class=”sc-97fd9fa8-0 jNFKxv”>
FDP chairman Thierry Burkart (47) wanted to allow Western countries to re-export Swiss war material. SP council member Daniel Jositsch (57) was against: “If you are not on the side of the good, you help the evil, the aggressor,” Jositsch said on Monday. “But you have to put up with that if you’re neutral.” Then he thundered into the room: “If you don’t want that: There you go, change the federal constitution! Have a referendum!” The ghost of Albisgüetli took possession of the small room – instigated by an SP politician. Burkart’s request fell through. The reaction followed immediately: on Wednesday, the liberals caused the National Council to sink a similar SP initiative. It was the provisional climax of an increasingly nervous debate. Switzerland is fighting for its neutrality. And for her calmness.
For three decades, no one cared about neutrality, either in Switzerland or abroad. Then Putin attacked Ukraine – and things spiraled out of control overnight. The Bundesrat rejected sanctions as being contrary to neutrality. The world cried out. Whereupon the Federal Council approved the sanctions because they would not conflict with neutrality.
Neutrality as a business model?
The dispute over implementation began: Is the federal government taking the sanctions seriously? Do you need a task force? Should oligarch funds be confiscated? Pressure from abroad remained high.
Then a second debate began – also forced by foreign pressure: Should Switzerland allow the re-export of arms it once sold to Germany, Denmark or Spain? Would she still be neutral?
Now things went really well in Bern. Parliamentarians from left to right outbid each other with suggestions on how to reconcile arms supplies with neutrality – and why the other suggestions didn’t apply. The problem is simply:
Neither sanctions nor the re-export of sold weapons have anything to do with the law of neutrality. Thomas Cottier (73), emeritus professor of international economic law, says: “The 1907 Hague Convention on the Rights and Obligations of Neutral States makes no mention of this.” The treaty only states that neutral countries must not go to war and must treat all belligerents equally. Therefore, according to Cottier, it is absurd to justify a no to the re-export of war materials delivered with neutrality and the Hague Agreement. “International law has evolved since 1907,” says Cottier. “But when the Federal Council talks about the obligations of neutral Switzerland, it completely ignores UN law.” This prohibits aggressive wars and differentiates between aggressor and attacked. Cottier’s conclusion: “In a war of aggression we need not treat both warring parties equally.” He hopes that this message will also reach the Bundesrat.
The Greens demand five billion francs for Ukraine. The initiative was signed by politicians from all parties. And the financing? “Money has already been discussed for that”, says Green National Councilor Gerhard Andrey (47, photo) and refers to the pledge credit to support countries in need. This already amounts to ten billion. So there would be no problem for the federal treasury and the debt brake would remain in place, says Andrey. He will be submitting an application shortly.
The Greens demand five billion francs for Ukraine. The initiative was signed by politicians from all parties. And the financing? “Money has already been discussed for that”, says Green National Councilor Gerhard Andrey (47, photo) and refers to the pledge credit to support countries in need. This already amounts to ten billion. So there would be no problem for the federal treasury and the debt brake would remain in place, says Andrey. He will be submitting an application shortly.
Historian Sacha Zala (54) shares Cottier’s analysis. “In terms of international law, neutrality really means little more than no war,” says the professor of Swiss history. That is why Switzerland has made the distinction between neutrality law and neutrality policy. Because: “With the policy of neutrality you can justify everything and the opposite.”
This includes the possibility of neutrality becoming a business model and producing dubious profits for local businesses. SP chairman Cédric Wermuth (37) puts it this way: “How should we define neutrality when there are tanks in a war financed by us?”
Do this, do that?
Neutrality is not even mentioned in the target article of the 1848 federal constitution. It was always seen as merely a means of preserving Switzerland’s independence. But after the ruthless offensive war waged by the Russians in Ukraine, the term is at the center of a feverish debate. The confusion is palpable: “Everyone has a different idea of what neutrality means,” says Thierry Burkart.
A state government that sets a clear course would be all the more important – after all, it is the supreme authority on foreign policy. But the Bundesrat does little more than refer to neutrality in any parliamentary initiative. On Friday, on the issue of arms, he said they wanted to stick with previous practice and not allow re-exports. Reason: “The Bundesrat stands behind the values of Swiss neutrality.” The FDP immediately criticized the announcement as a “non-decision”.
Secretary of State Cassis had tried. Last spring he presented the idea of ”cooperative” neutrality – a concept that would allow for closer cooperation with organizations such as NATO. But Cassis made it public without informing the other federal councilors. They were offended and made him run. However, they have no alternative view to offer.
“The Bundesrat provides too little orientation”, criticizes center chairman Gerhard Pfister (60). “He leaves the defense of Western values to other countries. Switzerland would apparently benefit without contributing anything.”
Nine out of ten Swiss for neutrality
One thing is certain: the foreign pressure on Switzerland will not end anytime soon. The Confederates must make a decision. You have three options.
The SVP demands a return to the Reduit – deeper than ever before, because the People’s Party wants permanent armed neutrality to be hammered into the constitution.
But Switzerland could also come to the conclusion that today’s world requires a more open interpretation of neutrality. A more cooperative form that allows closer cooperation with foreign countries and requires stricter handling of aggressors.
Next week, EU Commissioner Maros Sefcovic (56), responsible for the Swiss file, will travel to Switzerland for a guest lecture
at the University of Freiburg. A meeting with Foreign Minister Ignazio Cassis (61) is also on the agenda. This does not take place in Freiburg, but in federal Bern. A villain who thinks evil of it. Because Freiburg is the place where the negotiators of the EU and Switzerland laid the foundations for a framework agreement exactly ten years ago – and this time also the cornerstone for the role of the European Court of Justice in dispute settlement. The ECJ is still the biggest stumbling block in bilateral relations. Last Tuesday, the Swiss chief negotiator Livia Leu (62) had to admit after the 8th round of exploration for a new contract: “There are still differences of opinion.” No wonder Cassis prefers a more innocuous location for the meeting.
Next week, EU Commissioner Maros Sefcovic (56), responsible for the Swiss file, will travel to Switzerland for a guest lecture
at the University of Freiburg. A meeting with Foreign Minister Ignazio Cassis (61) is also on the agenda. This does not take place in Freiburg, but in federal Bern. A villain who thinks evil of it. Because Freiburg is the place where the negotiators of the EU and Switzerland laid the foundations for a framework agreement exactly ten years ago – and on this occasion also the cornerstone for the role of the European Court of Justice in dispute settlement. The ECJ is still the biggest stumbling block in bilateral relations. Last Tuesday, the Swiss chief negotiator Livia Leu (62) had to admit after the 8th round of exploration for a new contract: “There are still differences.” No wonder Cassis prefers a more innocuous location for the meeting.
Or the Confederates can say goodbye to neutrality, as the Swedes have done. Only no one in this country is discussing this possibility. Polls show: Nine out of ten Swiss support neutrality. There seems to be a thinking ban that they impose on themselves. Because they are convinced that neutrality is in the Swiss DNA. That without them there could be no Swiss identity.
Pascal Couchepin (80) has never shied away from the clear word. The liberal former Federal Councilor Kante also shows in this question: “For a long time we also thought of Swissair as part of the Swiss identity. Today we know that our story will continue without her.” Neutrality is a means, says Couchepin. “She is not an end.”
Source:Blick
I am Liam Livingstone and I work in a news website. My main job is to write articles for the 24 Instant News. My specialty is covering politics and current affairs, which I’m passionate about. I have worked in this field for more than 5 years now and it’s been an amazing journey. With each passing day, my knowledge increases as well as my experience of the world we live in today.
