With ongoing conflicts in Europe and on its borders, the recent expansion of Nato, and calls to increase military spending across Europe, there could not have been a more important time for a political discussion on the future of neutrality in Europe. To that end, participants including from Socialists for Independence gathered from over a dozen countries from Europe to meet in Vienna on 12-13 April 2024 to discuss the question ‘Neutrality for Peace: A concept for Europe?’

 

The conference itself drew together a number of participants and keynote speakers, notably from the Austrian Communist Party (Kommunistische Partei Österreichs, KPÖ), Sinn Fein in Ireland, and the Arise Malta Front (Front Maltin Imqumu), all of whom reaffirmed their countries’ commitment to policies of ‘neutrality’. For others, including Socialists for Independence, the conference provided the opportunity to consider how the Left should position itself in response to the rise in conflict and militarism in Europe and around the world. 

 

 

 

As if to further highlight the importance of the discussions in Vienna, mid-way through the panel discussions news emerged of the Iranian military having launched over 300 drone and missile strikes against. As Walter Baier, President of the European Left, had already acknowledged at the opening of the conference, it is clear that there is a ‘paradigm shift taking place in geopolitics’ requiring a new analysis and direction for the Left.

 

 

Increasing Militarism in Europe… Again

 

Over the weekend, various speakers highlighted the increase in military spending over recent years – up by six per cent among EU member states, and by over ten per cent in six others. Greece, in particular, stands out in this regard with over four per cent of GDP dedicated to military spending in spite of ruthless austerity elsewhere in the public finances. Indeed, Greece now spends the highest proportion of GDP among all Nato members on the military and defence, including the USA. The UK, meanwhile, ranks fifth, though recent announcements by the government to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP would change this. 

 

 

The conference also noted that the withdrawal of the UK from the European Union had not had any effect on tempering the EU’s desire to push for further militarism. This year alone, the EU is set to increase the European Defence Agency’s budget to €250 million, with a focus on securing the external borders of the EU and preventing further waves of migration. More generally, the very existence of an EU defence policy – which is in effect a ‘copy and paste’ version of Nato military policy – serves only to complicate the struggle the Left faces, given that it adds the number of power blocs that exist. These challenges could all be compounded if Donald Trump is re-elected to the White House and pressure is again applied to European states to further increase military spending. Indeed, threats to Nato’s existence may only speed up this process. 

 

 

The discussions were also framed by the recognition that, in light of the current rise in conflict around the globe, promoting neutrality as a valuable foreign policy goal is not an easy task. Walter Baier, in his contribution, pointed out that neutrality is inextricable link to peace; neutrality can only endure if the political environment is conducive to it. In times of war and conflict, obligations to neutrality are more easily overlooked, ignored or even cast aside completely, as in the recent cases of Sweden and Finland joining Nato. Therefore, campaigning for ceasefires, advocating policies of peace and forming broad alliances with all anti-militaristic tendencies in society are essential for creating the conditions and scope for furthering policies of neutrality. 

 

 

 

The Meanings of Neutrality across Europe

One of the central themes that emerged from the conference was the differences in how participant countries understood ‘neutrality’. Over the course of the discussions, three different positions emerged: ‘neutrality as non-intervention’, ‘neutrality as non-alignment’ and ‘neutrality as sovereignty’.

 

 

 

European Left Vice-President Claudia Haydt noted that Austria’s constitution, adopted in 1955, declared a state of ‘permanent neutrality of its own accord’, forbidding the stationing of foreign troops on Austria nor the signing of any military alliances. This view of ‘neutrality as non-intervention’, as well as the constitutional guarantees limiting military deployments, has shaped the political consensus considerably. According to recent opinion polls, seventy-five per cent of Austrians remain convinced of this policy and, perhaps even more surprisingly, forty per cent would not take up arms in defence of Austria if it was invaded. 

 

 

Despite this strong show of public support, however, Austrian political elites have attempted in various ways to circumvent constitutional guarantees of neutrality. Former Chancellor, Sebastian Kurz declared that Austrian membership of the EU’s Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) – the EU’s defence and security policy – was compatible with the Austrian constitution, despite evidence to the contrary. In addition, the Austrian constitution does not take account of purchase, manufacture and selling of weapons which has undermined over many decades Austria’s claim of neutrality. Unsurprisingly, therefore, the legal guarantees in liberal capitalist democracies’ constitutions cannot be considered a bulwark against increasing militaristic polices of the state. 

