The principle of neutrality in contemporary international politics
Abdulaziz bin Alyan Al -Anezan
In the midst of the endless competition in the international environment and the resulting wars and conflicts that are very rapidly increasing. Conducting countries seek to adopt a neutral foreign policy to build good relations with various countries without going into sensitive files and topics that arouse the ire of the other.
It also requires neutrality that these countries do not have clear positions in the conflicts of supporting or opposing a party at the expense of the other party, in order to abide by a neutral position and good endeavors by inviting the disputed people to reach a peaceful settlement through the roads and diplomatic channels.
Considering that this behavior in foreign policy helps her to stay away from entering any clashes with its regional or even international powers. And also achieving its desired goals of interaction in the international arena, such as increasing its commercial and economic benefits in the balance of global trade exchange and enhancing joint cooperation with the largest number of countries in various fields.
But in light of contemporary international politics and the aggression it witnesses in behavior due to the exacerbation of many crises, conflicts and disputes, we find that the idea of neutrality lacks the applied reality in an integrated manner. This is because the nature of the international system contradicts the principle of neutrality because it depends on the two competition workers and the interest as two main relations for relations between countries. When the state aspires to achieve its pillars of foreign policy, it is forced to enter into unavoidable differences and tensions to protect its external interests.
Likewise, the experience of the neutral state through the historical periods of the international community is marred by different behavior, as some countries are classified by following the political neutrality, but in return it adopts positions in some international issues and issues that conflict with neutrality. Such as selling weapons to countries linked to existing conflicts or adopting economic sanctions imposed on one of the two parties to the conflict in a war, in addition to convictions often. There were clear examples of this contrast in the behavior of neutral states since the First World War and through the Cold War stage, and then the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Iraq and the end of the invasion of Ukraine.
On the other hand, the principle of neutrality is witnessing a gradual decay in the international environment as an expected result of the successive political circumstances and developments in the international arena, which led to the expansion of the conflict and geopolitical competition around the world.
The neutral states became lost between two options, the first to move forward in their neutral policy despite all these challenges and reduce their external interaction due to the high number of conflict areas between the major powers and their approach to their lands, which may threaten their internal sovereignty.
Or the second option of creating a political or military bloc to which these countries join, and through it the integration of interests and attitudes, which makes them abandon the principle of neutrality in the dictionary of its external policy and replace it by adopting the positions of their partners. This step is actually evident in the recent joining of Finland and Sweden NATO.
Based on these data and evidence, we reach the fact that the principle of neutrality in the foreign policy of countries is not easy to apply in an integrated manner in contemporary international politics. Where the world is currently going through a critical stage that causes the number to reduce neutral countries, and force them to follow a foreign policy that is completely different from its usual impartiality.
These transformations give indications of the possibility of the principle of political neutrality in the future and international relations will become more violent and cruel than they are now, because when the collision cases abound, whether direct or indirect between countries, with the absence of a neutral mediator to resolve differences in emerging issues, the aggression will become the main pillar of state behavior in their foreign policy.
