The “War on Terror” and Non-alignment

Abstract

Against such an enemy, there can be no neutrality.—President George W. Bush, March 11, 2002Two European Union countries—Ireland and Finland—could never be called “enemies” of America. Nevertheless, they remain, for historical and pragmatic reasons, outside any formal military alliances. Because of this non-alignment, they have been pressured since 9/11 to state exactly where they stand in relation to the U.S. and its “War on Terror.” Both are members of NATO's Partnership for Peace (PfP) initiative, and their positions are closer to what James Skelly has described as “impartial” rather than isolationist neutrality.Finnish soldiers have served with distinction in peace-keeping operations andtheir diplomats have been seen as honest brokers in Yugoslavia and NorthernIreland. Irish soldiers have helped to keep the fragile peace in Lebanon and East Timor, and Ireland has provided the UN with major.gures such as MaryRobinson and Dennis Halliday. The importance the citizens of these countrieshas given to the role of the UN in world affairs was amply illustrated in theanti-war demonstrations of early 2003, when the light-blue flags of the UN weremuch in evidence in Helsinki and Dublin.Some parties claim that non-alignment remains so popular with the Finnishand Irish people because they fail to understand contemporary geopolitics. Yet,it is more than coincidence that both countries witnessed at close hand some ofthe hypocrisy at work in the War on Terror. Finland borders Russia, whosegovernment has used much of the Bush rhetoric to justify a mutually destructivecampaign in Chechnya. The Irish, similarly, have observed for decades the waythe British government has conducted a “dirty war” in Northern Ireland. With this experience comes a realization that terror, whatever form it takes, can seldom be beaten by violence. By contrast, and perhaps by necessity, the governments of these countries have obfuscated the issue in order to be all things to all people. The high-wire act that both have performed in order to convince their electorates that their non-aligned status is intact, and yet at the same time keep in Bush’s good books, has produced great elasticity in definitions of neutrality.