xd9fan
Member
General Assembly, 8 May 1999
The essence of Swiss neutrality
Dr. Christoph Mörgeli (Ürikon), Historian and SVP Cantonal Councillor
There is no doubt about it: over the last 500 years, Switzerland has developed an astounding capacity to find a niche in which to exist quietly in the shadow of competing world powers. But the neutrality of our small state has very little to do with ideology or idealism, and everything to do with the reality of life. When my elder brother used to get into fights with other boys of the same age in the school playground, I - being smaller and not as strong - did well to keep out of such disputes. Had I interfered, I would probably only have got myself a bloody nose.
Despite my own childhood experiences, Swiss neutrality is currently not held in high esteem amongst the so-called leading circles in politics, military affairs and the media; they do not wish to hear any more about the practical sense of reality of a young lad standing at the edge of the playground. It seems that it is a hard task for the reality of life to prevail against loudly proclaimed utterings of international solidarity, just war and collective security. Neutrality is no longer perceived as it once was by many generations of Swiss: as a reasonable and clever means for a small and powerless state to survive alongside the world powers. This neutrality is extremely demanding; it requires a good portion of creativity, intelligence, inventiveness and fidelity to basic principles on the part of those in whose hands it lies. Is this perhaps the reason why so many a leading personality finds it so hard to embrace neutrality?
A historically proven model of success
Current criticism of neutrality is all the more surprising given that – in view of the historical evidence – no-one would seriously dispute that Swiss neutrality is a model of success. The original Helvetic Confederation would never have survived its first beginnings if the localities involved had not adopted a policy of reflection and mediation in crisis situa- tions. And later on, Switzerland’s religious, ethnic and cultural divisions meant that without its neutrality, it could not have survived the religious wars and mergers that took place around it as neighbouring countries joined up to form big nation-states.
We are hardly surprised, however, that certain of today’s historians flock willingly to assist critics of neutrality. The concept of Swiss neutrality – they glibly assert – is essentially a myth that was only developed towards the end of the 19th century for reasons of state and as a means of post-justification. They refer by way of example to the "Geschichte der Schweizerischen Neutralität" (History of Swiss Neutrality) written by Paul Schweizer in 1895, a work that later inspired Edgar Bonjour to undertake his other more in-depth studies. What they forget, however, is that Paul Schweizer certainly did not see himself as a bold author of national ideology; on the contrary, this former archivist remained a meticulous, precise researcher of documents even in his position as a Professor of history. And he was able to prove without difficulty from 15th century documents that the members of the Swiss Confederation had, as far back as then, sworn not to interfere in case of conflicts between different localities. The battle of Marignano in 1515 brought an end to the European power politics of the Confederates. Thanks to a policy of neutrality, Switzerland was spared involvement in the Thirty Years’ Religious War and the subsequent European wars of succession. Foreign armies were already barred from marching through Switzerland as early on as 1638. The Confederation reinforced its policy of neutrality with a frontier protection arrangement – the so-called Defensionale – which was provided and paid for communally, and a type of stone wall system running through neutral areas and towns. The first official declaration of neutrality by the Cantons dates from 28 March 1674. After the French Revolution, and in the upheaval of the Napoleonic Wars, Switzerland was drawn into the worst neutrality crisis of its history. Both the French and the allies in league against them turned Switzer- land into a war zone and an occupied territory. It is interesting that Swiss neutrality emerged strengthened from this crisis: it was recognized internationally on 20 November 1815. In 1907 Switzerland’s right to neutrality as it is still valid today was satisfactorily codified on an international basis at the Hague Conference. In both World Wars, a neutral Switzerland succeeded in obliging the nations at war to respect its boundaries – although not without great defence efforts that placed a heavy burden on both the state and its citizens.
