Finland and Sweden in NATO: Disregarding the Benefits of Neutrality
The political elites of these two nordic countries finally got what they had secretly wanted for a long time
Finland’s and Sweden’s decisions to join NATO is an important victory for Washington and the military alliance, but a far more dubious one for the populations of these two countries. NATO badly needed a PR success since neither the economic war on Russia nor the conflict in Ukraine has been going the West’s way at all.
Adding two more Nordic countries clearly adds strategic depth to NATO in the Baltic area, in particular if US soldiers are stationed there en masse. It is doubtful, however, whether the military security of Finland and Sweden would be increased as members of NATO, on the contrary. It is important to remember that the famous Article 5 “protection” of the NATO Charter is actually not a guarantee of military assistance from the member states to the country in need. It only states that NATO shall take “action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security”. It would be foolish to simply assume that NATO, and in particular the completely untrustworthy United Stated, would engage militarily if conflict were to erupt between, say, Finland and… Russia.
If NATO members Finland and Sweden were able to limit the number of NATO troops and infrastructure on their territory, like the Baltic States, the security situation in Northern Europe would probably not worsen too much, though NATO would then gain less, strategically, from their membership. This is essentially what President Putin concluded in his first remarks on this topic. However, an immediate reinforcement by the Russian army of its Western Military District was, not surprisingly, quickly announced by the Russian Defense Minister.
On the other hand, if Finland and Sweden, as members of NATO, were to decide - or be forced to accept - NATO missile launchers on their territory, like Romania and Poland have, a stronger Russian reaction would be expected. Were Finland to agree to host a potentially offensive NATO military base in Finnish Lapland, less than 200km from the Russian naval and air bases in Murmansk, the whole Northern European Security balance would be disrupted. Russia would then understandably feel forced to try to resolve such a looming security threat.
The question must therefore be asked: did the Finnish and Swedish governments think through the implications of NATO membership and how it could have the opposite effect of the increased security that they are ostensibly seeking? NATO is certainly not a defensive alliance, but clearly a tool of an aggressive US foreign policy, as has been evident on many occasions, from the attack on Serbia in 1999 to the destruction of Libya in 2011. NATO’s aggressive expansionist tactics against Russia itself since the collapse of the Soviet Union shows exactly what kind of organisation it really is.
The Benefits of Neutrality
The leaders of Finland and Sweden seem to have forgotten, or disregarded, the benefit of neutrality, particularly for small nations. In international relations, it is the logical position of a state that is weak relative neighboring States. Neutrality in itself confers protection.
Sweden in past clearly benefited from its neutral status, allowing it to stay out of both world wars and keep cordial relationships across the Cold War blocs. Sweden had had a policy of “freedom from alliance” since 1812, although the cooperation with the United States started already during the Cold War. For Finland, neutrality was even more important since it secured Finnish independence after WWII and enabled peaceful relations with the USSR afterwards. Additionally, as neutral countries, Finland and Sweden often punched far above their weight in international affairs, e.g. as mediators or hosts.
But now, as political analyst Anatoly Lieven wrote, “by joining NATO, Finland is throwing away whatever remote possibility exists of playing a mediating role between Russia and the West, not just to help bring about an end to the war in Ukraine, but at some point in the future to promote wider reconciliation.”
From a libertarian perspective, neutrality would also be the natural position of a (mostly) free society, with a state that is small in size and reach. Such a state, allowing significant economic and political freedom, would not have much resources or interest to project power abroad and lead an aggressive foreign policy; a bit like Switzerland until recently. The main role of such a State would be the defense of private property within the territory it controls, including from foreign aggressors, while remaining strictly neutral (i.e. not like Switzerland).
It is relevant to revisit Murray Rothbard’s 1994 article, “Just War”, in which he noted that neutrality used to be a cornerstone of international law:
“In a theory which tried to limit war, neutrality was considered not only justifiable but a positive virtue… Neutral states had "rights" which were mainly upheld, since every warring country knew that someday it too would be neutral. A warring state could not interfere with neutral shipping to an enemy state; neutrals could ship to such an enemy with impunity all goods except "contraband," which was strictly defined as arms and ammunition, period. Wars were kept limited in those days, and neutrality was extolled.”
This implies, of course, that in this classic view of international law, a state that sends arms and ammunitions to a belligerent, as well as participates in an economic war against another state, cannot be considered neutral. Indeed, this is the case today of Finland and Sweden against Russia, which is not surprising since they had been neutral in name only, long before their recent NATO applications.
Today, neutrality in foreign relations is no longer extolled; quite the opposite. As Rothbard continued: “In the modern corruption of international law that has prevailed since 1914, "neutrality" has been treated as somehow deeply immoral.” Nations have been increasingly pressured to take sides in conflicts, and even to contribute to the war effort of one of the belligerents. There is little political room left for neutrality, as governments feel tempted – or are forced – to band together in "collective security arrangements", for instance through NATO, and also ever more now, the EU.
This pressure has now become crystal clear with the conflict in Ukraine, as the USA and the EU have openly been forcing and cajoling countries around the world to take sides against Russia in a conflict that generally does not concern them. Though neutral Austria has somewhat resisted this political pressure, Finland and Sweden caved completely.
Signing the Defense Cooperation Agreement with the USA
All of the Nordic countries have even gone so far as to practically give up their sovereignty entirely, by signing Defense Cooperation Agreements with the US, which go much further than NATO membership. Indeed, it gives complete access to a whole list of existing military bases for US soldiers and weapons in each country, not even explicitly excluding nuclear weapons, as chocking as that may seem. On top of that, astoundingly, the agreements “give American forces, in principle, full immunity from local legislation when they are in the country, even if they were to leave the base and commit crimes against the local population. The basic idea is that, in the event of a crime, they should be punished under US military law”. They also do not pay taxes when stationed there,
The Ruling Minority Seizing an Opportunity
The strongly pro-US political elites in Finland and Sweden had been waiting a long time for the right political moment to convert an already existing cooperation with NATO into full membership. In that sense, the abrupt shift in public opinion in favor of full membership - the result of extremely slanted Western reporting on the conflict in Ukraine - was a godsend for these political classes, which quickly took advantage of it. The lack of transparency and public debate around this decision, and the speed at which was rushed through parliaments without referendum, is incredible from nations calling themselves “democracies”.
Even worse, the reasons given to the public by the Finnish and Swedish governments for applying for NATO membership at the present moment were not as clear and precise as could be expected, considering the importance of this decision for the security future of these countries. This may not be surprising since there is no indication of any Russian threat against the two Nordics countries.
Finland and Sweden seem to believe that they would gain security by joining NATO, but by officially giving up their neutrality they will not only jeopardize their security but also lose independence. They will likely come to regret their decision at a later date, in particular as the mood in Washington with respect to NATO is very volatile. These two Nordic countries would have been better off if they have followed the fundamental principal of libertarianism in international affairs, which is neutrality. This is the position that is most likely to bring peace in the world over the long term, in particular for small countries.
Neither country held a public referendum on this decision in the true spirit of rule by the managerial class.
As chairman, CEO, and only member of the neutralistassociationofthe.us, I completely agree and applaud the article.