At the the international forum “War, Peace, and Neutrality” at the UN in Geneva on October 10, Ambassador Thomas Greminger, the Director of the Geneva Centre for Security Policy (GCSP) and former OSCE Secretary General congratulated the Geneva Center for Neutrality, the Permanent Mission of Turkmenistan, and the Greater Caspian Association for organizing it, and shared his vision on the neutral countries role today.

About modern trends

The world needs bridgebuilders. In a polarized and fragmented world, neutral countries can play an outsized role in promoting dialogue. Think back to fifty years ago. At that time, neutral and non-aligned countries such as Finland, Switzerland and Yugoslavia played a vital part in promoting dialogue between East and West. Dialogue that resulted in the signing of the Helsinki Final Act and the launching of the CSCE ‘Helsinki process’. Neutral and non-aligned countries were also instrumental in bridging the divide between East and West through the CSCE and OSCE, and in developing the OSCE acquis. It is perhaps no surprise that in the current polarized environment, there is a preference for selecting neutral countries, such as Malta last year and Switzerland next year, to chair the OSCE.

Unfortunately, the neutral and non-aligned movement has lost its influence. Today, the trend is more towards selective multi-alignment rather than non-alignment. Emerging powers engage with various partners across geopolitical divides and choose cooperation à la carte rather than formal alignment.

Meanwhile, the number of formally neutral countries is diminishing as great power rivalry forces some countries to join alliances in order to defend their sovereignty.

Great power competition is also causing some countries to reassess what it means to be neutral, and the pressure to “take sides” is growing. Indeed, many states, including Switzerland, find themselves in a real and pressing dilemma to preserve their independence and flexibility while remaining engaged in international affairs. As a result, neutrality is being adapted and reshaped to meet the realities of new dynamics and competitions. In this unpredictable world, neutrality is a strategic balancing act, one that must constantly be reassessed in light of new shifts, risks, and responsibilities.

I must say, as a Swiss diplomat, it is sometimes a tough task. I know from my own work that if one promotes the idea of dialogue between Russia and the West, NATO countries accuse you of being “pro-Russian”, while counterparts in Moscow complain that because Switzerland has sanctioned certain Russian individuals and entities because of the war in Ukraine, it can no longer be considered neutral. That said, neutrality can be empowering in the current environment. It enables states to preserve their strategic autonomy in the face of external pressures. It is a way for small and medium powers, in particular, to navigate great power competition. By being neutral, states can engage on their own terms, refusing to be instrumentalized, to be entangled in conflicts against their will, while maximizing agency.

Neutral, non-aligned and multi-aligned countries should band together

However, and I really want to stress this point, neutrality does not mean being a passive observer of international affairs. Being neutral doesn’t mean disengaging or being indifferent. On the contrary. Neutral countries have a strong vested interest in upholding an international order based on the rule of law. Defending that order as well as promoting international peace and security is what is often referred to as “positive” or “constructive” neutrality. Indeed, neutral, non-aligned and multi-aligned countries should band together to reinvigorate multilateralism and strengthen international cooperation. We need new alliances to do that! Together, we can make the difference between war and peace.

In fact, neutral countries are well placed to play a proactive role in promoting dialogue and conflict prevention. This is explicitly mentioned in the UN General Assembly resolution of March 2025 on the “Permanent neutrality of Turkmenistan”. That resolution encourages the effective use of the territories of neutral countries for hosting peace talks and conflict resolution and settlement processes, including through the establishment of dedicated mediation facilities.

That is certainly what we do here in Switzerland through International Geneva, including at GCSP where we host Track 2 diplomatic dialogues on a wide range of topics, including Syria, the war in Ukraine, the Arctic, or nuclear arms control, to mention just a few. At a time when multilateral organizations are gridlocked, we provide a safe space for bringing all sides together and for exploring cooperative approaches. Fortunately, there is also the Geneva Center for Neutrality – the co-host of this event, which has quickly emerged as an important resource for ideas and debate about neutrality in the modern world. I encourage Turkmenistan and other neutral countries to further develop their capacities and profile as peace mediators, drawing on the experience and partnerships here in Switzerland. We need more bridge builders!

In short, neutral countries cannot stand on the sidelines when it comes to war and peace. While they should not intervene militarily, they can create space for dialogue, uphold international law and humanitarian norms, support peace processes, and ensure that their neutrality serves not only themselves but the broader international community.

Questions about neutrality will remain at the center of Swiss politics in the years to come. While closer geopolitical Swiss cooperation with the West might bring benefits for Europe, it has its price – for Europe as well.  

Since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 the neutrality debate has been front and center in Swiss politics. Many especially in the Swiss foreign and security policy establishment argue that greater flexibility is needed in the interpretation of neutrality in the new geopolitical environment where fundamental rules of international order are violated and Swiss security is increasingly tied to Switzerland’s closest partners in the EU and NATO. Others are convinced Switzerland should stick to its historical traditions and adhere to a strict concept of permanent and armed neutrality. Though a small minority, some would combine the concept of Swiss neutrality with pacifism. One thing is for sure: it shall be up to the Swiss to formulate their path forward in the new era.

However, whenever the question of Swiss neutrality is raised it is often viewed as a given that EU and NATO interests would call for Switzerland to be more closely aligned with the policies of the West, leading to a more flexible interpretation of neutrality. The defence of fundamental international norms, Western political unity and Switzerland’s political, economic and security dependence on its closest Western partners are at the center of these deliberations. However, the pros and cons of Swiss neutrality are not as straight forward from a European perspective.

On the one hand, obviously Switzerland’s global political standing as model democracy and a reliable partner as well as its considerable economic weight contributes to the strength of any common Western or European policy Switzerland contributes to. At the same time, as the World becomes more multipolar and less Western centric, Europe might also suffer some losses if the credibility of Swiss neutrality is questioned globally.

Anyone familiar with international diplomacy would acknowledge that good offices, mediation and hosting diplomatic activities and international organizations have benefits well beyond prestige: accessing information, pursuit of self-interest as a quid pro quo for diplomatic services, contributing to agenda setting, the economic benefits if hosting international organizations and relevant industries to name the most important aspects. International Geneva is the best example of such a politically and economically lucrative model. While obviously Switzerland is the prime beneficiary of Switzerland’s role as a hub for international organizations thanks to a large part to its neutrality, Europe also has a stake here.

