Did you know that United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) has declared International Neutrality Day? Presented by Turkmenistan, Resolution 71/275 of 2017 declared December 12 as International Neutrality Day – and invited all Member States to commemorate it. In more substantive terms, this suggests that general Secretary continue to cooperate closely with neutral States, with a view to implementing preventive diplomacy principles, while using those principles in their mediation activities (all only with voluntary contributions, of course!).

So what exactly does neutrality mean in 2021? Surely everyone will think about it first Switzerland, a State expressly committed to permanent armed neutrality, and in Geneva, headquarter red Cross International and home to ONUG, as well as various UN programs and agencies. Swiss neutrality officially starts from Vienna Congress 1815, and Switzerland he had long prided himself on his merits and his role as a protective or mediating force. For red Cross, basically in Switzerland neutrality strengthens its impartiality and, therefore, its effectiveness in treating victims of conflict.

However, neutrality, even in SwitzerlandThis is not a static concept. When I was UNOG Chief of Staff – some time ago – Swiss voters surprised us by voting by a three to one margin not to enter HE-HE-THAT. It was in 1986, and one of the main reasons given was that joining HE-HE-THAT would jeopardize neutrality Switzerland. Even in Geneva, 70% against accession. However, 15 years later, in another referendum, Swiss voters decided – in a tight ballot – to enter HE-HE-THAT. Apparently, membership of the United Nations is no longer considered against neutrality. And now, Switzerland ready to enter security Council next year as a non-permanent member. A longer article than this is needed to analyze the changing motivations behind these various positions, but it is clear that it is impossible to point to a hard and fast definition of neutrality beyond the basic premise of “not taking sides in conflict. “”.

Other leading neutral countries from Europe –Austria, Sweden, Finland e Ireland– they did not hesitate to join the UN, and they all took a different approach to neutrality. As a young diplomat serving in Vienna (also some time ago), I was often reminded of the demands Austrian State Treaty, 1955 treaty with the four occupying powers (Soviet Union, United Kingdom, France and United States of America) is forcing Austria not to join any military alliance, and that caused Austria to declare his permanent neutrality, while in the same year he joined the United Nations. Austria stated that they would pursue a policy of “active neutrality”, offering his good services for things West East. And now, Vienna, of course, became the third seat of the United Nations, after New York you Geneva.

In Sweden, the question of neutrality is a fairly lively topic today, although it has nothing to do with the United Nations. Sweden has long defended HE-HE-THAT and see no problem with the state’s neutrality status. In fact, the most famous of all general secretaries HE-HE-THAT maybe it’s sweden Day Hammarskjold. Current discussion about Sweden it revolves around a closer partnership with NATO, the Western military alliance with which countries already have some degree of cooperation. Membership in NATO, unlike the universality of nations union, will obviously end neutrality, but there are many voices in this country that will choose to become a member OTAN as a realistic policy in the current troubled geopolitical situation, as well as many others that will lean towards neutrality.

Finland e Ireland they are other European countries that have chosen to be neutral at one time or another in their national history and maintain this choice today. Like Sweden you Austria (Y Cyprus you Malta, the other two states declared neutral), are members of the HE-HE-THAT and from European Union, but not from OTAN. And this affiliation begs the question: Is it really neutral to support sanctions imposed by the United Nations on other countries? Maybe the characteruniversal” from HE-HE-THAT allow this type of action without compromising neutrality, but what about the EU, with its evolving initiatives within the framework of the Common Security and Defense Policy? At least Costa Rika and other neutral countries outside Europe They don’t have this problem.

First Secretary General of the United Nations, try Liestates that international organization and neutrality are in two different fields. Now we have the UNGA which promotes respect for neutrality as an instrument of preventive diplomacy. Woodrow Wilson, very frustrated with rejection United States Congress to join People of Nations, rejecting armed neutrality as “very ineffective”, despite the international solidarity shown by some of the major neutral countries –Sweden, Austria and Switzerland– has long been a role model. Ultimately, this is a political question, not one of international law.

The neutrality debate is related to the domestic political debate that pits isolationists against interventionists – a debate that has long been going on in the world. country Union and it crosses the left and right party lines. And when we discuss humanitarian intervention and national sovereignty, we ask some of the same questions. Furthermore, on various historical events, for example during the World War II, neutrality may be more a matter of survival than free choice. The way we view neutrality today depends on changing political currents, on alliances changing with new conditions, on new threats and challenges that no one can face.”neutral”, but this is far from the political neutrality conceived by that Resolution 75/170, with which we begin.

* Michael Stopford is a former member of the UN Secretariat and UNOG Chief of Staff. The original article was published in UN Today.