The concept of neutrality is often stretched, but using the term to describe Oman’s foreign policy risks losing track of Oman’s peculiarities, interests, and objectives.
'Omani leader Sultan Qaboos bin Said, center, and other unidentified members of his delegation take part in the opening session of the Gulf Cooperation Council summit in Muscat, Oman, Dec. 30, 2001. (AP Photo/Kamran Jebreili)'
Executive Summary
The concept of neutrality has legal and political meanings that derive from its historical and geographical genealogy. However, the term is often stretched and its meaning diluted to describe behaviors that go beyond a strict definition of neutrality. This is especially true for Oman. International media has described the country’s foreign policy as hedging, omnibalancing, or asserting neutrality, and sometimes Oman is referred to as the “Switzerland of the Middle East.”
The Omani government has never declared neutrality through international law tools, and the term “neutrality” does not appear among Oman’s foreign policy principles on the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This paper considers whether Oman’s behavior can usefully be described as falling within the definition of neutrality, despite a lack of formal declaration, by testing theoretical definitions of neutrality and their gradations against Oman’s courses of action over recent decades. The concepts of pragmatism (small state self-preservation), facilitation (between disputing parties), noninterference (through military means in military conflicts), and hedging (between security providers), taken together, probably represent a more precise description of Oman’s policies and the positions it has taken in different contexts and times.
The EU and Oman share a complementarity of means and goals in the Gulf, and a recent aviation agreement is an important step in a trust- and relations-building process aimed at deepening ties.
