Access Denied? Non-Aligned State Decisions to Grant Access During War

Source Link

Access decisions play a crucial role in war, with belligerent states employing various methods to gain access into neutral states. Yet, the decision-making process of potential host nations has largely been unexplored for modern, large-scale conflicts. This gap is addressed by exploring three themes — political survival, economic consequences, and the risk of retaliation — through two historical cases: Greece in World War I and Sweden in World War II. Internal division in Greece enabled access through inaction, while Sweden denied access to maintain neutrality. These cases emphasize the importance of understanding historical access decisions to inform future engagement strategies in potential conflicts.

How do state leaders determine whether they should grant military access to outside powers during a war in which their country is not involved? In many cases, leaders may feel they have pre-committed to a decision either through an existing alliance with a foreign power or through their own involvement in the conflict. The decision to grant access therefore becomes secondary to the decision to become directly involved. But for states that are neutral and still have the option of remaining uninvolved, the decision to grant access becomes harder. During a large-scale war involving multiple states and fronts, a would-be host nation must weigh the potential benefits and costs of providing access in a condensed, high-pressure timeline. While examples of such decisions are rare, they can offer valuable insights into the behavior of state leaders whose countries are perceived as being strategically located.

To examine how outside powers negotiate access to neutral states during war, I chose two historical cases: British efforts to gain access to Greece in World War I and to Sweden in World War II. In both cases, the potential host country faced possible retaliation for their decision from belligerents on both sides through punitive economic, political, or military actions. Greek and Swedish state leaders had to carefully consider this possibility while simultaneously evaluating how their decisions would affect their country’s economic well-being as well as their own political survival.