“Neutrality serves the oppressor, never the victim.” — Elie Wiesel [1]

The notion of neutrality holds a paradoxical position in international relations. While it is often celebrated for its portrayal of political maturity and diplomatic restraint, its ethical and historical dimensions demand a closer look—especially when the claim to neutrality comes from nations with a colonial past.

I. The Illusion of Neutrality

Neutrality is often characterized by its principle of balance in international affairs. However, in the postcolonial world, this principle acquires a more complex meaning. When former colonial powers claim neutrality, it raises the question of whether neutrality can ever be untangled from the hierarchies established during colonialism.

When neutrality is asserted by imperialist nations, it is often accompanied by their legacy of imperial border-drawing, economic domination, and epistemic control. In such cases, neutrality does not function as an ethical withdrawal from power, but rather as its reconfiguration—a mechanism through which exercising indirect control and neglecting accountability becomes easier.

This phenomenon reflects what some postcolonial scholars identify as performative neutrality [2]: a rhetorical stance that blurs historical complicity and fosters existing power asymmetries. In this sense, neutrality becomes less of a diplomatic ideal and more an instrument for legitimizing the replacement of historical responsibility with disengagement.

II. Constructing Neutrality

Constructivism, in International Relations (IR) theory, suggests that state behavior is not solely guided by material interests but also by identities, social norms, and shared understandings [3]. Therefore, neutrality cannot be viewed as a static condition; it is a construct that is produced, performed, and sustained through political discourse and historical memory.

Edward Said’s Orientalism [4] helps in understanding this view. Western powers have long cast themselves as the rational observers of an “irrational” Global South, since their approaches are more objective as opposed to the emotional or volatile styles of the non-West. This epistemological frame often has the effect of naturalizing hierarchies of knowledge and authority. Within this system, neutrality becomes an assertion of a privileged standpoint that determines how conflicts are narrated and understood.

Similarly, Gayatri Spivak’s Can the Subaltern Speak? [5] reveals how silence can operate as a form of control. “Neutral” states often select which crises to recognize as international matters and which ones to ignore as mere internal affairs. In doing so, they participate in a selective process of recognition that reproduces the same exclusionary patterns as was done historically. They determine whose voices are amplified, and whose are carefully sidelined. This form of neutrality becomes an epistemic act of refusal disguised as non-interference.

Therefore, what appears as impartiality functions more as interpretive dominance. Neutrality can thus be a mechanism that allows former imperial states to maintain their authority over global narratives in the name of objectivity.

III. France’s “Neutrality” in Francophone Africa

France's current policies toward its former colonies in West and Central Africa reveal how neutrality can act as a form of subtle control. Official discourse paints the picture of postcolonial restraint—of a superpower that has learned from its imperial past and now upholds the sovereignty of African nations. In 2023, President Emmanuel Macron publicly stated that "the era of French interference in Africa is over," [6] framing the country's policy as the end of colonial rule. At first glance, this stance appears as progressive: a colonial power retreating its military [7]. Yet the economic systems that perpetuate French influence tell a different story.

The presence of the CFA franc monetary system is a prime example of such a reality. Originally established under colonial rule and then tied to the French Treasury, it continues to affect fourteen African nations, twelve of which were formerly French colonies [8]. In 1994, the CFA Franc was devalued by 50% in an agreement among France, the IMF, and African zone members to restore competitiveness, so that goods could be exported at half the price even if import prices were to double [9]. However, the distributive impacts of this policy were uneven: while export sectors like agriculture and textiles enjoyed returns in the short-run [8], domestic inflation shot up by 30%+ [10], deeply affecting the purchasing power of its citizens before being stabilized in the coming years. The decisions being made in Paris and international financial institutions instead of in African capitals, further underlines the asymmetry of authority in this case [8].

Since 1999, the CFA franc’s peg has shifted from the French franc to the euro in virtue of stability. Yet there is little structural change as the fiscal autonomy of member states is still constrained, preventing them from aligning their monetary policy to their domestic needs. The system effectively ties African economies to European economies, maintaining a form of financial oversight that mirrors postcolonial hierarchies.

