Contents
After the announcement of a Ukraine peace conference by Federal President Viola Amherd and Foreign Minister Ignazio Cassis, expectations are high – but can they be fulfilled? The parties are cautiously optimistic and even skeptical.
This week Davos hosted the World Economic Forum (WEF) for the 54th time. The visit of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in particular caused a stir. Whether it is right that Switzerland should take the lead in organizing a peace summit was also a topic of discussion in the “Arena”.
FDP National Councilor Maja Riniker classifies this step as a success and gives the Federal Council a nod. However, the woman from Aargau also states that more than just hugs are needed between Cassis and Selenski and that action must follow. Priska Seiler Graf is also pleased with the Federal Council’s performance. Former National Council President Martin Candinas is also one of the supporters of the peace summit. “Who, if not Switzerland, can organize a peace summit?” asks the Graubünden resident rhetorically. But all three are also aware that this is just the beginning of a rocky road to peace. The newly elected SVP National Councilor Walter Gartmann, however, states: “A peace summit without Russian representation is dangerous.”
A peace summit without Russian representation is dangerous.
In a conflict there would always be two “quarrels”. It is therefore clear to St. Gallen that both parties must be brought to the table in order to find a solution. Gartmann received a shake of the head from Seiler Graf: Talks with Putin are currently illusory, said the President of the Security Commission in the National Council.
Disagreement about the definition of neutrality
The current geopolitical crises are also reviving the neutrality debate. SP National Councilor Seiler Graf looks at neutrality from a foreign policy perspective. «How we want to be perceived and what our task is is what matters. Neutrality cannot be an end in itself,” says the Zurich resident. In addition, neutrality has always been designed to be flexible. The opinions of the polar parties also differ on this issue. Gartmann describes exactly this interpretation of neutrality as wrong.
The St. Gallen SVP politician is amazed at how neutrality is constantly being adjusted. «For me there is only one thing; a perpetual armed neutrality,” he says. Gartmann sees the errors in the history of Swiss neutrality in the moments in which a position was taken. On the other hand, showing attitude and positioning yourself is appreciated by Martin Candinas. The Center National Council believes that siding with international law is consistent with neutrality. “Neutrality does not mean indifference and passivity,” affirms Candinas.
Neutrality does not mean indifference and passivity.
Maja Riniker also sees neutral Switzerland as one that is committed and differentiates itself. Neutrality is not about not taking responsibility. Especially in view of the war in Ukraine, it is important to rethink how neutrality is handled. What interpretation of neutrality will ensure security for Switzerland in the future is the central question for the Aargau native. This also means that Switzerland needs an intact arms industry.