Switzerland is obviously an European country, and any high stakes international negotiations that take place in Switzerland or international organization that resides in Switzerland is in Europe. Providing a platform for high-profile diplomatic events always have a symbolic meaning, raising the prestige of the host country by signaling international weight and relevance. It would definitely have a negative message if negotiations about major questions of European security – like the Ukraine war – would take place outside of Europe. No wonder why French President Emmanuel Macron was quick to lobby for Geneva as a potential venue for a possible third round of high-level summit after the Alaska and Washington meetings, and why most European leaders were frustrated with the optics of the US-Russia summit in Alaska.  

Secondly, Europeans have way more ability to coordinate or exchange information on any international issue with Switzerland, a close European partner in all aspects of international affairs, than with countries such as Qatar or Saudi Arabia for instance.

Thirdly, neutrality is a major factor in attracting international organizations. European experts are much more likely to get key positions in international organizations based in Switzerland than in international organizations located in other continents. Informal communications and networks are not to be disregarded in the world of diplomacy. Hence, the balance of the pros and cons of Swiss neutrality from a European perspective is mixed to say the least.  

The debate about Swiss neutrality would continue be at the center of politics in Switzerland, and relevant external actors, including European capitals and Brussels certainly have their preferences. As the Swiss foreign policy community and the country’s citizens consider the pros and cons of their options, it’s worth to approach the question with a comprehensive outlook beyond the noise of daily politics.

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

The current situation of the world is very turbulent and dangerous: the crises in the Middle East, Ukraine, Colombia, Sudan, and other African countries. Instead of doubling efforts to achieve peace through political negotiations and diplomacy, we are assisting the contrary. As it was in the case of Iran, there exists the belief that we can bomb a conflict to halt it. In Ukraine, peace is being delayed by a president clinging to power who counts on support from European governments who, in the past, advocated for peace, and who currently tie themselves to militarism, underestimating the large manifestations, which time and time again are produced against the resurgence of neoliberalism in all its magnitude.

On the 28th of April, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) published a concerning report. It was reported that the global military spending reached 2.718 trillion dollars in 2024. This represents a 9.4% increase in real terms compared to 2023, the steepest annual increase since the Cold War. Military spending grew in all regions of the world, with the sharp increase in Europe and the Middle East being particularly noticeable. The five countries with the largest military budgets - The United States, China, Russia, Germany, and India - accounted for 60% of the global total, with a combined expenditure of 1.635 trillion dollars.

The organization adds that “more than 100 countries augmented their military spending in 2024. SIPRI adds that as governments increasingly prioritize military security, at the expense of other social necessities, this will have a negative economic and social impact. They report that “military spending in Europe (including Russia) increased by 17%, reaching $693 billion, and was the main driver of the global increase in 2024”.

At the NATO meeting which gathered 31 countries this week, it was agreed that its members must increase their defense spending by 5% of gross domestic product by 2035; this would mean that “3.5% of GDP should be spent on ‘pure’ defense, with an additional 1.5% of GDP allocated to to security-related infrastructure, such as cyberwarfare and intelligence capabilities”. In 2024, Poland increased its spending by 38%, Germany by 34%, France by 6.1%, and the United Kingdom by 2.8%. Currently, the United Kingdom is the 6^th largest defense spender in the world, while France is the 9th. Much of the increase in Europe is related to the fear that Russia will attempt to expand into Europe, and that the United States could withdraw from NATO due to President Trump’s rhetoric.

Governments, politicians, and militarists argue that this has a deterrent effect that prevents or mitigates armed conflict. However, academic studies have shown that the opposite occurs: this can lead to arms competitions between countries that only increase the risk of war. Furthermore, these augmentations increase tensions, create cycles of escalation, and divert resources from essential sectors. Diverting said resources can augment inequality, generate social and political conflicts, leading to tensions and violence that destabilize countries economically, making them more vulnerable to manipulation by external actors and their wars. It can also result in countries falling into debt, which can lead to financial problems for the nations in question. Countries with large defense budgets tend to experience an increase in corruption.

In a world where natural disasters are increasing due to global warming, with increasing greenhouse gas emissions, intensifying droughts and floods, and the increased frequency and intensity of hurricanes, tornadoes, and wildfires, which have resulted in increased human migration and food insecurity, it is self-destructive to increase defense spending and elevate the risks of conflict, violence, and war. The UN has warned that Europe is the continent where global warming is increasing most rapidly, and heat waves have increased deaths by 30%.

Alongside the increase of militaristic budgets, we see a deterioration in laws of war, especially humanitarian ones, and the UN’s incapacity to sanction and prevent abuses when it comes to countries that are permanent members of the UN or its allies. The most egregious example has been the violations committed by Israel since the 7th of October against the Palestinian people. It is reported that at least 55,000 Palestinians have died (more than 22,000 men, more than 15,000 children, more than 8,000 women, and more than 3,000 elderly) and more than 129,000 have been injured. The entire population experiences food insecurity, and Israel blocks humanitarian aid. Netanyahu’s strategy, due to his political weakness, has been to attack Iran and involve the U.S. in the stabilization of the Middle East and the world.

Today, there are more than 130 armed conflicts classified by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). Grave violations of international humanitarian law by illegal armed groups are being observed in Colombia, the department of the Cauca, and other regions, such as Sudan, where war crimes are being committed. Europe, which played an important role in global peace after the Second World War, now faces warmongering governments. Therefore, we must continue working to expand global support for the concept of neutrality and seek peaceful, negotiated solutions to conflicts.

By Raudemar Ofunshi Hernandez, president of the Colombia Acuerdo de Paz NGO.

For the Intenarional Colloquium on Neutrality: A call to action for active neutrality and world peace, 26th and 27th of 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

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

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

In a charged geopolitical moment marked by increased in wars around the world and deep uncertainty across the Atlantic, the Geneva Center for Neutrality hosted a timely and candid discussion on the future of European security. The conversation brought together Nicolas Ramseier, President of the Geneva Center for Neutrality (GCN); Dr. Flemming Splidsboel Hansen, Senior Researcher at the Danish Institute for International Studies; and Katy Cojuhari, Head of the International Cooperation Department of the GCN, who guided an exchange that revealed both deep disagreements and unexpected convergence.

