Between the devil and the deep blue sea - University of Canterbury

- 443 -
Because the stakes in the conflict were so high, the warring sides had few
reservations about interfering with the rights of neutrals. Both the Allied and Central
Powers rejected international laws and other legal recourses open to neutrals before 1914,
when and where it suited them. Here, the Great War set a dangerous precedent for future
abuse of the principles of neutrality, which came to the fore during the Second World War,
when Hitler rejected international law completely and exacted entirely "unneutral"
behaviour from supposedly neutral states. Nils Orvik's claims that the Great War spelled
the end of neutrality as a credible foreign policy bore out all too well for the Netherlands. In
his words:
By using all their economic and military bargaining power, the neutrals might
have succeeded in staying out of war [World War One], but in doing so they
had to submit to severe limitations of their sovereignty. On the other hand, the
belligerents had to modify their demands to the minimum which was necessary
to keep the neutral from joining the enemy.2
Declining respect for international law meant that the Netherlands sought out other
sources to protect its non-belligerency. Its ability to negotiate and compromise with the
warring parties was one of the most important. As the pressure placed on the country by the
belligerents increased, Dutch diplomatic skills became paramount. The importance of
individuals, such as the Minister of Foreign Affairs, John Loudon, in protecting neutrality
cannot be underestimated, as the historian Hubert van Tuyll conectly surmised. 3
Aside from diplomatic skill, it was also essential that the Dutch acted in a strictly
neutral manner, displaying a determination to the world to remain out of the war and retain
as much sovereignty as possible. By adhering as closely as possible to legal standards, the
Netherlands forced any mistakes and violations onto others, and hoped thereby to be
beyond reproach. To this end, the Dutch carefully discharged key neutrality responsibilities,
including interning foreign troops and military materials and refusing entry to armed
merchantmen. With regard to most tenitorial matters, with perhaps the exception of aerial
integrity, they could enforce compliance of the belligerents. When violations were
unavoidable, as they inevitably were, the skill was to chart a middle course by means of
compromise and negotiation, even if it interfered with neutrality and independence, and
thereby avoid being dragged into the war. As Werner Rings stated:
2 Orvik, The Decline of Neutrality p. 39.
3 Tuyll, The Netherlands and World War I p. 354.