 

 

In a slightly different vein, contributions from Robert Micallef of the Arise Malta Front, Vera Polycaprou from the Progressive Party of Working People (AKEL) in Cyprus, and participants from Serbia identified ways in which neutrality has also been undermined in each of their respective countries. In this second perspective of ‘neutrality as non-alignment’, the countries have had membership of, or continue to maintain a close working relationship with the Non-Aligned Movement. While on the surface this view of neutrality is a pragmatic view of geopolitics where a country refuses to take sides, all participants recognised that ‘non-alignment’ has often come to mean an attempt to favour both sides. In practice, this has often led to purchasing weapons from Russia, Europe, the USA and China, doing little if anything to prevent increased defence spending or even military interventionist policies.

 

 

Further, membership of the EU forced both Malta and Cyprus to leave the Non-Aligned Movement, further challenging claims to neutrality. Cyprus, in particular, retains a British military presence, with their bases occupying over three per cent of the island and from which air support has been given to the Israeli military. Contributors recognised that ‘non-alignment’ did not necessarily mean ‘neutrality’ in an objective sense. Indeed, political framing of neutrality often presented it as a ‘passive’ position which did nothing to make citizens feel safe. Rather, there was broad consensus that the Left must be clearer in pursuing a policy of ‘active neutrality’ to prevent a slide into militarism.

 

 

In considering a third view of ‘neutrality’, Chris MacManus on behalf of Sinn Fein noted how the colonial experience of British rule had contributed significantly to the position. In this sense, neutrality is understood in terms of ‘self-determination’; being independent should mean not being tied to any particular power bloc and instead neutrality is understood as allowing a country to be able to more effectively pursue its own independent foreign policy. In this sense, neutrality does not prevent the Irish government from being able to identify aggression but instead focus efforts into peacekeeping and peace initiatives around the world. 

 

 

 

Pursuing A Policy for Peace and Neutrality in Scotland

Another clear theme from the conference that emerged – although not explicitly remarked upon by panellists – is the importance ‘neutrality’ plays in the construction of national identity. For Austria, the experience of the Second World War led directly to political elites voluntarily opting for a policy of neutrality to the extent that this has now permeated deeply into the consciousness of the country. Although Ireland and Malta’s experience of British rule has given their own countries’ sense of national identity an overtly anti-colonial bent, the contribution to the broader ‘national story’ can be considered to be comparable. 

 

 

In Scotland, however, British military traditions continue to run deep, and are even celebrated in many communities today. The continued importance the British state plays in maintaining arms manufacturers, military bases and using the land and sea for British and Nato training in Scotland also encourages the view that there is little alternative to pursuing militaristic policies such is the strength of economic arguments in this regard. The SNP has done little to challenge such arguments, with their own foreign policy having shifted towards embracing some aspects of Scotland’s role in Britain’s colonial past (such as the attempt to ‘save’ historical regiments in Scotland in the mid-2000s), as well as moving to support an independent Scotland applying for Nato membership. 

 

 

In Scotland, however, British military traditions continue to run deep, and are even celebrated in many communities today. The continued importance the British state plays in maintaining arms manufacturers, military bases and using the land and sea for British and Nato training in Scotland also encourages the view that there is little alternative to pursuing militaristic policies such is the strength of economic arguments in this regard. The SNP has done little to challenge such arguments, with their own foreign policy having shifted towards embracing some aspects of Scotland’s role in Britain’s colonial past (such as the attempt to ‘save’ historical regiments in Scotland in the mid-2000s), as well as moving to support an independent Scotland applying for Nato membership. 

 

 

In contrast to the UK’s own foreign policy, tied as it is so closely to the USA, it should also be the prospect of Scotland being able to determine its own path in the world towards a more humane, nuclear-free, anti-colonial independent defence policy makes adopting a position of neutrality both a tactical and political necessity.