In 2019, reforms were introduced to transition from the CFA franc to the Eco to establish greater structural independence. However, a closer look reveals that much of the old architecture is still intact. The Eco is still pegged to the euro, with France as its guarantor—ensuring the continuation of European influence [8]. It may appear that decision-making power has been localized after France’s step back from overt political exertion, but the systemic entanglements continue to preserve the conditions required to assert dominance.

Scholars describe this phenomenon as ‘postcolonial governmentality’ [11], where former colonial powers maintain their authority through economic and suggestive mechanisms instead of direct rule. In this light, France’s “neutrality” functions as the rephrasing of power that sustains hegemony in West and Central Africa.

IV. Britain’s “Neutrality” on Kashmir

Britain's continued stance of neutrality on the Kashmir conflict embodies the postcolonial paradox of moral detachment by a former imperial power. When the British left the Indian subcontinent in 1947, they left with newly divided India the unresolved territorial and communal fault lines that have long shaped South Asia's most protracted conflict. The partition, denoted by the hastily drawn Radcliffe Line by a British lawyer with no prior experience in the region, divided centuries-old societies, triggered one of humankind's biggest mass movements, and institutionalized distrust among newly formed communities. Its aftermath still echoes in the political geography of the subcontinent — a geography Britain now observes from a distance under the guise of neutrality [12].

This was further accomplished through widespread economic exploitation during colonial rule. Britain extracted about $64.82 trillion (2025 value) from territories that now constitute India and Pakistan between 1765 and 1900, financing its industrial ascent while carefully draining colonial India's economy [13]. Institutions like the East India Company, which evolved from trade organizations into quasi-federal powers, established the foundations for contemporary corporate monopolies that benefit the Global North of today. Policies, like those of communal electorates (1909, 1919) [14] and the Zamindari system [15] not only polarized people on religious grounds but also entrenched socioeconomic inequalities that are still visible in today's governance. Over time, these historical divisions have translated into geopolitical hostilities — expressed in the 4 wars fought between India and Pakistan with Kashmir at its center [16].

Despite this legacy, Britain continues to take a stance of "neutrality" vis-a-vis Kashmir. Following the Pahalgam attacks of April 2025 and the events that followed which had shaken communities of both nations to their very foundation, the British government had sent condolences while reiterating as usual that the conflict is a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan. Yet, its domestic repercussions say otherwise. The South Asian diaspora constitutes about 5% of the UK's population [17]. As a result, the Kashmir issue transcends foreign policy and exemplifies itself as a domestic concern through protests outside both high commissions in London and parliamentary debates questioning Britain’s silence. Ultimately, this conflict between diplomatic prudence and ethical responsibility yields neutrality as a strategic remapping of the empire's enduring presence. [18]

Simultaneously, Britain's cooperation with India and Pakistan on trade and defense has further complicated its claim of neutrality. Britain's economy has strategically benefited as the country insists on maintaining its arms sales to India [19] and defense cooperation with Pakistan [20]. This dual engagement proves neutrality as an art of influence, allowing Britain to navigate conflicting interests without taking responsibility for its imperialist past. As Prof. Priyamvada Gopal notes, this diplomatic restraint is an extension of imperial logic: the power to shape outcomes while keeping oneself aloof from responsibility for the structures one had originally established [21].

By framing intervention as inappropriate and silence as principled, the UK distances itself from the long-term consequences of the Indian partition—the effects of which continue to generate conflict, displacement, and social fragmentation. Neutrality here manifests as both an instrument of evasion and a witness to the continuing shadow of empire.

V. Selective Amnesia: Erasing to Appear Neutral

From a postcolonial perspective, assertions of neutrality by former colonial powers are as much influenced by historical memory and identity as they are by contemporary world politics. Dr. Samir Puri defines this concept as the "imperial hangover", where denial, nostalgia, and selective amnesia help states to claim objectivity in conflicts they structured whilst avoiding accountability for the same [22]. As a result, neutrality takes the form of a performative construct that preserves authority by suppressing inconvenient histories.

