November 20, 2002

Havel, on Neutrality: From ...

Havel, on Neutrality: From a NATO-expansion speech he gave yesterday, it seems:

I believe that the Alliance should declare permanent accessibility to all the European democracies that have remained neutral until now, from Finland to Switzerland to Ireland. Many of these nations profoundly cherish the historical traditions of their neutrality, and we all respect that. Nevertheless, I believe that all these countries sooner or later will ask themselves what the purpose or the content of neutrality is in the world of today; what neutrality actually means; what it makes possible; and, what it makes impossible. It is certainly understandable that if there are two major power blocs it is of great importance to many countries, for many reasons, to preserve their neutrality, regardless of what they may think of either bloc. But what should one think about neutrality in a situation when such blocs no longer exist, and when the common enemy of all consists of organized crime, terror or the advancement of weapons of mass destruction? Can one be neutral, for example, toward assassins who perpetrate large-scale murders of civilian populations?

Posted by at November 20, 2002 01:53 PM
Comments

Hello,

As a Finn, I don't want to my country to participate to any brutal wars (e.g. War In Iraq) which are no-way related to international terrorism.

Jukka

Posted by: Jukka at January 9, 2004 06:18 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






= true; } else { document.comments_form.bakecookie[1].checked = true; } //--> /body>