Does a geo-political neutral space help to create room for dialogue between polarised parties?
Ask Google about neutrality and it says: “Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.”
At first glance, not much positive to be found about being neutral. Yet, in the act of balancing activism with peacebuilding, is a ‘neutralist policy’ a sellout of values or can it play a constructive role in conflict resolution and de-escalation?
Are its effects on foreign policy and constitutional authority condusive to less geo-political conflict, or merely a pragmatic and immoral obstacle to solving them? Can it even be both? Is there room for neutrality, and if so, how much neutrality and how much room does it warrant?
The purpose of this project is to provide a podium for multiple perspectives on the subject of geo-political neutrality in order to understand its role in conflicts and to open the discussion about its potential benefits and drawbacks.
- Is there a place for geo-political neutrality in the arena of global politics?
- Does a geo-political neutral space create room for dialogue between polarised parties?
- Is neutrality an amoral retrospective strategy?
- Has neutrality played a positive role in past conflicts?
- How much neutrality is desirable?
- Do we need someone to be neutral?