Comparative examples help in understanding this dynamic. In post-holocaust Germany, national identity is largely characterized by acknowledging historical violence through memorials, education, and policy [23]. Contrastingly, former colonial powers have rarely integrated such practices of recognition in their functioning in the postcolonial world. By sidelining the historical origins of modern-world crises, neutrality functions as an epistemic instrument that blurs complicity and allows states to uphold structural inequalities shaped by their own historical actions.

VI. The Price of Neutrality: Who Pays It

Neutrality, when practiced by former colonial powers, has drastic consequences for the common man. In Sudan [24] and the Democratic Republic of the Congo [25], Western claims of neutrality have coincided with prolonged humanitarian crises, mass displacement, and widespread sexual violence. Similarly, international intervention in the Rohingyan genocide in Myanmar has been delayed repeatedly under the guise of "regional sensitivity" [26].

The same is true in the case of Palestine. Despite extensive documentation of human rights violations by organizations like Amnesty International and the Human Rights Watch [27], western states have abstained on major UN resolutions, postponed ceasefire motions, and actively participated in arms sales, all while maintaining a position of "principled" disengagement. Neutrality, in these contexts, is indirectly used to preserve the status quo. It protects established power structures and benefits those with the ability to influence decisions, while the most vulnerable are left to bear the consequences.

VII. Rethinking Neutrality

Neutrality is often associated with the absence of a concrete stance, but in international relations, it is a proactive choice, and such choices have consequences. When former colonial powers assert neutrality without weighing and accounting for their historical endeavors, they vindicate the conditions of injustice established during the time of their empires. Silence and inaction, therefore, become strategies to maintain existing hierarchies and structural inequities, instead of serving as ethical default positions.

A post-colonial ethic of neutrality would involve acknowledging historical responsibility, confronting the consequences of imperial conduct, and intervening when inaction translates into injustice. As author Frantz Fanon put it, "Europe is literally the product of the Third World." [28] If this assertion holds, then neutrality must be understood as a product of power largely shaped by historical entanglements, sustained through selective disengagement, and justified through the rhetoric of objectivity. True neutrality would, therefore, require a critical outlook and the inclination to act when silence serves the powerful.

Bhuvi Joneja is a senior at Delhi Private School, Dubai.

Bibliography:

