The conference “The International Dimension of Neutrality – A Geneva Security Debate”, organized by the Geneva Centre for Security Policy (GCSP) in collaboration with the Permanent Mission of Turkmenistan and the Geneva Center for Neutrality, took place on June 5 and generated significant interest among researchers, diplomats, and representatives of international organizations in Geneva.

The high-level panel was opened by Ambassador Thomas Greminger, Executive Director of GCSP, who highlighted the importance of neutrality in an increasingly fragmented world. He spoke about its international dimensions through various perspectives, including non-alignment, multi-alignment, and positive neutrality.

The role of Turkmenistan’s active neutrality was underscored by H.E. Mr. Hajiev, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Turkmenistan, and H.E. Mr. Shiri Shiriyev, Director of Strategic Studies at the Institute of International Relations of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Turkmenistan.

Panelists included H.E. Mr. Christian Guillermet Fernández, Permanent Representative of Costa Rica to the United Nations Office at Geneva; H.E. Mr. Jamal Jama Al Musharakh, Permanent Representative of the United Arab Emirates to the United Nations Office at Geneva; H.E. Dr. Anupam Ray, Permanent Representative of India to the Conference on Disarmament; and Jean-Daniel Ruch, President of the Geneva Center for Neutrality. The discussion focused on how states navigate the growing pressure to take sides while striving to maintain strategic autonomy. The panel also reflected on the potential of neutrality to support global stability and dialogue amid escalating geopolitical tensions.

Each of the four countries represented shared its own approach to neutrality:

Costa Rica advocates an unarmed form of neutrality, one that relies on good relations with its neighbours to solve disputes. The country is proud of its active diplomatic service and its contributions to multilateral diplomacy under a neutral status.

The United Arab Emirates, located at the crossroads of East and West, pursues an adaptive foreign policy that reflects a form of “pragmatic neutrality”. Leveraging its resources, the UAE seeks to foster national prosperity through wide-ranging international partnerships. Its participation in the Abraham Accords underscores its commitment to peace.

India, a vast and increasingly influential nation, maintains a distinctive approach to neutrality. Its policy allows for participation in alliances while remaining non-aligned, enabling it to pursue a balanced approach to future global power dynamics.

Switzerland upholds a longstanding tradition of armed neutrality. Renowned for its humanitarian contributions and mediation efforts, Switzerland views neutrality as both a core element of national identity and an instrument of foreign policy. As Jean-Daniel Ruch explained, “Swiss neutrality has two dimensions: internally, it is part of the Swiss identity; externally, it enables Switzerland to act as a mediator and a predictable, non-threatening partner. It is our additional value, which was shown during the recent US-China negotiations. To preserve Swiss neutrality, three elements must be maintained: the law of neutrality, the policy of neutrality, and the perception of neutrality. In today’s polarized world, we must consider forming a coalition of constitutionally neutral, non-aligned, and multi-aligned states.”

All four countries acknowledged that, to varying degrees, they benefit from the security umbrella of Western powers. Nevertheless, they seek to bolster their positions through support for international humanitarian law, resisting external pressure while promoting multilateral diplomacy. Collectively, these states expressed a desire to see the concept of neutrality evolve and expand within the framework of international relations.

Sundeep Waslekar is President of Strategic Foresight Group, an India-based think-tank that has worked with 65 countries on global future. He is the author of A World without War (HarperCollins 2022) and other books. Sundeep Waslekar is also a member of the Advisory Board of the Geneva Center for Neutrality. With him, we talk about the imminent dangers facing the planet and the real possibility of a mass conflagration.

