What is political neutrality? The simple answer is that it’s a concept which makes no political sense. Military neutrality is relatively well defined, because it is a generalization of the viewpoint that a third party is declared as neutral in case of a conflict between two other parties which also perceive that country as neutral. Political neutrality cannot be defined in analogous way since does not involve, at least potentially, hostile relations. In militarily terms, one cannot be neutral if it’s in alliance with both conflicting parties, while in political terms one can be in friendly relations and in cooperation with everyone. The form of a possible cooperation is another question.
A country may decide to be the member of only the universal multilateral institutions, such as the United Nations. Of course, this includes a commitment, not neutrality, which is one of the reasons that make it difficult to understand what the political neutrality implies. For example, this can raise the question of membership in regional organizations, such as those that exist in Europe. They are not universal and define rather clear rules of membership. This means that membership requires a country to give up its neutrality when it comes to the countries that do not meet the criteria for membership.
The same can be said for regional organizations, such as CEFTA, that is, the free trade zone in the Balkans (mostly). Does the political neutrality imply the absence from this type of regional organization? If the answer is negative, then it cannot be said that the existence of contractual relations with the European Union, such as the Stabilization and Association Agreement, is in contrast with political neutrality. Or, let’s say, a free trade agreement with Russia or with any other country or group of countries. For example, in case it is established that the existence of a trade agreement with the European Union is contrary to political neutrality, it would have had to be applied to all the others, already mentioned, trade agreements. And also to the general possibility of concluding trade agreements.
And then there is the question of why should only trade be of importance for political neutrality? That might expand to the culture and other forms of international cooperation, in fact, to all international agreements and contracts in all areas. Perhaps it could be argued that it’s possible to remain politically neutral, cooperating with everyone on all issues, which means that each time a single agreement is signed with one party, the same kind of contract should be signed with everyone else. Since this depend on others, it would mean that everyone would had the right of veto to all the contractual and other forms of international cooperation. As a result, this would denote that politically neutral country would find it very difficult to have contractual relations with other countries, except perhaps within multilateral organizations.
All this point out to the fact that this term is unnecessarily used, because it is already known what the advocates of political neutrality stand for. It is advocating of the viewpoint that Serbia has no contractual relations with the European Union. This is clearly stated in the request for the termination of the Stabilization and Association Agreement. The probable outcome would be problems with membership in CEFTA, followed by the problems with many other agreements. This would not have to be a political necessity, but it would certainly require an explanation why are some relationships in accordance with political neutrality, while others are not. Because, if there is a pressure in regards to the policy towards Kosovo, for example, than the same pressure can be applied to visa regime or trade agreement.
So the advocates of political neutrality should be required to precisely say which contractual relations with the European Union and its member states would be terminated and what are the expected benefits – political, economic and all others. Especially since there are suggestions that relations would be terminated because the Union is hostile towards Serbia, and a period of friendly and neutral political relations is probably not expected to ensue.