Switzerland’s understanding of neutrality was largely shaped by the Second World War. But that was a geographically completely different constellation than today. At that time, Switzerland was surrounded by a hostile power, today it lies in the middle of the territory of the NATO defense alliance, which is well-disposed towards it. This cannot leave the policy of neutrality untouched.
In the current war situation, Switzerland is not “surrounded” by a hostile power, but by NATO, which is well-disposed towards it.
Since the war in Ukraine, a discussion about neutrality has flared up in Switzerland. She is urgently needed. The country owes a lot to neutrality. Even if it is wrongly seen by many as lacking in solidarity, it is a clever defensive concept for small and medium-sized countries and their governments. It is not immoral but contributes to peace. But if you want to take care of them, you have to think about their concrete design and adaptation without taboos.
Gerhard Schwarz was head of the NZZ business editorial team and is now President of the Progress Foundation.
Unfortunately, the role of geography is neglected in almost all theoretical considerations. The size of the conflicting parties is relevant. Any neutral state finds it difficult when a power like the USA attacks a small country that is not supported by other major powers.
And neutrality should only work to any extent in three geographical constellations: firstly, when a conflict is far away, for example two states in Asia are fighting and, moreover, their allies do not feel threatened in their existence; second, when a country lies in the heart of the conflict and eludes conquest or battlefield use by not tipping over to either side; third, when a country (like Switzerland in World War II) is surrounded by a hostile power but does not allow itself to be taken over by it. However, the last two cases require that the potential aggressor has to reckon with a high entry and accommodation price and that the neutral maintains equidistance.
The current situation in Switzerland does not fall into any of these categories. The country is “surrounded” by a benevolent “power”. The NATO defense pact wants to prevent individual members from being attacked. It is de facto at war, albeit without direct military involvement, only with sanctions. The neighboring countries are culturally and ideally close to Switzerland and are closely intertwined with it on a human and economic level. Switzerland also owes a lot to the efforts of Great Britain and the USA in particular during the Second World War.
Putting Russia and Ukraine and their friends on the same level, treating Russian oligarchs loyal to the regime the same as American billionaires (whether they support Trump or Biden), making NATO’s work more difficult by banning transport through (or via) the country or prohibiting the transfer of Swiss-made ammunition is all in all very naïve – and disloyal.
Neutrality should keep the peace of one’s own population and keep them out of military dealings. That requires pragmatism, not dogmatism. Equidistance is neither possible nor useful. Rather, the motto in the given geographic constellation must be: cooperation with NATO when it serves its own defense and benevolent support from a distance when NATO tries to ward off a threat to its territory, in the middle of which Switzerland lies.