Enlightened Neutrality: Defined
Enlightened neutrality is a political position that emphasizes the importance of remaining neutral and impartial in political conflicts, while actively promoting certain values and principles such as the rule of law and adherence to international treaties and agreements. Pure neutrality can sometimes enable or condone injustice and therefore seeks to promote and defend these values through non-partisan means.
Enlightened neutrality can be seen as a form of principled neutrality, but with a greater emphasis on proactive engagement and advocacy. It involves advocating for the adherence to international law and treaties in other countries while avoiding taking sides in specific political conflicts or disputes. Enlightened neutrality supports international institutions and agreements that promote cooperation and peaceful resolution of conflicts while remaining impartial and non-aligned in specific disputes.
Enlightened neutrality represents a commitment to upholding certain values and principles while remaining neutral and unbiased in political affairs, with the aim of promoting peace, justice, and cooperation among different groups and nations.
The Rise of Multi-Polarism
In recent years, the world has become more multi-polar in international affairs due to several trends and developments. China's rise as a global economic and political power, Russia's resurgence under President Putin, the weakening of the European Union, and the decline of US global dominance have pushed the world toward multi-polarism.
The emergence of regional influence from countries such as Turkey, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates, while at the same time, the drift away from alignment to US policy by India during the Ukraine war with their purchase of Russian oil, as well as non-state actors such as multinational corporations and civil society groups, have challenged traditional power structures.
This shift away from a unipolar world dominated by the US after the end of the Cold War, towards a more multi-polar global order with multiple centers of power and influence has been steadily brewing over the past decade. Events over the last year seemed to take place in terms of shifts in power have occurred at an unprecedented pace, almost in real-time. These events are a culmination of factors that began before the Trump Administration but started to materialise under his presidency and expanded further under the Biden Administration’s foreign policy.
The Covid-19 pandemic and the Ukraine conflict have both had a significant impact on America's supply chain policy. The pandemic was the first to strike, revealing vulnerabilities in global trade and transportation networks and prompting calls for domestic production of critical goods, particularly in healthcare and pharmaceuticals. This resulted in a renewed focus on building more resilient and adaptable supply chains.
The Ukraine conflict heightened concerns about the vulnerability of global supply chains to political instability. In response, the US government started to reduce dependence on imports from countries that pose geopolitical risks by promoting domestic production of critical goods, with a particular emphasis on national security and defense. These efforts aimed to diversify supply chains and increase their resilience to geopolitical risks.
Both events contributed to a shift in the US supply chain policy towards greater self-sufficiency and reduced dependence on imports. This led to a renewed focus on domestic production and diversification of supply chains, with the aim of making them more resilient and adaptable to changing circumstances. These changes in US policy have resulted in a somewhat more isolationist position and perception of America.
The unwillingness of the US under the Biden Administration to conduct military interventions with the exception of Ukraine and potentially Taiwan, has caused nations that considered themselves under the security protection of the US to consider other alliances, as well as change the ‘tone and tenor’ of regional relationships away from an adversarial stance.
The US withdrawal from Afghanistan had an enormous impact on the perception of US prestige and its reliability as a security partner. We have seen countries in Africa pull away from European support in counter-terrorism, the exit of the French from Burkina Faso and Mali, to be replaced by Russia’s Wagner Group across the continent, and a rise in Turkish military presence.
This concern over the reliability of the US security umbrella in the region is cited as a motivating factor in the efforts towards improving diplomatic relations between states that have had antagonistic relations for the past 40 to 50 years.
The Strengthening of Regional Alliances
The Middle East going back to the 1967 Arab-Israeli War or the 1979 Iranian Revolution that overthrew the Pahlavi dynasty, has been a region where relationships between nations have been strained, from the ex-communication of Qatar from the Gulf Cooperative Countries (GCC), the anti-Israeli sentiment, as well as the tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Starting with the Abraham Accords between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, we have seen a steady movement towards the relinquishing of hostilities between nations. We are at present seeing a thawing of relations between Saudi and Iran, as well as Syria and other regional nations.
With the rapprochement between Saudi and Iran, we have seen tangible changes in a very short period of time in comparison to the elongated negotiations that the West has had over the years. These talks have resulted in the resumption of direct flights between Iran and Saudi Arabia, the release of several prisoners by both countries and the establishment of a joint Iranian-Saudi committee to address regional issues. Though there remain challenges between Iran and Saudi with the ongoing conflicts in Yemen and Syria.
