Contents
Since the Russian attack on Ukraine, Switzerland has been struggling to maintain its neutrality. Can one remain neutral in the face of a massive breach of international law? And what does it mean to be neutral?
«Switzerland takes sides», «Switzerland gives up its neutrality». Those were the global headlines when the Federal Council announced a year ago that Switzerland would take over the EU sanctions against Russia.
When is neutrality credible?
“We have severely damaged our credibility as a neutral country,” says law professor and SVP politician Hans-Ueli Vogt in view of the reactions to the sanctions. He is on the committee of the SVP neutrality initiative, which wants to prohibit the sanctioning of individual states without a UN resolution.
For international law expert Evelyne Schmid, however, it is clear: “The sanctions are not a violation of neutrality, neither in terms of neutrality law nor neutrality policy”. Sanctions had already been taken earlier. So why this astonishment now? “Because the Federal Council did not communicate properly,” said FDP President Thierry Burkart.
Neutrality is only possible if other countries see Switzerland as neutral. The discussion group in the club agrees on this. “There is now an enormous gap between what Switzerland feels and what other countries perceive,” states historian Jakob Tanner.
A gap that is also manifested in the question of the re-export of Swiss arms to Ukraine. For FDP President Thierry Burkart, all that is needed is a new war material law. For international law expert Evelyne Schmid, however, “indirect arms deliveries are not flawless under the law of neutrality”.
Neutrality – guarantee of security or outdated concept?
Who would want to shake neutrality in an election year? According to ETH surveys, neutrality enjoys constant approval ratings of well over 90 percent. And: “Neutrality is also a thoroughly selfish concept to protect Switzerland,” says Thierry Burkart.
Nevertheless, political scientist Christoph Frei finds: “We are pretty skewed with neutrality today.” The identity function that neutrality has for Switzerland is important, but cannot be the sole reason for maintaining it. Neutrality as a guarantee of security is outdated. “The freedom to live well has not been guaranteed by us for a long time.” Our neighboring countries and NATO’s protective shield would offer this. So it is logical to seriously consider joining NATO.
A proposal that worries Hans-Ueli Vogt in view of today’s world order: “We are heading towards a split. Simply taking the side of those we think are right » is not the right way. “Before we cut ties with half the world, I’d rather be neutral and wait.”
Pacifist and GSoA co-founder Andreas Gross does not want to wait and see, but rather to interpret neutrality more actively: “You should help much more committed to at least increase humanitarian aid for Ukraine tenfold.”
The war in Ukraine shook Swiss neutrality as a matter of course. However, it also offers an opportunity to redefine Swiss neutrality.