Discussion in 'Defence & Strategic Issues' started by A.V., Mar 24, 2010.
lets hear all the views on this ....
what is the definition of being neutral?is it like Switzerland or NAM?
One can only be neutral to an ideology that one has nothing to do with, i.e that one is safe from. A state can still choose to be neutral say about Vladimir Putin's hold on the duma, but no nation in their right mind can hope to remain neutral about the threat of militant Islam.In many ways the wars of WW2 and WW1 were infinetly simpler than the conflicts of today . The preeminent reason for this is that in today's scenario the opposing party(read AQ and gang) fails to recognize the concept of neutrality for them there is either believer or infidel and nothing else.The swiss could remain neutral in both world wars as both opposing parties recognized swiss sovereignty and more importantly their leaders(Hitler, Mussolini etc) recognised the need to keep finances safe. in the conflict that is now being toted as the GWOT, such a situation is impossible no one and nothing that is not correct in the world view of radical Islam is safe.I do not believe any nation can hope to be neutral in such a situation, neutrality at least for the current scenario is a dead concept.
IF ideology is being imposed on one then that nation cant always remain neutral on ideology too then nation has to choose the ideology which serves it better.In realpolitiks neutrality never serves a nation.it has to take side.Todays world being multi-polar it depends onto ally with many countries who serves interest better.
Is it possible for the voters who are voting on this thread to be neutral ?
Being neutral is more or less decided by other nations or organizations. A good example of this is the cold war where India and Pakistan were both NAM non alligned movement members and India was in the Soviet Union side and Pakistan was on the American side, this was not originally decided by India or Pakistan but by the larger powers. At one time most of the world was considered to be neutral but with the current state of affairs any nation that has any resources or strategic value would be wise to pick a side.
well if the poll meant being non-aligned then, yes.
It today's multi-polar world it more easier then during the cold war, when one had the option of either sub-scribing to one of two ideologies, or simply avoiding any major alignment
today, one not only stay non-aligned . bot also support multiple ideologies with out direct involvement. Being neutral i their own right.
Any one who has any values has an opinion. There is no way to be truly neutral, this is even more the case die to globalization and how everything that happens from Rio to Tokoyo is in your face all the time but one can always be Non-aligned.
If u ask me if its still possible for a country to be neutral, I would say Yes. why? because its possible for a country to exist without even have any contact or get influenced by the rest of the world hence becoming totally independent of international community. But the thing is its tough task to do considering the psychology of people living in that nation.
Human beings have a tendency to make more money, there fore they tend to do business/trade with others. At one level this trade will go beyond the boundaries of nation thereby forcing that nation to interact with another nation so on so forth. The end product is, countries get interconnected to a level where the politicians starts to make foreign policies accordingly.
However, for a growing economy and influential power like India, its a tough feat to do, and I dont believe the NAM policy is still breathing!!
Separate names with a comma.