In recent months, we have seen signs of a thaw in relations between Syria and several Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. This is partly driven by a desire to counter the influence of Iran in the region and to find a political solution to the Syrian conflict.
The most striking change in how alliances or relations have changed in regards to the formation can be illustrated with the rapprochement between Saudi and Iran, wherein the resumption of diplomatic ties after 7 a seven-year rift was brokered by China. All previous attempts at reconciliation between these two countries had been unsuccessful, but on March 10th, 2023, the two countries said they would reopen embassies within two months and re-establish trade and security relations. On April 28th, 2023, Reuters reported that the countries are now just days away from opening their embassies in each other’s territory.
However, some Gulf states remain opposed to the Assad government and have been critical of the recent rapprochement.
Perfect Storms: U.S Foreign Policy
Both the Trump and Biden administrations took a tough stance on China, viewing it as a strategic competitor and a threat to US interests. Trump's administration implemented tariffs on Chinese goods and imposed restrictions on Chinese companies, while Biden has continued to take a hardline approach, seeking to limit China's technological development and influence. Both administrations have also expressed concern about China's human rights record, particularly in regard to the treatment of Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang province.
Both the Trump and Biden administrations have taken a tough stance on Russia, viewing it as a strategic competitor and a threat to US interests. Both have imposed sanctions on Russia, and both have condemned its actions in Ukraine and Syria. However, there are some differences in approach, with Biden taking a more confrontational approach to Russia, while Trump was more open to dialogue and sought to improve relations with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Biden has also sought to rally US allies against Russia and has taken a more aggressive stance on issues such as cyberattacks and election interference.
When it comes to domestic manufacturing and "Buy America" policies, both Biden and Trump shared similar goals of revitalising American manufacturing and increasing domestic production. Trump focused on promoting American-made products and implementing tariffs on foreign goods to encourage companies to manufacture in the U.S.
Biden's approach, on the other hand, emphasizes investing in domestic supply chains and infrastructure to strengthen American manufacturing capabilities.
However, the two administrations differ in their execution and priorities. The intent of both administrations was to prioritize American manufacturing and increase domestic production.
On the issue of Afghanistan, both the Trump and Biden administrations have sought to end the US military presence in the country. Trump negotiated a peace deal with the Taliban that would have withdrawn US troops, while Biden committed to and withdrew all US troops by September 11, 2021.
Serving as the hegemon is expensive, the US has provided enormous funding, not just for military campaigns over the past 30 years, it has also provided trillions of dollars in efforts to nation-build, the returns of which with the two failed campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan are few. Focusing on the strength of the domestic economy, the transfer of state-of-the-art research and production to America’s shores, and letting other nations carry the economic burdens of instability, conflict, or humanitarian, is a rational argument; is America asking if is it time for America to be selfish and focus on itself?
If the US is receding as the hegemon, whether by design or by circumstance, or a fusion of both, then how should other states, especially those that are peaceful respond? What future should they plan for?
Sanctions: Single Option Coercion and the US Dollar
With military intervention, with the aforementioned exemption of Ukraine, and the potential for a conflict with Taiwan, the use of targeted sanctions by the Biden Administration has become the primary tool of coercion to compel states towards US alignment on these two issues, and to an extent on human rights, drug-trafficking and support of terrorism. Larger states, such as Russia and China, in an effort to resist sanctions, need to seek money alternatives to the US dollar for the trade of goods, especially for products such as oil for which the dollar became also known as the “petro-dollar”.
The petro-dollar refers to the practice of pricing and settling oil trades in U.S. dollars. It emerged in the 1970s when the United States made a deal with Saudi Arabia, which was then the world's largest oil exporter, to price oil in U.S. dollars. The U.S. government provided economic aid to Saudi Arabia, its chief oil-producing rival, in exchange for assurances that Riyadh would price its crude exports exclusively in the U.S. dollar. In 1975, other members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) followed suit, and the outcome of this agreement made the U.S. dollar the dominant currency for international trade, which helped to strengthen the U.S. economy and its position as a global superpower.
