While everyone is talking about the “turn of the era”, Switzerland is grappling with the political legacy of identity, grappling with diplomatic turmoil and hoping for the Almighty God, whose name it so reverently invokes in the preamble of the Federal Constitution.
Meanwhile, international reputation and authority are melting faster than alpine glaciers. The perversions undertaken to justify positions that have long been untenable can now be admired daily.
The Department of Economics in Bern issued a dry nineteen-line communiqué last Friday. On behalf of the Bundesrat, the head answered the letter of the German Minister of Defense on the same day. The requested transfer of 12,400 cartridges for the anti-aircraft tank “Gepard” to Ukraine could not be approved “while it was involved in an international conflict.”
Following the same logic, a rape victim would have to be denied help if she was involved in a “relationship conflict”. In fact, for more than two hundred and fifty days Ukraine has been waging a war of annihilation with an aggressive, imperialist and fascist neighbor.
One may admire this linguistic distortion of reality or turn away in disgust from this cynicism, but one should not be surprised who had the courage to read the report of the Federal Council “Clarity and Orientation in the Politics of Neutrality” of October 26th. Even the name requires a lot of intellectual flexibility. The main report is just the opposite. Completely vague, evidence of the disorientation with which our government is seeking a way out of the impasse of the policy of neutrality.
By the way, he did not write this report of his own free will. The Foreign Affairs Committee of the Council of States called him into postulate in early April. The Ministries of Foreign Affairs, Defense, Economy and Justice participated in the development of the bill, consultations were held with the federal administration and a commission of experts was heard. Result? Twenty-seven pages of subtle paradox, enriched by a glossary, which, however, does not contribute to any explanation.
Four color core
The first chapters, in a sense, series, are devoted to the definition and historical development of neutrality. You won’t find anything outside the scope of the corresponding Wikipedia article, with a single, albeit odd, exception. Anyone who gets to page 4 will be surprised by the four-color atomic nucleus. Does the Federal Council want to educate a worried population about the threat posed by nuclear weapons? He wants to show how important it is not to get into other people’s business?
No, the beautiful graphics only explain the relationship between the neutrality policy and the neutrality law. Like an atomic nucleus with protons and neutrons, the law of neutrality consists of rights and obligations, and like electrons in an atomic shell, the polis of neutrality also moves flexibly, but within a certain area of motion.
The didactic content of this illustration remains a vague, frivolous arabesque in a report that should be distracted from the desolation of the Swiss situation. The Federal Council certainly recognizes the “geographical fault line” that opened up after the war in Ukraine. The perception of Swiss neutrality in Asia, the Near and Middle East and Latin America is little differentiated, but mostly positive. On the other hand, in Europe and the Anglo-Saxon countries, understanding has deteriorated. In other words: neutrality appeals only to those countries that associate our country with the Matterhorn, Toblerone and Alphorn. Those who really know us are no longer deceived by talk of neutrality—unfortunately, this also applies to our neighbors and our most important trading partners. According to the report, neutrality is no longer considered to have any impact on security in Europe. Now the EU and NATO are “acting” as security guarantors – and pay attention to the verbs! Of course, without arms supplies from Europe and even more so from the United States, Putin would have taken Ukraine long ago, but for the Federal Council this fact seems like an unfounded assertion.
towers of contradictions
Of course, our government knows how much the recognition of its policies is connected with the credibility of its actions. But at the same time, she seems to want to pile up contradiction after contradiction. This leads to outrageous passages in this report.
According to the Federal Council, one of the obligations of neutral states is to treat warring states equally. If the export and transport of military materials is restricted for one belligerent, this restriction must also apply to the other side. Switzerland has fully complied with these requirements of the neutrality law. The Federal Council “specifically prevented” Ukraine from being “endorsed as a party to the war” with military equipment. It seems that our government is quite proud of this cynical policy, which de facto deprives Ukraine of the right to self-defense and, ultimately, the right to exist.
Otherwise, she would hardly have added that she does not accept the ban on Russian media broadcasting, as she does not consider it compatible with the “Swiss concept of freedom of speech.”
Russian propaganda, incitement to hatred against Ukraine, against gays, against representatives of the opposition, undermining Western democracies through disinformation – all this seems to be a duty of neutrality for our government.
The report cannot fail to testify to the changed situation in the world. Russia’s attack on Ukraine “is a frontal attack on the UN Charter and international law and casts doubt on perceived confidence.” Russia “brought the collapse of the European peace order.” Does this make it necessary to change something in one’s own policy? No, because these statements are just figures of speech. And with what perversion does the Federal Council fit into the narrow gap in its contradictory arguments? It’s simple: the UN General Assembly already adopted in March a resolution condemning Russian aggression by 140 votes to 50, including Switzerland. However, the Security Council has strongly favored the applicability of neutrality and has yet to decide on any action. Which is hardly surprising. The aggressor Russia has a permanent seat and can veto all decisions.
This is what the neutrality policy of the Federal Council looks like: you vote for a resolution, and then you follow the interests of the aggressor who prevented that particular resolution. And suddenly you understand why this perverted and inhuman logic can only be explained by nuclear symbols.
Snake oil and torn ligaments
The conclusion of the Federal Council? Nothing to change in the policy of neutrality. This practice, last recorded in 1993, “will still leave plenty of wiggle room.” However, neutrality must be understood and recognized throughout the world, and therefore the challenge for Swiss diplomacy is to make its benefits tangible.
One can sincerely regret this diplomacy. In the next two years, she will have to show her numbers on the big stage, at the UN Security Council. It will take a lot of snake oil to keep the joints supple. Diplomatic distortion will have to come up with new exercises to fit into the shrinking box of international relations. But at some point, the mobility of even the greatest artists reaches its natural limits. Joints crackle, ligaments tear, the audience looks away in horror.