Swiss neutrality emerged as a central theme. Nicolas Ramseier recalled its legal foundations under the 1907 Hague Convention and underlined that Switzerland’s permanent neutrality has historically implied a careful distance from military alliances, while allowing active contributions to peace, mediation and international stability. “Neutrality was imposed on Switzerland 200 years ago,” he noted, “but over time it became a pragmatic instrument for managing internal diversity and for supporting peace efforts internationally.”

Rather than advocating any fixed model, Nicolas Ramseier stressed the need to rethink European security arrangements in a changing strategic environment. He suggested that future security frameworks should explore flexible mechanisms capable of reducing tensions, increasing transparency and preserving the full sovereignty of states, while avoiding rigid bloc logics that have contributed to instability in the past.

Dr. Flemming Splidsboel Hansen expressed a contrasting view, emphasizing that European states must retain full freedom of action regarding their security choices, including alliance commitments and military deployments. He highlighted Finland’s and Sweden’s recent NATO accession as a response to heightened security concerns in Northern Europe, while cautioning that long term European security cannot rely solely on external actors. He also pointed to internal strains within the transatlantic system and the broader uncertainty linked to shifts in U.S. domestic politics.

Despite their differences, both speakers converged on one key point: Europe urgently needs to strengthen its strategic autonomy. With global power balances evolving rapidly, they argued that Europe must assume greater responsibility for its own defense, energy resilience and technological competitiveness, particularly in emerging fields such as artificial intelligence and quantum technologies. Nicolas Ramseier referred to Switzerland’s tradition of self reliance, while Dr. Flemming Splidsboel Hansen underlined that developments in regions such as the Arctic should serve as a wake up call for European policymakers.

As the discussion concluded, it became clear that Europe is entering a new strategic phase in which traditional distinctions between neutrality and alliance politics are increasingly challenged. The exchange highlighted the importance of continued dialogue and research on how neutral and non aligned states can contribute constructively to European security.

The participants agreed to pursue joint research on neutrality, alliances and European security, focusing on questions such as how neutral states can support stability without formal alliance membership and whether European strategic autonomy is becoming not only desirable but necessary. As Europe navigates its most volatile security environment in decades, Geneva, long associated with dialogue and neutrality, may once again serve as a space for reflection on future security arrangements.

The international conference on “Positive Neutrality: from Principle to Lebanese Reality” on November 25 in Saint Joseph University in Beirut brought together experts, diplomats, and national stakeholders to examine how a framework of positive neutrality can strengthen Lebanon’s stability, sovereignty, and regional positioning. The conference was initiated and organized by the Lebanese Centre for Strategic Planning in partnership with the Geneva Center for Neutrality and Saint Joseph University.

During the panel “International experience in Positive Neutrality: Lessons from Neutral Countries”, Amb. François Barras, who served as Ambassador of Switzerland in Lebanon two terms, in his speech talked about neutrality as the core of Swiss identity. Linguistic and religious pluralism, liberal values and a strong culture of compromise, direct democracy and neutrality preserved Swiss unity during moments of deep cultural division, including World War I when linguistic regions sympathized with Germany and France. It remains a key stabilizer of national cohesion. Inspired by Henri Dunant, founder of the Red Cross, Switzerland developed active neutrality: hosting international organizations, facilitating dialogue and mediation, delivering humanitarian aid. Neutrality here becomes a constructive contribution to global peace. Lebanon, like Switzerland, is diverse and often polarized. The Swiss model offers valuable lessons: neutrality can protect internal unity and de-escalate of internal political tensions. It can protect from regional conflicts and alignments and help Lebanon to shift toward active neutrality - serving as a regional hub for dialogue, humanitarian action, and diplomacy. It can return to Lebanon its historical role as a cultural, diplomatic, and economic bridge.

Amb. Jean-Daniel Ruch, who served as an Ambassador of Switzerland in Turkey, Israel and Serbia, former Special Representative of Switzerland in the Middle East, co-founder of the Geneva Center for Neutrality, in his speech underlined that in today’s geopolitical landscape, the world seems to be returning to imperial-style competition, where major powers - China, Russia, and the United States - struggle for territories, resources, markets, and control of trade corridors. Until these giants potentially agree on “a new set of rules,” the remaining 190 UN Member States must decide how to navigate increasing pressure to enter one power’s sphere of influence. This dilemma is particularly severe for countries situated in grey zones between competing blocs. The most tragic current example is Ukraine, where the rivalry between the West and Russia has resulted in the destruction of the lives of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of mostly young men.

He identified three types of neutral states:

Buffer States: created to stand between rival powers. In 1815, states from the North Sea to the Mediterranean, including Switzerland, were meant to separate France from the German powers. This system collapsed when Nazi Germany invaded the Netherlands and Belgium in 1940, showing that neutrality works only when the neutral state is militarily strong. Hence Switzerland’s credible armed force.

Neutrality for Domestic Cohesions: states like Costa Rica and Turkmenistan declare neutrality to avoid regional conflicts. This matters especially in diverse societies. Switzerland and Lebanon, both composed of communities linked to neighboring powers, use neutrality as “insulation” from external interference. The failure of the former Yugoslavia illustrates what happens when internal cohesion is too weak.

Variable-Geometry Neutrality: states that avoid taking sides in specific conflicts. Turkey attempted mediation between Russia and Ukraine in March 2022. Middle Eastern countries: Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the UAE, also mediate some conflicts while participating in others (e.g., Yemen, Sudan, Congo).

“Despite all their differences, the various types of neutral States share a common objective: preserving their independence and sovereignty from the malign actions of big powers. This is at the core of the Charter of the United Nations, which sets as a paramount principle of international peace the sovereign equality of all States... What about a global role for neutrality? Indian thinker Sundeep Waslekar advocates the creation of a Council of Neutral States within the United Nations. Its main role would be to mediate conflicts between major powers. One might add that such a Council would be instrumental in addressing key challenges for the survival of mankind", - Amb. Jean-Daniel Ruch said, emphasizing that for Lebanon, where communities often have ties to regional or international actors, neutrality would reduce foreign manipulation of internal divisions, strengthen national cohesion, provide a framework where the desire to live together outweighs external alignments.

