The Panel on Non alignment and multipolarity reached a conclusion that there are many features of the world today that are reminiscent of the cold war, creating space more for neutral states to take a greater role. The panellists agreed that neutrality creates a lot of options and flexibility for states, especially in the role of conflict mediation, while choosing a camp comes at a high price and for many states not compatible with their national interests.

They stressed that even in a multi polar world the basic principles of the international system and law have to be applied, and that it is not allowed to violate and change borders by military means. In relation to that they stressed that in  Europe there is a violation of internationally recognized borders, which is a global issue and should interest countries from the rest of the world, which also might have border disputes.

 

 

Thomas Greminger, Director of the Geneva Center for Security Policy (GCSP), opened by talking about the existence of a renewed interest in Non alignment, multi alignment and neutrality for small states and middle powers. This speaks to the shifts taking place in the international system, and part of a transformation to the multi polar world. He defined neutral states and recommended to any state wanting to have such a policy to diversify their partnerships both politically and economically, be predicable, and have an active foreign policy, if they want to be successful. He gave the example of Switzerland which uses its neutrality to engage in conflict solution and management, and to be active regarding peace and security.

 

 

Thomas Mayr-Harting, Former EEAS Managing Director, former Ambassador of the EU and Austria to the UN in New York, gave historical context for Austria, the neutrality of which was a political concession that became a policy that reached high popularity during the cold war. During it, it was able to cooperate with neutral countries and it managed to become a centre for international organisations. He highlighted that its neutrality is only military neutrality, not ideological or political neutrality, as it plays an active role in EU policies and is a western state. He stressed that now that war has returned to Europe, neutrality as a political concept in this context cannot play a role, and Austria has to support the party which suffered aggression, especially as the EU has taken a side. He added that being neutral gives Austria more flexibility on the global stage, and that most of its population supports neutrality, however that joining the EU has changed the character of its neutrality.

 

 

Branka Latinović, Vice-Chair of Forum for International relations, European Movement in Serbia, started by giving a historical overview of non alignment, comparing it with neutrality which is a close but not identical concept. As for Serbia, she explained that its neutrality is not clearly defined politically, apart from military neutrality. She added that Serbia’s foreign policy is not predictable and that there is no strategic document that defines it clearly, so that its policies depend on the situation, creating an unstable position. Serbia’s strategic interest is to become a member of the EU, but there are collateral activities which are not compatible with that interest. As for multilateralism, she saw it as a good opportunity for smaller states that had to be developed, as it is still largely unclear how the emerging multi polar world is going to be realised.