
january 1937 Neutrality and Peace Halvdan Koht Volume 15 • Number 2 The contents of Foreign Affairs are copyrighted.©1937 Council on Foreign Relations, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction and distribution of this material is permitted only with the express written consent of Foreign Affairs. Visit www.foreignaffairs.com/permissions for more information. NEUTRALITY AND PEACE The View of a Small Power By Halvdan Koht was HEN the world preparing in ?898 for the first at Peace Conference The Hague, the Norwegian Government as one coun w put forward plank of their a try's program claim to obtain permanent neutrality, this to be all formally recognized by foreign governments. A petition sup was names. porting this program quickly signed by fifty thousand Four in the same claim was years later, 1902, unanimously adopted by the Storting. At that time, however, the union with so Sweden still prevailed, that Norway could not carry on an independent foreign policy; and the Government and the Riksdag of Sweden refused to agree with the Norwegian desire. The question therefore did not appear on the agenda of the Hague Conference nor did it attract attention in any of the international discussions of the day. But the program was in even keeping with the traditions of Norwegian policy, and it to helped strengthen Norway in her struggle to take into her own hands the control of her foreign affairs. was It in those days that the uncrowned king of Norway, the poet-politician Bj?rnstjerne Bj?rnson, put forth the slogan that when the time came for the to set an country up independent foreign office the object of that office ought to be to have no at foreign policy all. Of course, Mr. Bj?rnson, perfect poet too though he was, had much insight in international affairs to a propose such program literally. What he intended was to set himself against the tendency in contemporary politics to seek means of alliances with countries. security by military foreign? In fact, there was a current belief at that time I ? unfounded, am inclined to think that the Swedish Government (and was particularly the King) striving to bring the two United a Kingdoms into defensive alliance with Germany. What Bj?rn son wanted for was absolute He wanted her Norway neutrality. not to take sides in the formation of opposite blocs then pro so to ceeding in Europe, and keep clear of all political rivalries. an He had made himself the champion of the demand for inde pendent Norwegian Minister of Foreign Affairs in order to Council on Foreign Relations is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve, and extend access to Foreign Affairs ® www.jstor.org NEUTRALITY AND PEACE 281 an provide his country with effective instrument for defending a such policy of neutrality, and he clearly understood that this to or even policy had be accompanied by, founded on, construc tive action for the formation of a universal peace organization. at This attitude taken the opening of the century has been to basic all the foreign policies of Norway since that time. I in essence it think, moreover, that is representative of the politi cal aims of every small country in Europe. Historical conditions more may have implanted them deeply in the mind of the Nor case an wegian people than elsewhere. In any it is impressive fact to a that since 1720, that is say during period of 216 years, seven Norway has had but years of war; and during the last 122 no years Norwegian soldier has had to fight. It may also be taken into consideration that during several centuries the direc tion of Norwegian foreign affairs was in the hands of a govern ment situated outside the country, in Denmark or in Sweden. That condition may have influenced the development of the nation in root many unfavorable ways; but certainly it helped out of the soul or Norwegian any military ambitions any aspira tions for political domination. Norwegians have set their minds on the honorable of achievements peace; their policy throughout has been and is for peace. But the maintenance of neutrality in the world of today raises more more and difficult problems. It already required a remark measure of us to able prudence and balance for escape being drawn into the War of World 1914. You may think of Norway as a on not country the periphery of Europe, directly touched by waves of the European storms; but the fact is that, militarily it is situated on the border line between Great Britain speaking, ? and Germany, and in addition it has a mercantile marine the or ? third the fourth of the world spread over all the seas of both hemispheres, and consequently extremely vulnerable in all cases of disturbance. one can Finally, since the peace of 1919 hardly think of as any country being p?riph?rie. All European countries have been brought into the political unity created by the League. That means a of the change whole notion of neutrality; the problem of remaining neutral has not only become more diffi was cult than it formerly, it has become quite different. In the last of the on Assembly League of Nations, September 28, 1936, the first delegate of the Soviet Union, Mr. LitvinofF, some even spoke with harshness, contempt, of the countries 282 FOREIGN AFFAIRS war which in face of the dangers of threatening from aggressive Powers "strove to seek salvation in neutrality." He reminded them that the recent lessons of history as to violations even of neutral positions which had been internationally recognized ought to make clear that it was not sufficient to write the word on a "neutrality" frontier. This scoffing tone might have been to were perfectly justified if the countries which he alluded really to a sense planning observe neutrality in the old of the word in case a new war should set the world ablaze. But that sort of neutrality had already become impracticable in essential respects during the World War, and with the organization of the League of Nations it has become absolutely unthinkable. out1 Professor Shotwell has recently pointed the complete reversal of the old ideas of neutrality internationally recognized by the Declaration of Paris of 1856. At that date the rights of were as neutrals defined the privilege of maintaining commerce a war. war with both parties in During the of 1914-1918 the was neutral nations found out that this privilege put under severe restrictions. And the Covenant of the League of Nations an to definitely put end it by laying down the quite opposite rule that all the members of the League had the duty to sever all commercial and other relations with an aggressor. That was the as mem end of neutrality formerly conceived. Now all League bers are bound to come to the assistance of the nation recognized as as having been unjustly attacked, inasmuch they would be to their commerce with this allowed maintain only party. a Since 1919, then, the problem of neutrality is exclusively as military one. But such it still exists. Originally, by the first draft of the Covenant, the victorious Powers of the World War to had intended to bind all members of the League participate in as military coercive measures, later better known "military the state. But the Scandinavian sanctions," against aggressor governments in particular protested against the imposition of new military duties, and the final form of Article 16 of the Cove as to nant left the decision the application of military sanctions to the judgment of each government. One might say that such was case even as the of commercial sanc the regards adoption no common tions, as the said article provided for kind of action mem but left all initiative and responsibility with the individual no bers. In fact, however, government could think of adopting i "On the Rim of the Abyss," Macmillan, 1936, NEUTRALITY AND PEACE 283 must commercial sanctions entirely independently; such action usually be doomed to be ineffective. On the only occasion when was a to measures of there manifest desire put this character into the of the made haste to create a com effect, Assembly League mon organ of deliberation, a "Committee of Coordination." On the other hand, military sanctions might easily be imagined as on independent actions; their efficacy would simply depend so the power of the governments resorting to such action, that to each nation's liberty in this respect would appear be quite real. en Switzerland reserved her neutrality from the moment she tered the League of Nations; and she even succeeded in obtaining a commer recognition of limitation of her obligations in regard to were cial sanctions when, for the first time, they brought into a play in the Ethiopian conflict. The idea of such limitation was put forward by the Scandinavian governments during the first years of the League's existence. Indeed, they succeeded in 11 having it included in the Geneva Protocol of 1924, Article of which introduced the idea that the geographical situation of each country should be considered when enforcing sanctions. I think I am was right in saying that Denmark in particular strongly in terested in seeing this limitation recognized. The deliberations over the Protocol afforded at the same time the only extensive discussion that has taken place inside the League of Nations about the military duties of its members. Con flicting views were expressed. Some delegates asserted that all were or members of the League obliged, ought to be obliged, to even participate in military sanctions.
Details
-
File Typepdf
-
Upload Time-
-
Content LanguagesEnglish
-
Upload UserAnonymous/Not logged-in
-
File Pages11 Page
-
File Size-