Katy Cojuhari, the Head of the International Cooperation at the Geneva Center for Neutrality shared experience of Austria, Moldova and Turkmenistan, who are neutral by Constitution, but this triad has different models of neutrality – from the "active" European model (Austria), to the institutionally recognized UN model (Turkmenistan), and the "compromise" model berween West and Russia in the context of the unresolved Transnistrian conflict in Moldova.

How did Austria turn this status into an advantage? It has become a diplomatic hub. Vienna is a world-class venue: the UN Office, IAEA, the OSCE, OPEC, etc. This brings prestige, employment, a tax base, and soft power. Having joined the EU, Austria maintained its neutrality and made it part of its identity. Today 75% of the Austrian population  supports the country remaining neutral, but "defensible with military force." Will Austria maintain its security model without military alliances and will it continue to promote ideas of humanitarian neutrality and conflict mediation, the coming years will show.

The 1994 Constitution enshrined permanent neutrality of Moldova. However, due to the Transnistrian conflict, Russian troops remain in the country, complicating the implementation of neutrality. The declaration of neutrality was linked to domestic political consensus, ensuring Moldova's security within the existing European security architecture. This was also a positive factor for Moldova in the wake of the Transnistrian conflict. Since 2022, Moldova's European integration has accelerated. However, the current government in Moldova sees neutrality as a constitutional obstacle or « anchor » on the path to EU membership. Which is not the case, and Austia example proves it. According to polls conducted in 2025, 78% consider neutrality to be in Moldova's national interest, capable of serving as an "umbrella of stability" and guaranteeing peace. Moldova's experience could potentially help understand how small states can use neutrality to reduce geopolitical pressure while simultaneously reducing domestic political polarization.

In the wake of the upheavals associated with the collapse of the Soviet Union, Turkmenistan adopted a model known as positive neutrality, having secured this status in the Constitution. In 1995, the UN General Assembly recognized and supported Turkmenistan’s permanent neutrality. Thanks to its neutral status, Ashgabat maintains equal relations with all countries, cooperating with China, Russia, the US, the EU, and Iran without taking sides. This allows it to diversify its foreign policy and economic partnerships, benefiting from competition between major powers. At the same time, its neutral status increases investor and partner confidence in energy transportation and helps it act as a “bridge” between Asia and Europe along energy and transport routes. Turkmenistan’s internationalized neutrality through the UN, supported by economic diplomacy, has become an international brand of predictability.

"Thus, neutrality has been and can remain an instrument for strengthening sovereignty and stability if it is backed by domestic resilience and active diplomacy. The experiences of Austria, Moldova, and Turkmenistan show that maintaining neutrality can yield political, economic, and diplomatic benefits », - Katy Cojuhari said.

Dr. Roberto Zamora shared an expereience of Costa Rica, where Permanent Neutrality is a foreign policy approach aimed at constructing and maintaining peace, not just during wartime. Costa Rica's neutrality declaration in 1983 was a response to the pressure of the Cold War in Central America, allowing the country to decline the U.S. request to use its territory for military purposes. Neutrality also has allowed Costa Rica to play a positive role as a broker of peace in the region, facilitating the Esquipulas Peace Agreements in 1987.

Costa Rica is one of the rare countries, which does not have army. It's demilitarization since 1949 has enabled it to redirect resources to social development, leading to high human development indicators. Neutrality also positioned Costa Rica a country as a safe, stable, and attractive destination for foreign investment and economic development. “Costa Rica's model of neutrality, combined with demilitarization and investment in social development, has proven successful and can serve as an example for other countries. Neutrality can be an effective strategy for small and middle-income countries to navigate complex geopolitical landscapes and assert their sovereignty”, - Dr. Roberto Zamora is convinced.

During the following three panels of the international conference on “Positive Neutrality: from Principle to Lebanese Reality”, representatives of the main political parties of Lebanon discusses the possibility of neutrality for Lebanon, which in the current context looks difficult to achieve, but in coming years a possible constructive solution for the country’s internal and external peace.

Dr. Wissam Maalouf, the President of the Lebanese Centre for Strategic Planning, at the end of the conference announced an establishment of the Commission on Positive Neutrality with two primary objectives: to launch a national debate that engages political actors, civil society, and institutions in an informed and inclusive dialogue on the concept of positive neutrality; and to prepare a draft of proposed constitutional amendments that would anchor this principle within Lebanon’s institutional and legal architecture. Through rigorous consultation and consensus-building, the Commission aims to provide a clear roadmap that can support Parliament in considering a modern, stabilizing, and forward-looking framework for Lebanon’s future.

Government representatives, UN systems experts and the leading private industry participants reframed neutrality in the digital age at the international forum “War, Peace and Neutrality,” at the United Nations in Geneva on October 10, organized by the Geneva Center for Neutrality, the Permanent Mission of Turkmenistan at the UN and the Greater Caspian Association. At the panel “Neutrality and AI: Security, innovation, governance” participants explored how neutrality in the 21st century should be understood - as infrastructure, as law, and as market design? From AI clusters and data standards to decentralized telecoms and post-quantum cryptography, speakers outlined what “digital neutrality” could look like in practice, and what might threaten it.

Tajikistan’s bet: neutral, green compute as statecraft

Sharaf Sheralizoda, Ambassador of Tajikistan to Switzerland, opened the session with a concrete proposal: a UN-backed Regional AI Center in Dushanbe. The center would coordinate AI education, startups, and research across Central Asia, and crucially, connect countries through a shared network of data centers.

The plan relies on Tajikistan’s energy sovereignty. “98% of our electricity generation is coming from hydropower,” - the Ambassador said, pointing to “about 500 TWh” of potential - enough to power massive AI compute “greenly”. Tajikistan’s national AI strategy runs to 2040, with a goal of 5% of GDP coming from AI-related sectors by then. Over 500 people have already trained at its AI Academy, and AI will become a separate school subject by 2028. “AI should remain development-oriented, trustworthy, and inclusive,” - Sheralizoda stressed.