Special aspects of neutrality
In conclusion, it is fair to say that during the first three centuries, neutrality primarily served the interests of domestic policy, whereas in the last two centuries it has served the interests of foreign policy. Switzerland did not invent neutra- lity, but has in many respects given it a character all of its own. Switzerland’s neutral status differs fundamentally from that of other states. Swiss neutrality is perpetual; the concept of "neutralité perpétuelle" has been anchored constitu- tionally since 1815. The tradition of Swiss neutrality can only preserve its impact on other nations if it is applied without interruption, and reappears intact at every opportunity. Swiss neutrality is non-aligned; it permits neither a defensive nor an offensive alignment with other states. Furthermore, Swiss neutrality is armed. This means that our country has an obligation to defend itself, and must at all times guarantee that no force is exercised from its sovereign territory. Swiss neutrality was freely chosen, and not dictated by foreign powers. In fact the Paris document of 1815 simply re-confirms hundreds of years of neutrality in practice at the request of the Swiss people. And finally, until recently, Swiss neutrality was integral, i.e. complete. In the period between the two World Wars Switzerland joined the League of Nations and temporarily took part in economic sanctions imposed by the League. Otherwise, however, Switzerland has throughout the 20th century generally pursued a policy of retaining trading activities with crisis regions at the level of previous years. In the Golf War of 1991 Switzerland tolerated military flights through its airspace by foreign powers. At the beginning of the 1990s Switzerland became involved in international economic sanctions then directed against Iraq. Switzerland has recently started to participate in economic sanctions on a regular basis and it is strange that few people here at home are commenting on this. Are we to conclude that starving a nation is a more humane means of imposing a collective will than the use of weapons? Do we really believe that despots and dictators are the only ones to feel the consequences of an economic war? Why do we assume that fellow human beings suffering from hunger and loss of work will continue to regard Switzerland as neutral when it is so evidently involved?
There is no doubt today that Switzerland is internationally authorized and indeed obligated to stand by its neutrality. Any unmediated abandonment of neutrality would infringe the principle of trust, both inside and outside Switzerland. Although not a part of the Article defining the purpose of the Swiss Constitution, our constitutional lawyers believe that through long custom, neutrality has acquired the status of a material constitutional right. Any move to abandon Swiss neutrality would certainly involve an obligatory national referendum. This is why all attempts to jettison fundamental principles of neutrality in defiance of the will of the people are so very worrying, and so little conducive to creating a climate of trust.
Neutrality is a policy of peace
Numerous leading personalities in politics, culture and society appear to dislike the low profile of our small, neutral country. They long for a "mission", for visions and spectacular deeds – as demonstrated recently by the high media impact created by flying in twenty randomly picked exiles from the Balkans. Granted, neutrality restricts our room to manoeuvre and our government’s foreign affairs activities in a manner that it may consider annoying or even painful. Neutrality offers virtually no scope for heroic deeds or prestigious international profiling. Neither, however, does it give us any scope for the hysterical euphoria of victory or the fascination of war, which we cannot explain rationally, but must repeatedly acknowledge as facts. Neutrality preserves us from abandoning ourselves to uncontrolled emotions, from any ill-considered temptation to rush into war, and from any tendency towards the banalization of cruelty and violence.
But neutrality means more than just not taking part in conflicts. It implies voluntary rejection of supranational power politics. Seen in this light, there is no doubt that Swiss neutrality embodies the positive substance of a fundamental peace policy. And indeed Switzerland applies the same principle of peace it embraces at home in its relations with other states and peoples. If we work on the assumption that people and nations are by nature violent and warlike, any state that stays out of conflicts is making a contribution to world peace. Our neutrality harms no-one. And anyone who tries to sacrifice it to an illusory European or global solidarity, and to drag us into a war, is certainly not acting morally.
Conventional Swiss neutrality fulfils at least five functions: it has an integrating effect at home, preserves our indepen- dence internationally, guarantees free trade with the rest of the world, contributes to European equilibrium and has an important "service provider" function. Without doubt, there has been a marked increase in the importance of neutrality with regard to the last category in particular, although the provision of "good services" is certainly not the exclusive reserve of the neutral state. Experience shows, however, that recipients of such services are more willing to trust a "powerless", non-partisan neutral state with a long history as a provider of services. On the other hand, the neutral state must take care not to allow its non-involvement in the conflicts of this world to be presented as shirking or responsibility dodging. It can compensate for the reserve that neutrality imposes in a number of ways: granting asylum for refugees, the Red Cross, disaster aid, the execution of missions as a protecting power, the headquarters of international organi- zations – judged by objective criteria, these functions should invalidate any reproaches of self-interest levied against Switzerland. But it would be hypocritical if we were to idealize our neutrality as entirely philanthropic and selfless. Indeed it is only right that national interests are tied in with international considerations. Over the last few years in particular, it has become noticeable that the actions of our political representatives are less and less guided by the need to safe- guard the interests of we Swiss. As a general rule, they have started by asking what others expect of us, instead of giving some thought to what we want.
