Sweden, Finland gave up neutrality a long time ago
Sweden and Finland are, countless reporters and commentators tell us, about to give up their neutrality when submitting membership applications to NATO next month. Part of this statement is correct: it is the two neighbors and the geopolitical sisters expected to apply for NATO membership in mid-May. But they are not neutral. The two countries gave up their neutrality when they joined the European Union in the 1990s. Being neutral actually has little to do with being a member of NATO. It is important to keep in mind when discussing Ukraine’s future future.
“Neutral Finns and Swedes reconsider the idea of NATO membership,” Associated Press reported on March 3rd. Virtually all the news media have spread similar stories, and there is reason for the enormous interest in the two countries. The last few weeks have triggered fundamental changes in the countries’ relationship with NATO. For as long as I can remember – and I am a child of Cold War Sweden – Sweden has proudly stood outside NATO. As children, we all learned Sweden’s attitude by heart: “Alliance-free freedom of alliance in peacetime focused on neutrality in war.” Over the years, public opinion has sometimes moved towards more support for NATO membership, and sometimes it has decreased, but it has never remained consistently above 50 percent. And even if public opinion had climbed past the halfway mark and crossed there, the often ruling Social Democrats – longtime NATO skeptics – always had a card up their sleeve. Joining the alliance would only be possible if Finland joined at the same time, they said. And in Finland, support for joining NATO was still there 20 to 25 percent.
Then, of course, came Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Finland’s support for NATO membership increased to over 60 per cent, and support in Sweden also increased. Sweden’s center-right opposition parties all said they wanted the country to apply for membership. The ruling Social Democrats decided to kick the can on the road and said they would appoint a commission to study the matter. But in Finland, the center-left government took decisive action. Prime Minister Sanna Marin commissioned a government report on the pros and cons of joining the alliance, which the government left to Parliament on 13 April. The report mainly saw the benefits of joining NATO, notesfor example that “if Finland and Sweden became members of NATO, the threshold for using military force in the Baltic Sea Region would rise, which would increase stability in the region in the long run.” Survey of the 200 members of the Riksdag, the national program company YLE reported that 112 supported a NATO bid while only 12 opposed it. (33 were unsure and 43 did not answer.) The Swedish government seems to have realized that it would be completely stupid to sit out with a unique opportunity to join NATO quickly, with minimal problems, and with Finland as coverage. The announced that its review would be completed on 13 May rather than a previously announced later date. It also matters 47 percent of Swedes support joining NATO – and that 59 percent support the move if Finland also joins. Governments have also announced that Finnish President Sauli Niinistö will visit Sweden on 17 and 18 May. A NATO announcement is imminent.
This has led to a lot of media reports that the two countries are rejecting their neutrality. News klaxon! It has been 27 years since Sweden and Finland were last neutral – that is, since they joined the EU. “Where a Member State is exposed to armed aggression in its territory, the other Member States shall have an obligation to assist and assist by all means within their power,” Article 42 (7) of the Treaty on European Union states. In fact, the EU’s reciprocal defense clause is as strong as NATO’s famous one Article 5where NATO member states agree to “assist the party or parties thus attacked by taking immediate, individual and consensual action with the other parties as they deem necessary, including the use of armed force.”
In 1995, Sweden and Finland finally took the leap after staying out together for many years. In the case of Finland, the long wait was partly necessary because of it after the Second World War “friendship treaty”With the Soviet Union. And in Sweden’s case, the country proudly wanted to set its own course outside any alliances. It wanted to be neutral.
Yes, the EU would hardly be in a position to militarily avenge an armed attack on one of its member states. But Article 42 (7) means that its members are not neutral, even though Ireland likes to present itself as such and even if the media and commentators like to label etiquette against Sweden and Finland (and Austria). It is of great importance and not only for Sweden and Finland. Think of Ukraine. In recent weeks, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has suggested that he be willing to do so renounce NATO membership for Ukraine. This represents an offer to Russia in a potential peace agreement and a recognition of the reality that NATO membership may not be successful.
But staying out of NATO would not leave Ukraine stranded. The country has a viable chance of joining the EU, albeit not in the near future. It would give it 27 countries that have committed to come to its aid. And Ukraine can form a community of mutual assistance with other neighbors. Think of Georgia and Moldova.
There are still neutral countries in the world. Switzerland only joined UN 2002 and is of course neither a member of the EU nor NATO. But Sweden and Finland are not neutral. And unlike Finland after World War II, Ukraine will not face forced neutrality whenever this war ends – as Russia is not in a position to block an EU membership application. Words mean something.
Elisabeth Braw is a Senior Fellow at AEI, specializing in defense against gray zone aggression. She previously led the Modern Deterrence program at the Royal United Services Institute. She is the author of The Defender’s Dilemma Identifying and Deterring Gray-Zone Aggression (AEI, 2021).