Puolueettomuuden problematiikkaa

Authors

• Heikki Kuismin

Abstract

Neutrality has faced some criticism lately. It has been considered obsolete in the current situation, as the superpower confrontation has diminished in Europe. Although the context where a neutral country operates may change, a neutral state must not change its foreign policy too hastily or drastically every time an opportunity presents itself. That would lead to a reliability crisis, i.e. other states would not be able to rely on the continued neutrality of a state whose foreign policy is unpredictable. Successful neutrality stems from a long-term perspective: other states consider neutrality subjectively and either trust or do not trust a state’s assurances about its neutrality. Thus, a neutral state has to convince other states of its willingness to stay out of conflicts. If a neutral state loses its credibility, the consequences could be dramatic. Neutrality can be active or passive. One could consider Sweden an example of the former and Finland of the latter. Other European neutral countries lean more to the west than Finland. If neutrality survives in a crisis (war), it is very beneficial to the state in question. Neutrality is also useful in peacetime in many ways: for example, a neutral state can trade with most other countries without political burdens; it can host international conferences (and gain international prestige in the process, as Finland did in 1975); it can act as an arbitrator between the superpowers etc. Reliable neutrality can be achieved only through peacetime neutrality and sufficient armed forces.