UNECE: sovereign compute as the new non-alignment

“High-performance computing and digital assets consistently prove themselves tools to secure independent GDP,” - said Cristian Olarean of the UN Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). He argued that “digital neutrality” - backed by strong law, cross-border trust, and independence from global power blocs - has become a magnet for innovation in countries such as Switzerland. Olarean cited Kazakhstan’s 2024 launch an exaflop-scale supercomputer as a sovereignty move to keep capital and research onshore for large language models, weather prediction, and smart-city systems.

His checklist for digital neutrality: “backbone infrastructure, skills pipelines, neutral governance, renewable power for compute, smart digital-asset policy, and regional collaboration.”

Trade Corridors: neutral standards as common language

According to Mario Apostolov of UNECE, “Building a multimodal digital corridor is an elephant - you eat it bit by bit.” He described pilot projects digitizing rail consignment notes and port-to-port exchanges along the Trans-Caspian Corridor, all aligned with UN/CEFACT standards adopted by regional leaders in 2023.

Why the UN? Because, Apostolov explained, neutral standards provide a semantic ‘lingua franca’ competitors can accept without ceding commercial advantage to a private platform. In digital trade, he argued, “neutrality should be a technology-neutral standards, not a blockchain vs. database holy war.”

WISeKey: Political Neutrality ≠ Digital Neutrality

Carlos Moreira, WISeKey founder and former UN cybersecurity expert, warned that in technology “neutrality in the digital realm is transactional”. It is built not on declarations but on GPUs, data centers, semiconductors, and encryption stacks. Europe’s weakness, he argued, is scale and speed: “We don’t have a trillion-dollar digital company.” While U.S. firms trade at valuations 50–60 times revenue, European firms are often valued at just 1–2 times, starving them of growth capital.

His sharpest warning concerned post-quantum cryptography: “By 2027, U.S. agencies must be Q-ready; by 2030, legacy crypto should be retired.” Without action, he said, RSA-era encryption will collapse, threatening e-banking, cloud services, and even Bitcoin. “That is coming,” - Moreira cautioned, urging Europe to shift “from the What to the How.” He also called for stronger protections for users: “Web 2.0 stripped users of identity. The UN should make human-centric digital identity a real, rights-based deliverable.”

Neutrality by design, not by decree

Andrew El’Lithy, COO of Karrier One proposed decentralized telecoms as a complement to national carriers: replacing opaque routing with open protocols, verifiable ledgers, and on-chain governance. “This model doesn’t remove governance; it decentralizes it,” - El’Lithy explained, pointing to “programmable regulation” that gives regulators oversight without hidden backdoors.

Proton: Switzerland’s trust brand at risk?

Marc Loebekken, Head of Legal at ProtonMail, raised concerns over Swiss plans for blanket data retention. “It would force all providers to collect a large number of data about users,” he said and it is the opposite of digital trust. Born in Geneva after Snowden’s revelations, Proton was designed as an alternative to surveillance programs like PRISM. “I am not a strong believer in regulation,” - Loebekken added. What works, he argued, is space for privacy-first competitors and targeted antitrust action against gatekeepers such as app stores and mobile ecosystems. “We should develop targeted tools - not put everyone at risk,” - he said, citing the EU Digital Markets Act and U.S. antitrust cases as better approaches.

The big idea of the second panel was about neutrality, which is no longer just a foreign-policy stance. Online, it has become a service - one that can succeed or fail. When the service is trust, it creates space for dialogue, privacy by default, cross-border interoperability, and infrastructure no one actor can quietly control or switch off.

The forum “War, Peace, and Neutrality” ran throughout the day with three sessions: “Neutrality in the Modern World,” “Neutrality, Business, and Strategic Assets,” and “Neutrality and AI: Security, Innovation, Governance.” More than 300 diplomats, academics, policymakers, business leaders, and civil society representatives took part of it.

The United Nations in Geneva hosted the international forum “War, Peace and Neutrality” on October 10, where more then 300 diplomats, academics, politicians, think tanks experts and representative of business world discussed the role of neutrality today. It was organised by the Geneva Center for Neutrality, the Permanent Mission of Turkmenistan at the UN and the Greater Caspian Association. At the second session “Neutrality, business, and strategic assets” panellists debated on neutrality not only as a diplomatic principle, but also as strategic economic instrument shaping trade, investment, and long-term stability.

Opening the session Ambassador Thomas Greminger, Director of the Geneva Centre for Security Policy (GCSP) and former OSCE Secretary General, framed neutrality as a tool for bridge-building rather than silence: “In a polarized and fragmented world, neutral countries can play an outsize role in promoting dialogue, uphold international law and human rights, and support peace processes”. Greminger urged “positive or constructive neutrality,” noting that a UN General Assembly resolution in March 2025 on Turkmenistan’s permanent neutrality explicitly encourages neutral territories to host peace talks and mediation mechanisms.

Neutrality 3.0 or three-stages evolution

Ambassador Olga Algayerova, Slovakia’s Permanent Representative to the Council of Europe and former head of the UN Economic Commission for Europe, proposed a vision of the three-stages evolution: “Neutrality 1.0” - non-participation in wars, “Neutrality 2.0” - active diplomacy and confidence-building, and “Neutrality 3.0” - economic and digital neutrality. “Energy and the environment should not be misused for political purposes,” - she said, arguing neutral states can be “trusted hubs” for AI governance, tokenized money and cross-border digital trade.

Algayerova went further, urging governments to consider Bitcoin as a strategic reserve asset. With “a maximum supply of 21 million” and “19.9 million mined by October 2025,” she said, selective state adoption is emerging, citing El Salvador and a U.S. proposal for a 1-million-Bitcoin reserve. Her prescription: “enhance regulatory clarity,” scale tokenized money, invest in digital skills and infrastructure, and use neutral jurisdictions to “reinforce trust and prosperity.” Done right, neutral states can host dialogue, set trustworthy digital rules, and modernize financial rails, becoming indispensable bridges in a divided world.

