Ash-Grey with Neutrality: Safeguarding Neutrality in the State of Siege

The ‘state of siege’ existed to protect the country's neutrality. As a consequence, much of what the military did within ‘state of siege’ areas was justified in terms of neutrality and national security. Neutrality had as much to do with protecting the country from external threats as it did with presenting an appropriately ‘neutral’ face to the world. In this respect, how the Dutch behaved as a people and as individuals influenced how strongly the government could proclaim the country's neutrality. The government was unable to prevent its citizens from participating in ‘unneutral’ activities, like smuggling, and this was significant. As described in a previous chapter, the Netherlands’ anti-smuggling measures proved controversial, both internationally and domestically. Confusion on the topic arose because there were few precedents in international law that defined the responsibilities of neutral citizens, apart from the expectation that they should treat belligerents with complete impartiality. ¹ The Dutch government's own neutrality regulations also did not explain how domestic neutrality should be protected, except to forbid the supply of military materials to any warring forces. ² Due to this lack of clarity, there were many opportunities for misunderstandings to arise. Yet the uncertain nature of what was understood by upholding ‘internal neutrality’ meant that warring states were less likely to use a neutrality violation from within the Netherlands as a reason to go to war, unless, of course, the advantage for their enemy or the disadvantage for themselves was deemed too great.