The army as an instrument of resistance
Neutral Switzerland has not led any wars since the 16th century, but it has remained ready for action. The military system of the small armed, neutral state differs fundamentally from that of other countries. In big, authoritarian states, the military embodies power; for these states, war is the last political option. If there is no other way to achieve their goal, these states will use force to get want they want. In Switzerland, however, the military has been driven for centu- ries by the will to resist power, not the will to exercise power. Even today, our military system is still defined by the concept of resistance. The top men in our Defence Department who persist in dreaming up schemes of armed service abroad seem to have forgotten this. A growing number of anti-neutrality views are being expressed by our most senior army leaders and printed in our military journals. The impact of official statements such as "Nowadays, peace is assu- red abroad", is catastrophic. How am I, as a battalion commander, to motivate my soldiers to throw themselves into an ordinary repeat course at home when statements such as these are made by our top military representatives? The same goes for the rash comment that our army will "go to the dogs" if it does not serve abroad. This is a tragic error on the part of our military leaders, who will indeed end up achieving exactly the opposite of what they want to achieve; armed professional troops serving abroad, membership of a league of big players, a modern "Holy Alliance" of the good and the just would certainly be a welcome relief for all those army members and employers just waiting to throw off the burden of military service. It is a sure fact that entering into political or military alliances of these kinds would give an important advantage to anti-military supporters. Is it any wonder that the people who recently thought to make war impossible by abolishing our army are now the ones advocating armed service abroad?
UN membership: an overhasty act of obedience
The Federal Council – empowered by a big parliamentary majority – is currently working out a communiqué on UN membership, an issue which the Swiss will be asked to vote on within the next four years. And yet we know only too well that the UN cannot, contrary to what it might protest, function as a collective security system, because it has no military resources of its own. It is either powerless, or merely an instrument in the hands of the United States of America. Collective security is incompatible with exclusive leadership by one country. No country, the USA included, has ever gone to war to see that right is done, or to punish wrongdoers; the only reason a country goes to war is because it believes that it is in its own interest to do so. The United States did not become involved in the unjust First World War until 1917, after the Germans declared unrestricted submarine warfare. And the USA did not get involved in the even more unjust Second World War until after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour. In the Gulf War, there were oil reserves at stake. And the current bombarding of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is – may I be permitted to make a very plain assessment – a welcome opportunity to test the effects of new weaponry. In the United Nations of today, it is the USA, as the undisputed leader with aspirations of dominating the world, that dictates what is just and unjust. In view of recent events, Switzerland has no reason at all for uncritical admiration of the politicians of the United States as friends and preservers of justice. Our neutrality is not compatible with any recognition of American aspirations of global leadership. Anyone who seeks to take Switzerland into the UN today – as the government and parliament plan to try to do once again – is not acting morally, but opportunistically at best.
As regards NATO, this organization has nothing whatsoever to do with collective security or with questions of what is just or unjust. Membership of this classical military alliance would quite certainly entail Switzerland giving up its neutra- lity and submitting itself to American aspirations of leadership. If anything, it would have been more logical for Switzer- land to join NATO in threatening Cold War times, but not now, when there are virtually no more signs of any direct threat. Integration in NATO – as called for recently by one of the big non-socialist parties – would be nothing other than over-hasty obedience and an act of pure submission.