Azerbaijan’s “hybrid” path with elements of neutrality

Ambassador Galib Israfilov, Azerbaijan’s Permanent Representative to the UN in Geneva, described his country’s posture as “a hybrid model”: formally non-aligned, outside any military bloc, and practicing “flexible, balanced, and pragmatic engagement” with the elements of neutrality.

Energy diplomacy, he said, is both “soft power” and a lifeline for partners - from the Southern Gas Corridor to an East-West Trans-Caspian ‘Middle Corridor’ linking Asia and Europe. He highlighted the Organization of Turkic States as a rising platform with positive demographics, rich resources and capabilities, positioning the region as a bridge “connecting Asian and European markets”.

Swiss politician’s argument for “active” neutrality

Swiss National Council member Nicolas Walder, also a candidate for Geneva’s Council of State, pressed for “ethical, active neutrality” grounded in international law. Citing Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and a gridlocked UN Security Council, Walder said neutrality “must not mean being complicit in crimes”. Switzerland, he argued, should adopt sanctions when grave breaches occur, and even gain the legal ability to impose autonomous sanctions where EU or UN measures fall short.

He criticized a far-right initiative for “eternal and absolute neutrality,” that would let Switzerland “do business with everybody»: “It would be illogical to give money with one hand to an aggressor and with the other raise our military budget... Without international law, a small, independent Switzerland has no leverage".

Neutrality as a bridge between worlds

Murat Seitnepesov, President of the Greater Caspian Association argued that neutrality isn’t just a moral stance or legal status - it’s a strategic asset that can turbocharge development, attract investment, and help stitch together a fractured global economy. Drawing on case studies from Switzerland and Turkmenistan, he made the business case for neutrality while pitching neutral states as natural “bridge builders” between East and West, and the Global North and South.

Seitnepesov’s central claim: neutrality pays. Switzerland became a global leader in innovation and prosperity - progress he linked in part to two centuries without entanglement in European wars following recognition of Swiss neutrality. Turning to Central Asia, Seitnepesov cast Turkmenistan as a contemporary parallel. The country’s UN-recognized “permanent neutrality” since 1995, helped it avoid internal strife and the regional conflicts that shook several post-Soviet neighbors, creating a haven of stability. Neutrality, he stressed, can be a platform for channeling investment and de-risking cooperation.

The upshot of Seitnepesov’s intervention was pragmatic: neutrality is an economic development policy as much as a foreign-policy doctrine. It reduces political risk, invites capital, and equips countries to act as trusted intermediaries - the kind of role the global system needs as great-power competition resurges.

Germany’s case for “strategic neutrality” and economic diplomacy

Michael Schumann, Chair of the German Federal Association for Economic Development and Foreign Trade (BWA), proposed “strategic neutrality” as a state of mind rather than a legal status - keeping options open and resisting bloc discipline. “It is not an expression of passivity,” he said, but a choice to diversify, mediate and “avoid becoming an instrument of bloc politics” amid U.S.–China confrontation.

He championed economic diplomacy - firms building trust where officials cannot. Europe, he thinks, can reclaim relevance by mediating and reducing dependencies. On sanctions, Schumann was blunt: his association has been “consistently against” them since 2003 because they “hurt the people” first, citing currency collapse and cost spikes for food, medicine and energy. Small and medium business Schumann called Germany’s true backbone and urged bringing their “broad international horizon” back into policymaking.

The panel “Neutrality, business, and strategic assets” was moderated by Ventzeslav Sabev, Co-Director, Observatory on Security, Geneva University. Raising a hot debate in the audience, topic of neutrality emerged as a safe venues for negotiations by Amb. T. Greminger, digital-era trust anchors and reserves policy by Amb. O. Algayerova, issue-by-issue balancing for connectivity by Amb. G. Israfilov, sanctions-backed impartiality by N. Walder, stability and prosperity assets by M. Seitnepesov, and non-aligned room for economic maneuver by M. Schumann.

The high-level forum “War, Peace, and Neutrality” at the UN in Geneva lasted all day, consisting of three sessions: "Neutrality in the modern world", "Neutrality, business, and strategic assets", and "Neutrality and AI: Security, innovation, governance".

Leading diplomats, academics, and policymakers gathered to discuss the significance of neutrality in today’s conflict-ridden world at the international forum “War, Peace, and Neutrality” at the United Nations in Geneva on October 10. Initiated by the Geneva Center for Neutrality and organized together with the Permanent Mission of Turkmenistan at the UN and the Greater Caspian Association, the event underscored the challenges and opportunities of neutrality in modern diplomacy. At the first session “Neutrality in the modern world”, panellists highlighted the evolving role of neutral states today.

Neutrality as Active Responsibility – UN Geneva Director-General

Opening the conference, Tatiana Valovaya, Director-General of the United Nations Office at Geneva, stressed that neutrality must not be confused with passivity: “Neutrality is not indifference, nor does it mean inaction. In the United Nations, neutrality has a precise meaning. It requires humanitarian action, not taking sides in hostilities or engaging in controversies over political, racial, religious or ideological questions.” She reminded the audience that neutrality enables humanitarian access and mediation, noting that “in today’s world, where tensions are rising and divides are deepening, neutrality matters more than ever. It creates the space for diplomacy, peacebuilding, and preserving channels of communication.”

Valovaya also recalled UN General Assembly Resolution 71/275, which established 12 December as the International Day of Neutrality, initiated by Turkmenistan.

In the opening remarks, Murat Seitnepesov, President of the Greater Caspian Association reminded that only three countries in the world are officially recognized as neutral, which is Switzerland from Vienna Congress in 1815, Austria after World War II, and Turkmenistan from 1995. “This year, we will celebrate the anniversary of Turkmenistan neutrality, and that’s why our region is very much relevant to the Swiss neutrality, and to the topic of today’s forum”, - he added.

Perception, Trust, and Digital Neutrality – Geneva Center for Neutrality

Nicolas Ramseier, President and Co-founder of the Geneva Center for Neutrality, reflected on Switzerland’s evolving role and proposed that neutrality be redefined for the digital era.

