Jozic on Putin’s side

class=”sc-97fd9fa8-0 jNFKxv”>

War destroys, destroys human lives, destroys infrastructure, poisons the natural foundations of life. But it also destroys intangibles, confidence, corrupts ethics and language, and breaks the back of many.

A particularly striking example of this fact is Daniel Jozic’s short speech by the Zurich Council of States last Monday, March 6, 2023, in which he justified his rejection of Burkart’s proposal at the plenum. With this initiative, the Federal Council should be instructed to “submit to Parliament an amendment to the Munitions Act which provides that the non-re-export declaration may be waived entirely if the shipment is made to states committed to our values ​​and have an export control regime comparable to ours.”

Jozic’s arguments are worth studying in their entirety. His speech is a document of historical distortion and inhumanity.

Jozic argues that it was Swiss neutrality that has kept Switzerland “not involved in international conflicts, especially World Wars I and II, for the past 200 years.”

Where Switzerland played along everywhere

Here are the historical facts in brief: The Wehrmacht did not attack Switzerland primarily because the Confederation cooperated with the Nazis in many ways, including as a supplier of weapons.

During the Spanish Civil War, neutral Switzerland was friendly to France. The authorities did not recognize refugees from Spain after 1939. On the contrary, members of the International Brigades who fought for a republic and democracy in the Iberian Peninsula were prosecuted and socially ostracized by neutral Switzerland. Switzerland was the first democracy to recognize the Franco regime before the end of the civil war.

Josic’s neutral Switzerland maintained excellent relations with the apartheid regime in South Africa and provided intelligence, economic and military support to the racists in the Cape. The UN embargo was circumvented by creative and criminal means. The Swiss Ambassador urged the Government of Pretoria to falsify the relevant economic statistics.

Today you can find this information on Wikipedia, but it took decades for the historical facts to reach the public. Despite the fierce resistance of official Switzerland, historians tried to establish the truth. The Bergier report was pulled out of our country only under the strongest international pressure. South African affairs were again closed by the Federal Council after the intervention of local business.

Building a national we would be impossible

For the Social Democrat Jozic and his revisionist view of history, these facts do not play any role, nor does the fact that the members of his own party primarily suffered from the so-called policy of neutrality. In Spain, the socialists fought for the republic and against the fascists. He doesn’t seem to care that a fellow party of all people pushed through their legal rehabilitation in Parliament: Until recently, Jozic sat on the Council of States with Paul Rechsteiner, who has since retired.

Those citizens who have shaken up the complacency of official Switzerland, in politics, in universities, in editorial offices, all those who correct this distorted image of neutral, non-interfering Switzerland and help the victims of this Swiss neutrality sworn by Jozic, justice. wanted to do this for decades at great personal risk. But the Social Democratic Council of States also erased from its historical memory the nationwide surveillance of its unpleasant, critical population by the federal police of this neutral Switzerland, the destruction of biographical data, the criminalization of the opposition position.

He must ignore these facts, otherwise he will not be able to invoke pride and national origin. As a member of a party that once believed in international solidarity, he could not have built a nationalist We and uttered the following lines: “We are also proud of our neutrality. We like to travel the world with a Swiss passport. We are warmly welcomed everywhere and appreciated everywhere.”

Jozic on Putin’s side

Apart from the actual loss of confidence due to the support of almost all the rulers of the world and the growing isolation of Switzerland in foreign policy, the publicly demonstrated distortion of historical consciousness would be sad and pathetic enough. But on Monday, Iosich testified to an arrogance and coldness that made even those who are not familiar with historical facts shudder, all those who have not yet completely surrendered their morality to opportunism. Jozich literally said in advice: “If you are not on the side of good, then help, if you want, evil, the aggressor. But you have to put up with it when you are neutral, the way it is, uncomfortable. If you say you don’t want this, please change the federal constitution, hold a referendum!”

State Councilor Jozic publicly and in the name of neutrality swore to be on the side of a regime that does not care about human lives and wages a war of annihilation with a peaceful neighboring country. Yosich justifies helping what he calls a bad guy, a war criminal whose army is torturing, killing and raping civilians in Ukraine, and he argues that neutrality requires such behavior and the federal constitution enforces an emergency order. Jozic enforces this twisted logic, which sees the death of hundreds of thousands as an additional cost of a policy of neutrality, in the Council of States, at the heart of our democracy, our rule of law, two things that Putin hates and wants to destroy with all his might. means.
What drives Jozic to this inhuman cynicism?

The result will be the language of responsibility

Jozic will not be the only one, and the question remains what could be the reasons for such a cynical and inhuman attitude. The Council of States indicates the personal toughness that its position requires. He claims that neutrality must be tolerated, but it is not neutrality that torments him, of course, but his conscience.

The decisions that a war like the one in Ukraine puts before us are existential, and this is especially true for people with political responsibility. War is a matter of life and death, freedom and slavery. The elected representative will fight, and it is part of the political responsibility to use his words to express doubt and internal struggle. The result would be a language of responsibility, empathy and compassion. Regardless of the choice that needs to be made, this will allow the population to reflect and address their fears, as well as to understand not only rationally, but also emotionally, what needs to be protected in Ukraine these days. The democratically elected representatives of the people have a duty to make clear what opposition Europe is in. It is not neutrality that is being attacked, but the freedom of the people of Ukraine, our own freedom and the freedom of our children. At this moment, in these hours and days, it is decided in which world they will live. Will brute force, the law of the strongest, barbarism prevail, or do we, as a free society, have the strength to stand in the way of modern fascism, cynicism and destruction.

The Zurich State Council does not correspond to this historical situation. He is not ready to deal with her, but since he cannot bring cowardice into political affairs, he uses a rhetorical trick to turn his selfish attitude into an act of personal harshness. At least he silenced his rebellious conscience.

As mentioned earlier, he is not alone. In this country, people continue to close their eyes and try to evade historical responsibility by sleight of hand. The FDP proposes to leave it up to the UN Security Council to decide whether Switzerland is allowed to transfer weapons to Ukraine, and knows that this will never happen. The aggressor himself sits in this body, Russia with its own right of veto. The chairman of the Green Party believes that Swiss munitions will not change anything anyway, and uses the very argument with which any environmental policy has been fought for decades.

Like every person who thinks and acts ethically, politicians must be responsible not only to their fellows, but also to history. Our decisions must stand before their judgment. Have you done everything for the triumph of freedom and justice? Have you tried to recognize and serve the good? Or did you value your selfish advantage more? Did you honestly argue or advocate cynicism and inhumanity?

We, contemporaries, cannot anticipate the verdict of history in the case of member of the State Council Jozic from the canton of Zurich, only that the courts that will come later will judge his words and deeds.

Source: Blick