Tariq Saeedi
As Turkmenistan prepares to mark the 30th anniversary of its permanent neutrality on December 12, 2025, with world leaders gathering in Ashgabat for an international conference, a deeper question emerges: Does three decades of active, dynamic neutrality confer a particular moral authority in global affairs?
The answer, it turns out, is both yes and no—and understanding this paradox reveals much about the evolving nature of international relations itself.
The Traditional Debate: Neutrality and Morality
Classical theories of international relations have long wrestled with the moral dimensions of neutrality. Realist theory suggests that pursuing moral positions is something governments cannot always achieve, and that maintaining such righteousness in the eyes of international organizations can take a secondary role to enforcing policies that improve a nation’s global standing. From this perspective, neutrality might seem like mere self-interest dressed in diplomatic clothing.
Yet this view misses something essential. As scholars have noted, the Finnish president Urho Kekkonen once observed that there are as many kinds of neutrality as there are neutral states. Neutrality is not a single, monolithic stance but rather a spectrum of approaches, each shaped by values, strategic choices, and the normative self-understanding of neutral peoples.
The Evolution: From Passive to Active
Here is where Turkmenistan’s experience becomes instructive. The country’s neutrality has evolved significantly over three decades. Turkmenistan’s neutrality has progressed through distinct phases: from passive-legal to positive and proactive, then to a moral-philosophical framework and preventive-diplomacy tool, and finally to full operationalization as a universal approach to addressing contemporary challenges while maintaining non-alignment.
This transformation reflects a broader recognition in international affairs. As Ambassador Thomas Greminger, former OSCE Secretary General, explained, in a polarized and fragmented world, neutral countries can play an outsized role in promoting dialogue, upholding international law and human rights, and supporting peace processes. He urged what he calls “positive or constructive neutrality.”
The Practical Moral Authority
Does this active approach create moral authority? The evidence suggests it can, but only when paired with consistent action. The moral dimension emerges not from neutrality itself, but from what neutral states do with their position.
The United Nations recognizes that neutrality can contribute to strengthening international peace and security and can play an important role in developing peaceful, friendly and mutually beneficial relations between countries.
Critically, neutrality is not about being passive, indifferent or inactive in the face of injustice; rather, when states are neutral they actively oppose war and refuse to participate in divisive military alliances, allowing them to cultivate diplomatic ties, strengthen multilateralism, and play an active role in convening peace talks and mediating conflict resolution.
Consider the practical applications. Neutrality functions as a form of diplomatic leverage, as the well-recognized history and reputation for neutrality lend legitimacy to peace processes, which is essential in armed conflicts where trust is scarce and parties are highly suspicious of each other’s intentions.
The Trust Dividend
Perhaps the clearest measure of moral authority in international relations is trust—and here, active neutrality demonstrates its value. To eventually find resolution in conflicts, a party that is above the fray is often necessary, and help is needed in negotiations and in organizing operations such as prisoner exchanges.
Turkmenistan’s Ambassador Vepa Hajiyev framed this succinctly: “Peace begins not with signed documents, but with the trust that states and people are capable of giving one another”. This trust is earned through decades of consistent practice, not merely declared.
The Paradox: Moral Authority Without Moral Judgment
Here lies the fascinating paradox: the moral authority of neutrality comes precisely from not claiming moral superiority. Active neutrality creates space for dialogue by refusing to cast conflicts in absolute moral terms.
It operates on the principle that all parties deserve to be heard, that solutions emerge from understanding rather than condemnation.
As one analysis put it, the essence of such neutrality can be defined as maintaining good relations with everyone equally, but not being friends with anyone against anyone. This requires a sophisticated ethical stance—one that distinguishes between enabling dialogue and endorsing positions.
The Verdict: Earned Authority Through Service
So does 30 years of active neutrality create a moral high ground? — Not in the sense of claiming ethical superiority over other nations. But it does create something equally valuable: earned moral authority through consistent service to international peace.
This authority manifests in several ways:
- Credibility as mediator: A proven track record of non-alignment makes neutral states trusted facilitators
- Platform for dialogue: Neutral territory becomes valuable space where adversaries can meet
- Preventive capacity: Long-term relationships with all sides enable early intervention in emerging disputes
- Humanitarian access: Neutrality opens doors to populations that others cannot reach
The UN recognizes that such national policies of neutrality are aimed at promoting preventive diplomacy, which is a core function of the United Nations and central to the role of the Secretary-General.
The Quiet Power of Impartiality
As world leaders gather in Ashgabat this December, they will be acknowledging something profound: in an age of polarization and rigid alliances, the space for impartial dialogue has become increasingly precious.
Thirty years of active neutrality has not placed Turkmenistan above the fray in a position of moral superiority. Rather, it has positioned the country within the fray—but as a trusted facilitator rather than a combatant.
Neutrality represents a commitment to the enduring hope of peaceful coexistence amid war, demonstrating that to remain neutral is still to take action. The moral authority it confers is not the authority to judge, but the authority to convene, to mediate, and to serve the cause of peace.
In this sense, perhaps the question should not be whether active neutrality creates moral high ground, but whether it creates something more useful: trusted ground where others can meet, talk, and find their way toward resolution.
After three decades, that appears to be precisely what Turkmenistan has cultivated—and why the world is gathering in Ashgabat to take notice. /// nCa, 5 December 2025