With the inability of Russia to trade in US dollars to sell its oil, it moved towards currencies such as the Chinese Yuan and the Indian Rupee. In the first two months of 2023, China’s imports from Russia totaled $9.3 billion, a volume that exceeded the full-year 2022 imports in dollar terms. In one month, February 2023, the Chinese imported over 2 million barrels of Russian crude, marking another record high.
The sanctions on Russia have been broad, and in some cases unprecedented such as the sanctioning of the Russian Central Bank. The removal of seven Russia Banks in February 2022, from the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications (“SWIFT”), to deny access to the international payment mechanism, led to Russia implementing its own alternative, the System for Transfer of Financial Messages (“SPFS”).
Sanctions by nature prevent the US dollar from being used or US businesses from trading with a sanctioned person, organization, or country. If there are alternatives to the dollar or sufficient trading partners willing to risk sanctions, i.e. already sanctioned parties, then the effectiveness of sanctions as a means to pressure becomes weaker. It also becomes strategically valuable for sanctioned countries to cooperate to reduce the impact of economic exclusion and creates deeper trade between these states, which has the likelihood of forming new and more robust blocs that are opposed to the West.
What we are seeing is simply “action and re-action” as “coercion and resistance”. The parties in each case are using the mechanisms available in alignment with their policies to protect their strategic interests or objectives.
The “action and re-action” is iteratively pushing the world towards the multi-polar structure; although the objective for the West may appear as a new bi-polar scenario with Russia and China and their allies on one side, and the West on the other, this is an unlikely outcome, the world is not as simple as it was after World War II (Cold War March 12, 1947 – December 26, 1991).
Smaller Fires Can Turn Into an Inferno
The attempts to create new oppositional blocs or to exacerbate regional tensions, polarize opinion, and use political fear have the potential to dramatically expand conflicts. There are over 30 conflicts in the world right now ranging from wars, civil wars, and insurgencies.
In many of these instances, the warring parties have their nation-state patrons, and there are other flashpoints that could transform into more violent scenarios. The wider risk is that as the world becomes more multi-polar, the conflicts expand, or they metastasize with pressure on agriculture through climate change, and then drive more tensions through the rise in refugees which Europe in particular is extremely politically sensitive to.
Good Partners & Good Governance from Smaller Nations
Smaller nations and the regions they comprise can get swept up in the tides from the movement of great powers, although they don’t contribute militarily to conflicts, nor have the ability to exert pressure through economic might, their voices still count in forums such as the United Nations. Their alignment with historic blocs can make them desirable spheres of influence, though such actions are unlikely to materially benefit these states and their economies.
Enlightened neutrality as an approach lets these states operate on their own good conscience without taking a position of hard alignment, and therefore not placing their own well-being at risk by conforming to an ‘us or them’ demand.
If these states through adherence to international law and convention, while opening their economies to investment and international relations, can become a balancing element in a multi-polar world.
Countries adhering to enlightened neutrality that encourage good governance and good relations with regional partners and the wider international community, while remaining principled, can serve as a mechanism to decelerate the spread of conflict.
For developing countries to avoid the calamities of conflict, climate change, the re-ordering of power, domestication of production, and the rapid transformation of technologies such as artificial intelligence that will change the basis of labour. There is one way forward: a dynamic use of policies that are forward-thinking and leverages the strategic advantages of a nation.
These countries need to carefully plan for the future, the changes in climate and technology, let alone the ramifications of a new geopolitical landscape are challenging. The risk for failure to adapt, beyond being swept into conflict or social instability, is that with increased pressure on the economies of larger states, finding the resources to transform their economies may be more scarce.
Enlightened neutrality for smaller states or states without the economic might of developed nations can provide conditions that are conducive to foreign domestic investment, reassure larger states of their commitment to neutrality, and allow them to take a forward position for their country to help them develop economically through a more diverse set of financing or expertise options.
Enlightened neutrality is important for countries in a multi-polar global order with multiple centers of power and influence. As the world becomes more multi-polar, smaller countries need to remain neutral and impartial in political conflicts while advocating for adherence to international law and treaties in other countries. These countries should support international institutions and agreements that promote cooperation and peaceful resolution of conflicts while remaining impartial and non-aligned in specific disputes, and by doing so contribute to greater harmony in international relations by preventing over-polarisation.