Transformed beyond recognition? The politics of post-neutrality
| Author | Christine Agius |
| Published date | 01 September 2011 |
| Date | 01 September 2011 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0010836711416960 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Cooperation and Conflict
46(3) 370 –395
© The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permission: sagepub.
co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0010836711416960
cac.sagepub.com
Transformed beyond
recognition? The politics
of post-neutrality
Christine Agius
Abstract
The transition from neutrality to post-neutrality has been debated by constructivists and
rationalists alike as a seemingly logical and unproblematic move: the end of the Cold War and the
widening of the security agenda in a globalizing world have meant that a state-centric approach to
security is no longer viable or desirable. The former neutrals are subsequently reconfiguring their
security policies to reflect this development and contributing to European and NATO security
initiatives, and at the same time contributing their own unique ‘soft security’ experiences and
practices. This article aims to problematize this seemingly smooth move from neutrality to post-
neutrality by examining the discourses deployed to facilitate this change. Arguing that there is a
politics of post-neutrality at work, it draws attention to how identity is being reconstituted in the
process of European integration and identity-formation, and how discourses on changing forms
of security cooperation are facilitating the discursive dissemination of an inevitable logic that
neutrality in any form will eventually be abandoned.
Keywords
discourse, European security, identity, narrative, neutrality, normative power Europe
Introduction
In the post-Cold War world, neutrality was widely expected to face a ‘death by irrele-
vance’ (Cox and MacGinty, 1996: 122–3). The bipolar structure that allowed neutrality
to exist had disappeared (Gärtner, 1996: 608–9) and traditional military threats no longer
dominated the security agenda; the sovereign state alone could not manage the wider
range of security threats that now characterized the globalized world. Neutrality belonged
to the era of bloc tensions, territorial sovereignty and conflict between states – immigration,
terrorism, environmental and economic insecurity, disease and intra-state war now
occupied the security agenda. Indeed, since the 1990s, the label neutrality has gradually
disappeared from official discourse (Goetschel, 1999: 115). Finland, Austria and Sweden
Corresponding author:
Christine Agius, School of Humanities, Languages and Social Sciences, Crescent House, University of
Salford, Salford, Greater Manchester, M5 4WT, UK
Email: c.agius@salford.ac.uk
416960CAC46310.1177/0010836711416960AgiusCooperation and Conflict
Article
Agius 371
(the main focus of this article) have slowly morphed into former neutrals, which remain
militarily non-aligned1 in both policy rhetoric and practice. Rhetorically, as members of
the European Union (EU), these states now write their security policies in the context
of European security. In terms of practice, they actively contribute to the development of
the EU's Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) and are now engaged in the EU
Battle Groups. Defence restructuring has taken place since the 1990s, moving from ter-
ritorial defence to greater interoperability with EU and NATO countries. Since the mid-
1990s, they have joined NATO's Partnership for Peace (PfP), the Euro-Atlantic
Partnership Council (EAPC) and the Partnership Planning and Review Process (PARP),
and have contributed to NATO's ISAF and KFOR operations.
The move from neutrality to post-neutrality has been broadly discussed in two ways.
In the academic literature, rationalist explanations point to the end of bipolarity and new
security demands, making the move away from neutrality a ‘logical’ step (Cox and
MacGinty, 1996; Dahl, 1997; Huldt, 1995; Missiroli, 2003). Constructivist and identity-
driven approaches have largely examined the move in terms of European integration,
focusing on the dynamics of interaction and norm exchange between member states, as
well as the deepening of shared values and (European) identity, with the EU regarded as
a civilian or normative power (Björkdahl, 2008; Brommesson, 2010; Goetschel, 1999;
Rieker, 2004). Constructivist accounts in particular point to the ability of the former
neutrals to influence European security integration, namely through their expertise in
‘soft security’ measures. Likewise within policy circles, official state discourses reflect a
distancing and disassociation with neutrality because it no longer reflects the type of
security issues and commitments the state embraces, particularly in the context of broader
European and international cooperation. Within government circles and academia, it is
widely expected that, in time, these states will officially and transparently abandon mili-
tary non-alignment entirely.
This article aims to problematize this seemingly smooth move from neutrality to post-
neutrality by arguing that there is a politics of post-neutrality at work which relies on
privileging certain narratives and discourses about neutrality, identity and security over
others. These discourses are circular, and overlap each other in interesting ways: as iden-
tity is reshaped towards Europe, older rationalist discourses of neutrality are being
deployed by elites to justify the move away from neutrality proper, creating a complex
mixture of discourses that borrow from and rely on realist premises as a normative justi-
fication to move beyond neutrality. This ‘mixture of discourses’ derives from both schol-
arly and official sources, but, as the article demonstrates, both sets of discourses are
deeply intertwined.2 At present, these states occupy a liminal position, negotiating what
sort of actor they wish to become. The move from neutrality to post-neutrality is intri-
cately tied up with identity but also with what sort of subject the state ought to be or the
type of characteristics that state foreign policy ought to have. The discourses that shape
the narrative about neutrality and identity obscure these important questions of subjectiv-
ity and require closer attention. The article starts by exploring the dominating discourses
that construct neutrality. It then examines the overlapping ideas that have been central in
the move towards post-neutrality, and concludes by considering how narratives of
European security point to the ‘logical’ and ‘inevitable’ conditions that ultimately mean
that military non-alignment must be abandoned.
To continue reading
Request your trial