“Neutrality can be seen as a building with three floors: the legal neutrality of the Hague Convention; the perception of neutrality, which is how other states view you; and finally, total detachment. For Switzerland, the real game is played on the second floor – perception and trust”, - Ramseier argued that trust, sovereignty, and independence are central to making neutrality credible, and warned that Switzerland’s image has suffered in recent years and for mediating in the conflicts effectively, Swiss must work on trust and perception.

He introduced the concept of digital neutrality, which Geneva Center for Neutrality is actively promoting, urging Switzerland to pioneer a global safe space for data storage: “Today there is a quasi-war between big tech players and states. Switzerland should create infrastructure where data can be stored under a ‘neutrality label,’ ensuring it is not weaponized in conflicts or manipulation. This would extend our neutrality into the digital age,”- Nicolas Ramseier said, believing Switzerland should be the world’s “Digitally Neutral” data haven.

Neutrality Is an Active Position of Creation – Turkmenistan Ambassador

Speaking for a country whose permanent neutrality was recognized by the UN in 1995, Vepa Hajiyev, Ambassador of Turkmenistan to the Swiss Confederation and Permanent Representative to UNOG, framed neutrality as actionable statecraft: “Neutrality remains one of the few instruments capable of sustaining dialogue, reducing tensions, and strengthening trust among states. Neutrality is an active position of creation, not a refusal to engage… Peace begins not with signed documents, but with the trust that states and people are capable of giving one another.”

Hajiyev spotlighted concrete proposals voiced by Turkmenistan’s president at the UN General Assembly: adding “Neutrality for Peace and Security” as a dedicated GA agenda item; tabling a resolution on “The Role and Significance of the Policy of Neutrality in Maintaining International Peace, Security, and Sustainable Development”, and many others.

Geneva, he said, is a “symbol of diplomacy and mediation,” the ideal setting to “discuss neutrality, peace, and humanitarian responsibility.” As for Turkmenistan, neutrality is neither “withdrawal, nor isolation” but “a policy of openness, engagement, and creation.”

Neutrality as Courage and Discretion – Swiss Political Perspective

Lionel Dugerdil, Geneva parliamentarian and candidate for the Geneva Council of State, emphasized the traditional Swiss model of quiet, discreet diplomacy. Citing the 1985 Reagan-Gorbachev summit in Geneva, he argued that Switzerland’s strength lies in humility and credibility: “Being neutral means sometimes remaining silent when you want to denounce. It means meeting with interlocutors the world condemns, because without them no solution is possible.”

He warned that Switzerland risks losing this credibility by mixing sanctions with mediation. For Dugerdil, neutrality demands courage: “In today’s polarized world, neutrality is not cowardice – it is courage. Our role is to defuse tensions, maintain dialogue, even if it is interpreted as cowardice or opportunism.”

Dugerdil’s prescription was crisp, that Swiss must diffuse tensions again and again by keeping dialogue open and treating all sides equally. That is what it means to remain neutral and is what a small country like Switzerland can best bring to the world.

Discipline and Flexibility for Mediation - Serbian Ambassador

Ambassador of the Republic of Serbia to Switzerland - Ivan Trifunović, offered a comparative lens on small-state strategy. Even “successful patterns are being tested” by great-power rivalry and the weaponization of supply chains and finance, small states, he argued, need “very few red lines”: territorial integrity, constitutional order, core treaty commitment, and maximum flexibility elsewhere. He sketched a pragmatic playbook: multiply functional channels and build a minimal national consensus that survives political turnover. For Switzerland, adopting legally compatible sanctions can be squared with neutrality “when clarified in law,” thus preserving identity and good offices. Ivan Trifunović emphasised that Belgrade sees scope to work with the OSCE, the only pan-European body with full membership across divides.

Neutrality as “Active Non-Belligerence” for a Post-Hegemonic World - Club of Rome

Secretary General of the Club of Rome - Carlos A. Pereira, reframed “neutrality for what?”, which lands on earth–humanity reconciliation: ending not only wars among states but the adversarial stance toward nature. Preparing for war, he warned, risks a “Greek tragedy” - a self-fulfilling prophecy born of fear - so the strategic alternative must be learning, collaboration, and what he called “active non-belligerence.”

Active non-belligerence, in Pereira framing, is neutrality with purpose: a deliberate choice by states to invest their diplomatic capital in cooperation mechanisms rather than coercive hierarchies. He argued that a post-hegemonic world is the natural ecosystem for modern neutrality. In such a system, neutral states don’t sit out; they set rules, steward trust, and convene plural pathways to solve cross-border risks - food security, climate, and the tech frontier. Switzerland, with Geneva’s multilateral hub, is well placed to translate neutrality into convening power: brokering standards, piloting confidence-building arrangements, rather than arms-race competition. Neutrality is seen by Pereira as a platform that absorbs polarization and releases practical cooperation.

The discussion was moderated by Jean-Marc Rickli, Head of Global and Emerging Risks at the Geneva Center for Security Policy, who concluded that neutrality is back at the center of European and global security debates, and it needs sharper definitions and modern applications. 

The first session «Neutrality in the modern world” highlighted a consensus that neutrality is far from obsolete. Instead, it is evolving – from a legal principle to a moral and political stance, and potentially into new domains such as cyberspace and digital governance. Whether through humanitarian access, discreet diplomacy, or technological innovation, neutrality remains a proactive force for building bridges for peace.

The high-level forum “War, Peace, and Neutrality” at the UN in Geneva lasted all day, consisting of three sessions: "Neutrality in the modern world", "Neutrality, business, and strategic assets", and "Neutrality and AI: Security, innovation, governance". More than 300 diplomats, academics, politicians, experts, and civil society representatives participated in the event.

At the the international forum “War, Peace, and Neutrality” at the UN in Geneva on October 10, Ambassador Thomas Greminger, the Director of the Geneva Centre for Security Policy (GCSP) and former OSCE Secretary General congratulated the Geneva Center for Neutrality, the Permanent Mission of Turkmenistan, and the Greater Caspian Association for organizing it, and shared his vision on the neutral countries role today.

