Separate in a neutral manner

Although they all smile pleasantly, the meeting actually marks the end of a decades-long relationship. At the invitation of the head of the Federal Military DepartmentsFederal Councilor Kaspar Villiger, Finnish Defense Minister Elisabeth Rehn and her Swedish and Austrian counterparts Anders Björck and Werner Fasslabend met in Bern in early October 1992 for an informal exchange of views.

Surprisingly, this is the first meeting of the leading security politicians of the four neutral European states; They had maintained many common contacts during the Cold War. However, the first date already felt like a breakup. “The remarkable outcome of the conference,” Villiger reported to the full Federal Council, “was the clear conclusion that neutrality is no longer seen by the four participating states as a common basis for political action.”

Although the former partners claimed that a certain community of interests still existed, as Villiger soberly noted, the ‘unconditional will, especially of the Scandinavian participants, to maintain any freedom of action in the area of ​​neutrality does not indicate that the common interests are very deeply rooted.”

Sweden no longer considers itself neutral, Villiger summarized the positions: “Although Austria and Finland will not formally distance themselves from neutrality, they will emphasize it less and less.” Their main goal is to at least prevent ‘neutrality from putting pressure on the relationship with the European Union’. This is probably what breaking up in a neutral way sounds.

Of course, the community of the four neutral countries in Europe was never a close-knit community ménage a quatre been. The actors were too different for that. Based on the experience of surviving the two world wars unscathed, Switzerland considered permanent and armed neutrality during the Cold War as a central condition for its independence, as a national glue and at the same time as the panacea for its role as a special case. of international relations. At the same time, Switzerland was fully economically integrated into the Western system.

Finnish neutrality, on the other hand, was rooted in the 1948 friendship treaty with its powerful neighbor, the USSR. This allowed the government in Helsinki to maintain relative freedom of action during the East-West conflict. Nevertheless, it was valid “Finlandization” often used as a synonym for ‘limited sovereignty’.

Austria’s perpetual neutrality was also imposed on the young republic by the Soviet Union in 1955 in the Moscow Memorandum – and this was explicitly based on the example of Switzerland. For Bern, Vienna became a neutral point of comparison (seen from above) and, when it came to the location of international organizations, even a serious competitor to Geneva.

Finally, Sweden, which, like the Swiss Confederation, relied on an older tradition of neutrality and which has shared with Switzerland the mandate for monitoring the ceasefire in Korea since 1953, was in some sense considered the most important point of reference. alter ego. For decades, federal diplomats had looked to Stockholm on many issues in international politics that were classified as sensitive in terms of neutrality policies – often to ensure that people in Bern could opt for a less activist, more discreet and even more neutral approach .

The guardians of Swiss neutrality at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs were certainly pleased when Switzerland was also seen by developing countries as the “most neutral of neutral countries”. In the eyes of the Swiss, only Switzerland was and is truly neutral, even if this neutrality remained a vague concept that has always been applied very flexibly in the practice of foreign policy over time.

A common feature of the four neutral countries in Europe was from the beginning their geostrategic location between NATO and NATO’s military alliances. Warsaw Pact (this distinguished them from Ireland, which was also neutral), which meant that, together with non-aligned Yugoslavia, they fulfilled a security policy buffer function on the flanks of the continent. Because of their neutral position, each received disproportionate attention on the international stage.

In the 1970s, a new phase of cooperation between neutral countries began Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe introduced, the so-called CSCE-Process as a forum for dialogue between East and West. In the run-up to and after the signing of the Helsinki Final Act in 1975, cooperation flourished between the Swiss, Swedish, Austrian and Finnish delegations, who were able to mediate between the blocs surrounding the US and the USSR at crucial stages of negotiations. and propose solutions. They settled in cooperation with the non-aligned states of Yugoslavia, Cyprus and Malta Neutral and Non-Aligned States (N+N) as an integral part of a pan-European communications policy.

With the end of the East-West conflict after 1989, these discreet mediation efforts, which had flourished within the narrow framework of the Cold War, lost all basis. Suddenly there were signs of a pan-European unification movement. Neutral buffers and mediators were no longer necessary because everyone now seemed to be moving in the same direction. All four neutral parties are now fundamentally examining their foreign and security policy priorities.

Until the fall of the Wall, Switzerland, Austria, Sweden and Finland were also economically part of the European Union Free Trade Association (EFTA) been closely linked. With the fall of the Iron Curtain, Vienna was the first to seek membership, followed shortly by Stockholm and Helsinki EU, which promoted economic and political unification across Europe. The project of a European Economic Area as a common umbrella between EVA And EU They only considered it a temporary solution.

More than two months after the neutral meeting on security policy in Bern, on December 6, 1992, the Swiss electorate rejected the proposal. HONOR– Contract at the ballot box. The Federal Council, which had already established the strategic goal in October 1991 EUSwitzerland’s membership hit hard the reality of integration policy, while our colleagues in Austria, Sweden and Finland were expected to lead their countries into the European Union by 1995 – and at the same time note remained openly neutral.

The HONOR-No reconsideration of Swiss-European policy was necessary. The popular judgment did not change the need for a repositioning of the country’s security policy. The CSCE, once the common hope of not only the neutral countries of Europe, proved to be an ineffective instrument of order in the period of turmoil following the end of the Cold War. “For this reason, our partner countries Sweden, Finland and Austria are seeking rapprochement NATO and the WE YOU», the military assistance pact of the EUStaten, Federal Councilor Villiger wrote to Federal President René Felber shortly after the fateful referendum.

Accordingly, there is “a need for our security policy to take such a step” to “avoid being isolated in terms of security policy,” said the Swiss Defense Minister. “The fight against modern stand-off weapons and delivery systems could soon exceed the technical and financial capabilities of a small state,” Villiger emphasizes.

The fact that the country could defend itself militarily autonomously in the event of a conflict seemed increasingly illusory. “Even a neutral person should be given the opportunity to take the necessary precautions to ensure his safety.” While it is still too early today to “speculate on the nature of such measures, they should be considered in a timely manner to prepare the political terrain for such a step.”

For about thirty years there was little need for Switzerland, Sweden, Finland and Austria to seriously consider closer cooperation beyond NATOinitiative of the separate “Partnership for Peace” (which also included, for example, Russia, Belarus and Ukraine). Their concept of neutrality withered away, each in their own way.

It was only with the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine that the four countries had to fundamentally address the issue of neutrality again. The different answers show how much they have grown apart since the divorce.