“Outdated”: Thomas Borer calls for neutrality to be abolished

It is the largest newspaper in the US capital. And she is always hard on Switzerland. Sometimes even very difficult. And now the “Washington Post” is again offering itself as a platform for an attack on Switzerland. Namely for a frontal attack on the country’s neutrality policy.

Specifically, it concerns an opinion piece by Thomas Borer, which the “Post” published on Thursday. It thus carries the opinion of the former Swiss ambassador on the pond, which he had already announced in the “Tages-Anzeiger” almost a month ago and had previously also been offered to CH Media.

The management consultant and lobbyist, as well as former Swiss ambassador in Berlin and former head of the Taskforce Switzerland – World War II (from 1996 to 1999) advises in Switzerland’s text:

In view of the Russian offensive war against Ukraine and the deteriorating relations between Russia and China, Switzerland should ask itself, according to Thomas Borer, the question: “Does permanent neutrality help or harm our country?”

According to Borer, Swiss neutrality traditionally fulfilled four functions that justify its existence:

While the latter function has “fortunately (…) become superfluous thanks to the peace between the cantons”, Switzerland can also exercise its good offices without a strict policy of neutrality. And because it is hardly conceivable today that Switzerland would be drawn into a military conflict without neighboring countries, the argument of geopolitical stability also falls away.

Therefore, according to Thomas Borer’s conclusion:

According to the former ambassador, Switzerland “is no longer seen as neutral – neither by Russia nor by the West”. And Borer has an exact date for that too: the adoption of international sanctions against Russia as a result of the war in Ukraine.

This foreign policy instrument is of no use if it is no longer understood and accepted internationally. It is therefore better to abolish it immediately.

In addition, according to Thomas Borer, “our military neutrality, in particular the ban on arms exports”, also damages Switzerland’s reputation in Western countries. As a result, Switzerland is no longer considered neutral, but simply “selfish”. Conclusion:

Because, according to Thomas Borer, the former neutrality “no longer fulfills many of its traditional functions”. On the contrary, this is now “even harmful to Switzerland”.

It is not nearly as black and white as the undiplomatic former diplomat put it in the guest article in the Washington Post.

It wasn’t until last fall that the Federal Council voted to maintain the previous 1993 policy of neutrality – putting a damper on Secretary of State Ignazio Cassis. After the outbreak of war in Ukraine, he leaned far out the window with the neologism of “cooperative neutrality” – and ended up causing nothing but confusion.

Yet Switzerland’s neutrality policy is not set entirely in stone. The National Council’s Security Policy Committee recently voted to allow Germany to buy some decommissioned Swiss army tanks after the second attempt. Parliament, however, has the last word.

In Switzerland, signatures are currently being collected for the so-called neutrality initiative. This referendum was launched last November and aims to enshrine “permanent and armed neutrality” in the constitution. The head of the neutrality initiative is Solothurn’s SVP National Councilor, Walter Wobmann. However, the neutrality initiative was initiated by Christoph Blocher.