About modern trends

The world needs bridgebuilders. In a polarized and fragmented world, neutral countries can play an outsized role in promoting dialogue. Think back to fifty years ago. At that time, neutral and non-aligned countries such as Finland, Switzerland and Yugoslavia played a vital part in promoting dialogue between East and West. Dialogue that resulted in the signing of the Helsinki Final Act and the launching of the CSCE ‘Helsinki process’. Neutral and non-aligned countries were also instrumental in bridging the divide between East and West through the CSCE and OSCE, and in developing the OSCE acquis. It is perhaps no surprise that in the current polarized environment, there is a preference for selecting neutral countries, such as Malta last year and Switzerland next year, to chair the OSCE.

Unfortunately, the neutral and non-aligned movement has lost its influence. Today, the trend is more towards selective multi-alignment rather than non-alignment. Emerging powers engage with various partners across geopolitical divides and choose cooperation à la carte rather than formal alignment.

Meanwhile, the number of formally neutral countries is diminishing as great power rivalry forces some countries to join alliances in order to defend their sovereignty.

Great power competition is also causing some countries to reassess what it means to be neutral, and the pressure to “take sides” is growing. Indeed, many states, including Switzerland, find themselves in a real and pressing dilemma to preserve their independence and flexibility while remaining engaged in international affairs. As a result, neutrality is being adapted and reshaped to meet the realities of new dynamics and competitions. In this unpredictable world, neutrality is a strategic balancing act, one that must constantly be reassessed in light of new shifts, risks, and responsibilities.

I must say, as a Swiss diplomat, it is sometimes a tough task. I know from my own work that if one promotes the idea of dialogue between Russia and the West, NATO countries accuse you of being “pro-Russian”, while counterparts in Moscow complain that because Switzerland has sanctioned certain Russian individuals and entities because of the war in Ukraine, it can no longer be considered neutral. That said, neutrality can be empowering in the current environment. It enables states to preserve their strategic autonomy in the face of external pressures. It is a way for small and medium powers, in particular, to navigate great power competition. By being neutral, states can engage on their own terms, refusing to be instrumentalized, to be entangled in conflicts against their will, while maximizing agency.

Neutral, non-aligned and multi-aligned countries should band together

However, and I really want to stress this point, neutrality does not mean being a passive observer of international affairs. Being neutral doesn’t mean disengaging or being indifferent. On the contrary. Neutral countries have a strong vested interest in upholding an international order based on the rule of law. Defending that order as well as promoting international peace and security is what is often referred to as “positive” or “constructive” neutrality. Indeed, neutral, non-aligned and multi-aligned countries should band together to reinvigorate multilateralism and strengthen international cooperation. We need new alliances to do that! Together, we can make the difference between war and peace.

In fact, neutral countries are well placed to play a proactive role in promoting dialogue and conflict prevention. This is explicitly mentioned in the UN General Assembly resolution of March 2025 on the “Permanent neutrality of Turkmenistan”. That resolution encourages the effective use of the territories of neutral countries for hosting peace talks and conflict resolution and settlement processes, including through the establishment of dedicated mediation facilities.

That is certainly what we do here in Switzerland through International Geneva, including at GCSP where we host Track 2 diplomatic dialogues on a wide range of topics, including Syria, the war in Ukraine, the Arctic, or nuclear arms control, to mention just a few. At a time when multilateral organizations are gridlocked, we provide a safe space for bringing all sides together and for exploring cooperative approaches. Fortunately, there is also the Geneva Center for Neutrality – the co-host of this event, which has quickly emerged as an important resource for ideas and debate about neutrality in the modern world. I encourage Turkmenistan and other neutral countries to further develop their capacities and profile as peace mediators, drawing on the experience and partnerships here in Switzerland. We need more bridge builders!

In short, neutral countries cannot stand on the sidelines when it comes to war and peace. While they should not intervene militarily, they can create space for dialogue, uphold international law and humanitarian norms, support peace processes, and ensure that their neutrality serves not only themselves but the broader international community.

The Geneva Center for Neutrality (GCN) hosted a public debate, “Science, Art, Sport & Neutrality: Can Switzerland remain a neutral hub?” at the Swiss Press Club in Geneva on Tuesday, 23 September 2025. Moderated by Nicolas Ramseier, President of GCN, the discussion brought together leading voices from diplomacy, science, and multilateral affairs: Carl Gustav Lundin, marine biologist and former IUCN director, expert in ocean governance, Lisa Emelia Svensson, Minister-Counsellor, Permanent Mission of Sweden to the UN, Amb. Jean-Daniel Ruch, former Swiss Ambassador to Serbia, Turkey, and Israel, Gérard Escher, Senior Advisor, GESDA.

Opening the discussion, Amb. Jean-Daniel Ruch emphasized that a truly neutral hub safeguards artists, athletes, and scientists from blanket boycotts while creating space for peaceful protest and reasoned exchange. A 2011 mediation around the Basel “Culturescapes” festival was cited as a successful model: keep culture open, add structured dialogue. He mentioned also that Switzerland’s credibility has enabled cross-border initiatives despite political rifts: the Transnational Red Sea Center is one of the best examples. Neutral, excellence-driven platforms help adversaries work together on shared problems.

The panel warned that Europe risks falling behind the U.S. and China in “big science” and tech. The solution can be to invest in open, rigorous research and keep debate broad, but pair openness with proportionate security and ethics guardrails. Speakers emphasized huge potential of Switzerland, having a very progressive science centers, like CERN in Geneva, in EPFL in Lausanne, ETH in Zurich, etc. Geneva should convene its role as a neutral international platform faster, more inclusive (internationally, with private sector, scientists, citizens), and anchored in concrete domains such as science diplomacy, AI, neurotechnology, quantum, and climate and health data. Expert-driven standards processes point to a pragmatic “new multilateralism.”

As well, as host to major sports bodies, Switzerland’s image is intertwined with governance standards. Neutrality in sport should protect participation and fair play while addressing misconduct transparently.

As a conclusion, experts are convinced Switzerland’s evolving stance regarding neutrality underscores the need for a fresh, society-wide debate. Swiss Confederation can remain a global hub for science, art and sport, if it protects civil-society exchanges, convenes rivals around science and standards internationally, funds bold open research, and manages real security risks with proportionate safeguards. Geneva’s power - paired with scientific quality, ethical foresight, mediation platform and institutional agility can keep Switzerland at the heart of global cooperation.

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.