means that while the state will not assist or attack any party in a conflict, sides can be taken politically and economically. “Neutrality must be critical”, affirmed Cassis, “and it entails having a moral responsibility” to politically support or oppose parties involved in a conflict.

Photo: Fabiano Mancesti

Over time, international conflicts showed the need to have spaces where discussions could be held and conventions and agreements signed, and neutral states proved to be the perfect places for that. “International dialogue is one of the pillars of the Symposium”, Cassis said, “and it’s imperative to host it to overcome global challenges”. Edtstadler pointed out that “intergenerational participation is the solution” and the path to build the future, and neutrality is the ideal foundation for it.

When civilians are in the line of fire, however, standing back and not helping fight off the aggressor isn’t always a welcomed position in states with a different foreign policy tradition. Cassis defended the neutral stance in an interview with SYMPACT: “Not only is neutrality ethically justifiable, but it is also ethically necessary”, Cassis said, it is “an instrument for peace, serving the international community”. In the interview with SYMPACT, the President explained: “If no country takes on the role of neutrality, there is no bridge builder and that is fundamentally important so that the countries involved do sit down at the table at some point and find a solution. That has always been the case and will always be the case”.

In both the Austrian and the Swiss states, neutrality is part of the national identity, which is why every decision taken by the governments in favour or against a party in a conflict becomes a relevant topic in the public discussion. The latest controversy in both Switzerland and Austria is cooperation with the EU against Russia.

Switzerland’s implementation of the sanctions, despite not being a member, has caused some tension because it might affect the country’s economic and political independenced.  Cassis recognised that the sanctions adopted will have an “effect on neutrality and diplomacy”, but that at the same time taking the decision to collaborate is part of being critical and taking political sides in conflict when necessary.

Photo: Fabiano Mancesti

Since  Austria is a member of the EU, there isn’t too much room to manoeuvre. Furthermore, the organisation has already stated its intention of improving and expanding the EU Rapid Deployment Capacity, to which Austria has already pledged troops and participation. In a conflict, that could potentially irreparably damage and eliminate the neutrality that minster Edtstadler affirmed “is compatible with EU membership”. However, she stated that Austria will “abstain constructively in regard to lethal weapons”, which implied the will to not necessarily block military activity but use political power to avoid it or look for an alternative.

While globalisation is constantly increasing and cooperation and multilateralism become more important, polarisation in the international arena and in societies is also becoming a growing problem. “The world is simultaneously growing together and drifting apart”, Cassis lamented. In the face of these trends and challenges, neutral states will have to thread a fine line in their positioning in conflicts that allows them to continue functioning as stages for discussion and agreement.