It was a meeting in times of political unrest, between two presidents with similar first names, but a very different form of security: Alexander van der Bellen, the federal president of Austria, and Alexander Stubb, the new president of Finland. Both countries combined an apparently common foreign policy self -image: neutrality. But what used to be considered as a connecting element, the paths separate today.
“I don’t miss Finnish neutrality in any way,” says Stubb without hesitation. Finland never had to be out of conviction, but out of coercion. “We were not neutral from choice, but out of necessity.” After the Second World War, this attitude was mainly created by pressure from the then Soviet Union. A scheme, not ideal. Stubb speaks with emphasis and with a clear goal: to show why his country is today a member of NATO
In Helsinki it becomes clear that day: neutrality is not a uniform term. For Austria it is deeply anchored in the political identity – even if, as Van der Bellen emphasizes, it is not a free ticket for inactivity. “Being neutral does not mean that the right of the stronger is accepted.” Especially in view of the Russian attack war on Ukraine, it was important to question your own position – not to give up, but to think again.
Protection – but no guarantee for safety
Finland has taken this step for a long time. NATO that came last year was the end of an era. For Stubb, who had already argued for accession in the 1990s, it was a logical development. The story has shown that neutrality can offer protection – but is not a guarantee for security. The current events in Ukraine had made it clear to Finland that a clear security policy is needed.
“What Russia does with Ukraine today is an attempt at neutralization,” says Stubb. The word gets a new meaning: no longer as a sign of peace, but as an instrument of power. According to his argument, neutrality can even be dangerous under certain circumstances – if it creates a vacuum, the other person wants to fill the other person.
Austria remains – but not passive
Van der Bellen emphasizes that Austria is adhering to its neutrality – but he does not want to accept it as an excuse. On the contrary: the geopolitical situation concerns more cooperation in Europe, also in the military area. “A rower alone does not achieve anything,” he says with a view to defense policy. His photo: Europe as a ship in a storm – giving up is not an option, but you have to row together.
It is not about rejecting the model of neutrality, but further developing. Austria can contribute to safety – even as a neutral condition. For example, through increased cooperation, joint armament projects or better equipment from the federal army. “There is no longer the world of yesterday,” says Van der Bellen. “It’s up to us to make the best of it.”
Emotion or strategy?
The debate about neutrality is not only a security policy, but also an emotional one. In Austria it is closely linked to the post -war order, with the State Convention of 1955, with a long phase of peace. Neutrality became part of the identity. In Finland she was more of a corset – a politically forced jacket that is now deterred.
Both countries therefore show in their own way that neutrality is not a rigid concept. It can be a protective shield or inhibition – depending on the location, history and perspective. Van der Bellen recognizes these differences: “Neutrality is very specific. You can’t separate them from their historical creation.”
Stubb summarizes it even more clearly: “A country needs to know why it is neutral – and what it wants to do with it.” Answered this question for Finland. It remains open to Austria – but not unemployed.
Communal goal despite different ways
At the end of the meeting in Helsinki there are two presidents who represent different security policy paths – but formulate a common goal: Europe must come closer together. “The EU is more than the sum of its parts,” says Van der Bellen. And Stubb adds: “Foreign policy is sometimes development aid, sometimes crisis management – but always dialogue.”
Also with the US, as he emphasizes. The week before the meeting he was in Florida, with Donald Trump. An unusual visit, but no longer illogics. “You have to talk to people, even with those who can take responsibility again,” says Stubb. The world is too complex for simple definition.
And neutrality? It remains – in Austria as a principle, in Finland as a past. But both countries show that it is important not the etiquette. But the attitude behind it.
Source: Krone
I am Ida Scott, a journalist and content author with a passion for uncovering the truth. I have been writing professionally for Today Times Live since 2020 and specialize in political news. My career began when I was just 17; I had already developed a knack for research and an eye for detail which made me stand out from my peers.