Sundeep Waslekar identifies three crises: ethical, political and technological. The AI revolution is a the forefront of these dangers, because it's in the process of escaping human control. Which could have devastating consequences in the context of a conflict. Full version of the conversation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shM0ZYU4wMs

Core pillars of neutrality 

The era of geopolitical confrontation and multipolarity has returned — as has the debate about neutrality. As powerful international actors increasingly question the framework and substance of the liberal world order, traditionally neutral countries such as Switzerland are experiencing internal and external pressure to redefine their concept of neutrality. Recognizing the importance of this issue, the Geneva Center for Neutrality held its first major international conference on July 26-27th to initiate a dialogue about the future of neutrality among various civil society stakeholders.

The two-day conference reaffirmed, that fundamental questions of the future of neutrality still revolve around two traditional principles of neutral states: impartiality and the defense of international norms. Tensions between these two principles are nothing new, but with the liberal world order increasingly under pressure, they will be at the forefront of debates on neutrality.  

Since neutrality has always been relational — an impartial stance toward opposing sides in interstate conflicts, major international powers, or alliances — maintaining this feature is paramount to neutrality. Without it, the credibility of neutrality is called into question. However, recognition of neutrality by other countries is also a fundamental condition of this status. This presupposes respect for basic international rules by all parties, particularly those connected to the status of neutral countries. For neutrality to be viable, external powers must not threaten or violate the sovereignty or territorial integrity of a neutral state.

So, what is causing the increasing tension between these core pillars of neutrality?

Progressive vs. traditional neutrality  

Traditional neutrality, especially that of Switzerland, entails two basic international functions: good offices and humanitarian efforts. During the Cold War, these functions of neutral states found common ground with the non-alignment movement on many issues, such as keeping a distance from the two major geopolitical blocs' military and defense affairs, multilateralism, an emphasis on international development and humanitarian aid, and the promotion of arms control and disarmament initiatives.

With wars and great-power competition accelerating, the non-aligned movement is gaining traction again, with some of its old features reappearing in a new form, including anti-Americanism, anti-colonialism, and pro-Palestine sentiment. At the same time, some NGOs involved in peace and mediation activities are expanding the concept of neutrality with objectives related to social justice progressive ideas under the banner of active neutrality. 

Conversely, other supporters of neutrality usually emphasize the importance of maintaining national sovereignty, including the capacity to protect neutrality with armed forces, and at the same time, this approach usually seeks to restrict neutrality to its traditional humanitarian and meditation roles.   

The dilemma 

However, neither approach can avoid being challenged by the fundamental question of neutrality in an increasingly conflict-ridden world: How should one relate to perceived or real aggressors and major violators of fundamental human rights? Should they keep options for mediation and good offices open to help diplomatically resolve conflicts, or should they take punitive measures against violators in defense of international norms? Prioritize upholding universal normative principles, or take a more realist approach, prioritizing mediation and good offices? 

This dilemma also highlights the difficulty of defining clear boundaries between humanitarian efforts and the promotion of second-, third-, or fourth-generation human rights or social justice causes - not to mention the challenge of finding the right neutral approach between such principles and legitimate state security interests regarding armed conflicts.

Without a general answer to these questions, we must be aware that the broader the concept of neutrality is defined, the weaker its ability to exercise its core functions of good offices and impartial humanitarianism will be. This is especially true in a multipolar world, where countries with distinct cultures and value systems will have a greater influence on world affairs, while the appeal of Western liberal democracy and some of its values is declining in many places around the World.

Geopolitics and economic neutrality 

Furthermore, the intensifying rivalry between the US and China in geopolitical, military, economic, and technological domains raises another major issue for neutrality: economic and technological neutrality. This presents a challenge not only to countries in the Global South and developed East Asian nations seeking to maintain economic relations with all major economies, but also to members of the European Union. Can geopolitics be detached from geoeconomics? Is technological neutrality possible in the age of AI, advanced robotics, the Internet of Things, or gene engineering? There are no clear answers to these fundamental questions. 

