neutrality

In the midst of talking about the war, you hear from news bulletins and talk shows that endless narration about the victims, who fall under the bombing of missiles, fighters and pistol shots. The narration is often followed by a series of future foresights that we call “scenarios” and the views of the observer guests, most of whom belong to the world, follow. The university and its academic institutes are analytical, but there are predictions that go beyond the terminology indicating solutions to be negotiated, or rather what may summarize them.

How often has the word “neutrality” been repeated these days, and how often it has been repeated without a precise identification accompanied by it, as if we are keeping secret information that has nothing to do with confidentiality, as much as it is related to a failure to define. We have heard about Ukraine's "neutrality" as a prerequisite for negotiations, but who have we heard define the concept of neutrality, starting with its long historical pile, which specialists know well constitutes an entire chapter in the history of international relations? Let us pause at the neutral and remember..

Let us first remember that the first thing that comes to mind - or rather, the first thing that comes to mind - when we talk about neutrality: Switzerland, of course. Switzerland is best known for its neutrality, but least known for its neutrality content. Yes, Switzerland was famous for what was documented by international law by its non-participation in international conflicts, on the basis of what was termed the “law of neutrality” recorded by the Hague Treaty on October 19, 1907. It is the part of the treaty that was circulated among the public and was shortened by Switzerland’s neutrality, but a second part The treaty completely escaped from the public discourse, despite the fact that it dated the “other side” of the Swiss neutrality coin. It almost gave a completely opposite definition to the first part, on the basis that the “law of neutrality” does not exist without the “policy of neutrality.” The "policy of neutrality" is determined according to the international situation, here, and even if it was ordered by a clear American instigation, we saw Switzerland moving towards the European Union in imposing sanctions on Russia, in a move that can be considered a complete reproduction of a scenario from the Cold War, during which America pressured Switzerland to go along with it in imposing Sanctions on the eastern region, in accordance with the Holtz-Linder Agreement signed in 1951. Switzerland remained, as permitted by law in the end, and not necessarily by moral law, ranging between accommodation and stepping down, as happened when it stepped aside from the boycott imposed by the international community on South Africa, to be able to Continue to play an intermediary role in the gold trade. But Switzerland also went further when it made the "policy of neutrality" suitable for exporting arms in World War II to the so-called "Axis Powers". Switzerland, as the law allows it in the end, and not necessarily the moral law, continued to fluctuate between compromising and stepping aside, as happened when it stepped aside from the boycott imposed by the international community on South Africa, to be able to continue to play the role of mediating in the gold trade. But Switzerland also went further when it made the "policy of neutrality" suitable for exporting arms in World War II to the so-called "Axis Powers". Switzerland, as the law allows it in the end, and not necessarily the moral law, continued to fluctuate between compromising and stepping aside, as happened when it stepped aside from the boycott imposed by the international community on South Africa, to be able to continue to play the role of mediating in the gold trade. But Switzerland also went further when it made the "policy of neutrality" suitable for exporting arms in World War II to the so-called "Axis Powers".

It remains for us to ask what neutrality we are talking about in the Ukrainian case.. Here, the Austrian and Swedish models are launched for deliberation, according to the same Russian view.

Austrian first, Vienna, which today is known for hosting the Iranian nuclear negotiations, was historically famous for being the city where Nikita Khrushchev and John Fitzgerald Kennedy agreed to a cease-fire in Laos, as well as to resume consultations on nuclear disarmament, which was the geopolitical challenge par excellence at the time. It will also be Vienna in 1979, the city where Brezhnev and Carter will sign the Strategic Arms Limitation Agreement (SALT), the agreement that ended up not being concluded by the US Senate, following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Then Vienna became famous throughout history for being the center of multilateral negotiations, including common security and defense agreements between the European Union countries - although no European army has yet been established. As for Sweden, it is known for a basic characteristic of international politics, which is its adoption of the non-aligned approach, although it was not one of the countries that historically adopted it, within the Non-Aligned Movement, which included 117 countries.

It remains to be seen what form Ukraine's neutrality proposed for negotiations might take.

We heard the Russian narrative: the creation of a demilitarized zone 50 kilometers deep, Ukraine's non-hosting of military bases on its territory, of course, the latter's commitment not to join NATO (a commitment made by Zelensky on March 16, 2022). But the problem remained. No one agreed on the form of neutrality that Ukraine could be. What we hear and what we have just mentioned are nothing but the mechanical connotation of this neutrality, the detailed and clipped Russian connotation “as it is.” Someone might say that at the heart of the negotiating step will be to draw features of neutrality that contribute, in one way or that, to reaching an agreement formula or the first solution, but how can we trust a party that committed from the beginning, and with clarity of expression, adopting the heart of the facts as a discourse and an approach. After the former US President Donald came Trump with the alternative truth, here is Putin, we have returned to the inverted truth that many were accustomed to in the Soviet era.

The whole challenge is based from now on to decipher what Russia really means by its neutrality, which it announced in the language of inverted facts, which only those who are firmly rooted in a science whose name began to impose itself: Inverted science..

French academic and media researcher.