1. Oravecz, Andrew M. “Elie Wiesel and Our Duty to Humanity.” Freedom House, 7 Jul. 2016, https://freedomhouse.org/article/elie-wiesel-and-our-duty-humanity.
2. Smith, John. “Performative neutrality and rape culture in Naomi Iizuka’s Good Kids” Journal of Human Rights Practice, vol. 12, no. 3, 2020, pp. 345-60, https://doi.org/10.1080/10462937.2020.1807044.
3. Theys, Sarina. “Introducing Constructivism in International Relations Theory.” E-International Relations, 23 Feb. 2018, E-IR, https://www.e-ir.info/2018/02/23/introducing-constructivism-in-international-relations-theory/.
4. Said, Edward W. Orientalism. Vintage Books, 1979. https://www.monoskop.org/images/4/4e/Said_Edward_Orientalism_1979.pdf
5. Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. “Can the Subaltern Speak?” Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, edited by Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg, University of Illinois Press, 1988, pp. 271-313. Available online: https://voidnetwork.gr/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Can-the-subaltern-speak-by-Gayatri-Spivak.pdf
6. Macron, Emmanuel. “Macron Says Era of French Interference in Africa Is ‘Over’.” Al Jazeera, 2 Mar. 2023, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/3/2/macron-says-era-of-french-interference-in-africa-is-over.
7. Mednick, Sam. “Macron: ‘New era’ in economic, military strategy in Africa.” Associated Press, 27 Feb. 2023, https://www.apnews.com/article/23faec486af7f0b3a6e945c0a2486e75
8. King, Isabelle. “True Sovereignty? The CFA Franc and French Influence in West and Central Africa.” Harvard International Review, 18 Mar. 2022, https://hir.harvard.edu/true-sovereignty-the-cfa-franc-and-french-influence-in-west-and-central-africa/.
9. International Monetary Fund. “Background Information from the Study Guide to The Fabric of Reform — An IMF Video.” IMF, www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fabric/backgrnd.htm.
10. AXA Investment Managers. “A Motionless Journey: From CFA Franc to Eco.” AXA IM UK, 11 June 2020, https://www.axa-im.co.uk/investment-institute/market-views/macroeconomics/motionless-journey-cfa-franc-eco.
11. Wynne-Hughes, Elisa, and Terri-Anne Teo, editors. Postcolonial Governmentalities: Rationalities, Violences and Contestations. 2020, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374061190_Postcolonial_governmentalities_rationalities_violences_and_contestations.
12. Akbar, Shahzad. “Empire’s Echo: Why Britain Cannot Ignore Kashmir.” Declassified UK, 21 May 2025, https://www.declassifieduk.org/empires-echo-why-britain-cannot-ignore-kashmir/.
13. “UK Extracted $64.82 Trillion from India During Colonial Rule. Richest 10% Got Most of the Cash.” The Economic Times, 20 Jan. 2025, https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/uk-extracted-64-82-trillion-from-india-during-colonial-rule-richest-10-got-most-of-the-cash/articleshow/117394631.cms.
14. “Communal Electorates: Significance and Symbolism.” WisdomLib, 15 Feb. 2025, https://www.wisdomlib.org/concept/communal-electorates.
15. Garg, Malika. “Zamindari System and Its Abolishment.” ResearchGate, Dec. 2023, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377116858_Zamindari_System_and_Its_Abolishment.
16. “Conflict Between India and Pakistan.” Council on Foreign Relations, 12 May 2025, https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/conflict-between-india-and-pakistan.
17. Withers Worldwide. UK Diversity Statistics 2025. Withers Worldwide, Mar. 2025, https://www.withersworldwide.com/Withers/files/82/82806ee4-86ed-4589-8c1f-09b89d03d0ff.pdf
18. UK Parliament. "Kashmir: Increasing Tension." Hansard, 29 Apr. 2025, https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-04-29/debates/77E34737-55C9-4F8E-B189-BDA1658F2A74/KashmirIncreasingTension.
19. Reuters. “UK Signs $468 Mln Deal to Supply India with Missiles.” Reuters, 9 Oct. 2025, https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/uk-signs-468-mln-deal-supply-india-with-missiles-2025-10-09/.
20. “UK Expresses Interest in Defence Cooperation with Pakistan.” Mettis Global, 5 Aug. 2025, https://mettisglobal.news/UK-expresses-interest-in-defence-cooperation-with-Pakistan-54254
21. Aziz, ZN. "Review of Insurgent Empire: Anticolonial Resistance and British Dissent by Priyamvada Gopal." The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, vol. 49, no. 1, 2021, pp. 191–193. SAGE Journals, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022009420980678b.
22. Puri, Samir. The Great Imperial Hangover: How Empires Have Shaped the World. Atlantic Books, 2021. https://atlantic-books.co.uk/book/the-great-imperial-hangover/.
23. “Vergangenheitsbewältigung.” Collins English Dictionary – German-English, HarperCollins Publishers, https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/german-english/vergangenheitsbewaltigung
24. UNHCR. "Sudan Crisis Explained." UNHCR, 9 Apr. 2025, https://www.unrefugees.org/news/sudan-crisis-explained/.
25. UNHCR. DR Congo Emergency. UNHCR, https://www.unhcr.org/emergencies/dr-congo-emergency.
26. Human Rights Watch. "Rohingya." Human Rights Watch, https://www.hrw.org/tag/rohingya.
27. Human Rights Watch. "Israel's Crimes Against Humanity in Gaza." Human Rights Watch, 14 Nov. 2024, https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/11/14/israels-crimes-against-humanity-gaza.
28. Dabashi, Hamid. “Europe Is the Creation of the Third World.” Al Jazeera, 26 June 2016, https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2016/6/26/europe-is-the-creation-of-the-third-world.