Conference Program

The outbreak of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict in February 2022 and the escalation of tension between the Russian Federation and NATO in the last decades have dramatically brought the issue of European security to the forefront. As is well known, the question of European security characterised the history of Europe throughout the Cold War. The end of the bipolar era prompted discussion on the need to build a new system of international relations that takes into account a world no longer divided into two opposing political-economic systems and military alliances. However, with regard to the issue of European security, the attention in recent decades has mainly focused on NATO enlargement. Drawing on declassified diplomatic documentation as well as parliamentary debates and memoirs, writings and official statements of significant political leaders, this contribution aims to consider the European security question in a broader and longer-term historical perspective. In fact, views on the advisability of working on a “new Helsinki”, i.e. of re-discussing the post-Cold War European security system as a whole in order to move past the existence of military alliances and replace or complement them with a CSCE/OSCE-centred security system, have made their way into the ruling classes of several European countries, including Soviet and post-Soviet Russia. A critical reconsideration of these proposals has not lost its value with a view to finding solutions for coexistence in an undivided and peaceful Europe.

The condition for the sustainable stability of a system of states is the engagement of the major factors of power on a common concept of legitimacy. In the present situation of the international system, there is an international organization – the United Nations – that includes the major powers of the system with the decision-making capacity regarding the use of force. Yet, major problems arise on its ability to keep the stability of the system and to deliver the security it should guarantee to its members. That is due to two key shortcomings: i) in contrast with existing situation when it was created, the Security Council – i.e. the body entrusted with the decisions about the use of force –does not includes today all major factors of power of the system; ii) even the members included in the body do not share anymore a common concept of legitimacy. A way out from this impasse could be found going back to the Helsinki Final Act (1975). The Final Act, adopted after a long elaboration by the two superpowers of the time – the USA and the URSS – could provide the basis for the reconciliation between the G7 and the BRICS. In his seminal article on the illiberal democracy, the ten points of the Helsinki Act have been authoritatively defined by Fareed Zakaria as “the true expression of western constitutional liberalism spreading throughout the world.”

The article explores the concept of neutrality in the context of current global conflicts, emphasizing the need for the European Union (EU) to redefine its foreign and defense policies. It highlights the ongoing militarization of international order with references to conflicts in Israel-Palestine, Russia-Ukraine, Central Africa, and the Middle East. The piece critiques the post-Cold War illusion of a secure world driven by finance and trade, pointing out the failure to recognize emerging threats from China and Russia. The EU's reliance on economic integration for security is contrasted with the necessity of a comprehensive foreign and defense policy, a need made urgent by the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The article advocates for the EU to adopt a model of armed neutrality inspired by Switzerland, which has historically maintained its sovereignty and stability through a credible military and pragmatic diplomacy. The Swiss model, rooted in a blend of historical circumstances and strategic pragmatism, is proposed as a guide for the EU to achieve strategic autonomy. This autonomy would enable the EU to act independently when necessary while maintaining strong alliances, particularly with NATO. In conclusion, the article argues that the EU should strengthen its internal market, including its military sector, and foster a sense of belonging among its citizens through initiatives like an "Erasmus for recruits." Adopting a policy of armed neutrality would help the EU navigate global instability and establish itself as a "strategic homeland" for its citizens.

A key blind-spot for most western practitioners of international relations is frequently their assumptions that the terms they use, as in this title, and the legal frameworks and their ideological and philosophical underpinnings are somehow neutral and ‘natural’, an automatic reference for everyone else. Yet they are inherently culturally specific in their meanings and far from value free and unproblematic in their application, the same words meaning different things in different cultures. They are initially premised on western assumptions about right and wrong, invariably related to Christian values, particularly Protestant ones, and are often regarded as alien and oppressive in non-Western cultures, where religion plays a more overt role than in the West. This can be seen in contemporary conflicts and western reactions, highlighted in ideas such as Islamic ‘fundamentalism’, the Palestine-Israeli conflict or even the rise of right-wing European nationalism and anti-immigration. My aim is to examine the nature and implications of these cultural discontinuities and how they impact on global security with particular reference to the role of religion and the impact of globalisation on culture and religion. In particular I wish to highlight the frequent lack of knowledge and appreciation of non-Western cultures as Western economic imperatives, with special reference to the rise of literacy, print and science.