No one size fits all for neutrality 

Ultimately, it is up to each country that aspires to remain or become neutral to define its own concept of neutrality and its role in the international arena based on its geopolitical attributes, its historical experience, its political culture. If the concept of neutrality is defined through a bottom-up, inclusive approach in each relevant country, then there surely is no one-size-fits-all solution. However, the whole international community could benefit from an intensified dialogue and building partnerships among relevant international stakeholders to share ideas and create pathways for neutrality. 

The Geneva Center for Neutrality is an excellent platform for this purpose. 

Gergely Varga (PhD) is a security policy expert with a focus on European security and transatlantic affairs. He is currently a Hungarian diplomat based in Bern.

For Neutrality Colloquium: A Call to Action for Active Neutrality & World Peace, Geneva, 26–27 June 2025

The Republic of Moldova is a small European country caught between powerful regional dynamics, that declared itself as a permanently neutral state in 1994, shortly after gaining independence from the Soviet Union. Yet, three decades later, we are still grappling with what this neutrality truly means and how to uphold it in a very unstable world. So far, there are five main challenges that Moldova faces in maintaining and strengthening its neutral status:

1. War on Our Border: Regional Insecurity

Today, Moldova shares a border with a country at war – Ukraine. This war has brought instability, fear, and economic disruption to the entire region. In such a context, neutrality becomes a daily test and it is no longer just a legal term. Neutrality becomes harder to maintain when peace is shattered next door.

2. Foreign Influence and Complex Threats

Modern threats go far beyond tanks and missiles. Moldova is facing foreign political interference, cyberattacks, and disinformation campaigns from various external actors.

Neutrality must not mean passivity. It must empower us to resist non-military interference and protect the country. But there’s a danger: powerful states may use Moldova’s neutrality as an excuse to keep us in a kind of geopolitical uncertainty, where we’re too weak to choose our own future.

3. Weakness that creates Opportunities 

Moldova’s military capacity is small and underfunded, civil protection systems, from emergency response to infrastructure resilience, are not yet strong enough. Without adopting a clear legal framework for neutrality (Strategy for National Security, Permanent neutrality Law, etc.), our status risks being seen not as a strength, but as a weakness that creates opportunity for others to exploit it.

4. Lack of Clear Definition and Strategy

Yes, neutrality is mentioned in our Constitution, 11^th article. But what does it actually mean in today’s world? In Moldova, we still lack a solid legal or institutional framework that defines how neutrality should work, especially when facing complex, multidomain threats. This ambiguity creates confusion among policymakers, citizens, and international partners. We urgently need clarity: What is neutrality in practice? And how can it protect us in a world of complex, non-traditional threats? These key points were described into clear, accessible, and engaging language for an international audience not familiar with Moldova within the books “Neutrality: brief manual” and “Sovereignty: brief manual”, published in 2023-2024. 

5. Divided Public Opinion and Political Will

Perhaps the most difficult challenge is the difference between policymakers and the common people. In Moldova, people and politicians are not united in how they understand neutrality. Absolute majority of the population is consolidated to keep neutrality status, but actual ruling party is considering EU defense policy as a basic position.  

A call for neutrality

In this context it is essential to respect sovereignty principle as a shield to keep us in peace. Others question whether it isolates us from much-needed partnerships. That’s why it’s critical to build national consensus: without unity at home, neutrality cannot be credible abroad. To achieve this, we need:

1. Stronger laws and institutions,
2. Honest public dialogue and civic education,
3. Independent research and international support.

Let us remember: neutrality, when done right, is not a retreat from the world. It is a moral and strategic choice to uphold peace in a time of war.

Tsvyatkov Nikolay, PhD (Habil.), Professor of Political Science

For Neutrality Colloquium: A Call to Action for Active Neutrality & World Peace, Geneva, 26–27 June 2025

Sources:

• Tsvyatkov N., Tcaci A., Banari S. Neutrality: brief manual. Chisinau, 2023
• Tsvyatkov N., Tcaci A., Cojuhari E. Sovereignty: brief manual. Chisinau, 2024