Giving a new meaning to neutrality
In recent times, demonstrative optimism has led to attempts to organize this world by creating multinational alliances and institutions. To many people, neutrality appeared to be an outmoded relic and an isolationist shackle. It emerged with a somewhat tarnished reputation after the Second World War, and although the good services we have rendered since then have for the moment restored it in the eyes of the world powers, it is now coming under attack again as European integration proceeds. Historically, it is true that our neutrality developed out of the conflicts between our neighbours, and it had to prove itself against these neighbours in particular. Yet anyone who sees neutrality purely as a remedy in the event of war between our neighbours must necessarily doubt its purpose since the likelihood of such a war appears highly improbable. But Swiss neutrality has acquired a new meaning since the time of its origins. The globalization we hear so much about has tended to "shrink" the world, so that nations now have to determine their policies in relation to the other countries of the world, not just their neighbours. Our fundamental policy of peace, our status as a worldwide trading partner and the good services we render are an excellent basis for our relations with other countries. If we give our neutrality this broader, contemporary meaning, it will remain a justifiable concept for a long time to come.
In my view, the current massive criticism against neutrality will work in its favour – perhaps more so than the dogmatic, somewhat paralyzing tendency of past decades to take neutrality for granted. The more the leading circles scratch away at Swiss neutrality, the more it will, I hope, become a subject of discussion amongst people at small private gatherings and in organized interest groups such as e.g. the "Campaign for an Independent and Neutral Switzerland". It will then have been our decision and our will to breathe new life into the concept of Swiss neutrality.
Our small neutral country has often been threatened by external forces. Today, however, the challenge comes less from an aggressive power, than from a loudly and moralistically trumpeted ideology of size. If we can resist this pressure, our small state and its neutrality will not emerge destroyed, but reinforced and brighter than ever.
The essence of Swiss neutrality
Dr. Christoph Mörgeli (Ürikon), Historian and SVP Cantonal Councillor
There is no doubt about it: over the last 500 years, Switzerland has developed an astounding capacity to find a niche in which to exist quietly in the shadow of competing world powers. But the neutrality of our small state has very little to do with ideology or idealism, and everything to do with the reality of life. When my elder brother used to get into fights with other boys of the same age in the school playground, I - being smaller and not as strong - did well to keep out of such disputes. Had I interfered, I would probably only have got myself a bloody nose.
Despite my own childhood experiences, Swiss neutrality is currently not held in high esteem amongst the so-called leading circles in politics, military affairs and the media; they do not wish to hear any more about the practical sense of reality of a young lad standing at the edge of the playground. It seems that it is a hard task for the reality of life to prevail against loudly proclaimed utterings of international solidarity, just war and collective security. Neutrality is no longer perceived as it once was by many generations of Swiss: as a reasonable and clever means for a small and powerless state to survive alongside the world powers. This neutrality is extremely demanding; it requires a good portion of creativity, intelligence, inventiveness and fidelity to basic principles on the part of those in whose hands it lies. Is this perhaps the reason why so many a leading personality finds it so hard to embrace neutrality?
A historically proven model of success
Current criticism of neutrality is all the more surprising given that – in view of the historical evidence – no-one would seriously dispute that Swiss neutrality is a model of success. The original Helvetic Confederation would never have survived its first beginnings if the localities involved had not adopted a policy of reflection and mediation in crisis situa- tions. And later on, Switzerland’s religious, ethnic and cultural divisions meant that without its neutrality, it could not have survived the religious wars and mergers that took place around it as neighbouring countries joined up to form big nation-states.
We are hardly surprised, however, that certain of today’s historians flock willingly to assist critics of neutrality. The concept of Swiss neutrality – they glibly assert – is essentially a myth that was only developed towards the end of the 19th century for reasons of state and as a means of post-justification. They refer by way of example to the "Geschichte der Schweizerischen Neutralität" (History of Swiss Neutrality) written by Paul Schweizer in 1895, a work that later inspired Edgar Bonjour to undertake his other more in-depth studies. What they forget, however, is that Paul Schweizer certainly did not see himself as a bold author of national ideology; on the contrary, this former archivist remained a meticulous, precise researcher of documents even in his position as a Professor of history. And he was able to prove without difficulty from 15th century documents that the members of the Swiss Confederation had, as far back as then, sworn not to interfere in case of conflicts between different localities. The battle of Marignano in 1515 brought an end to the European power politics of the Confederates. Thanks to a policy of neutrality, Switzerland was spared involvement in the Thirty Years’ Religious War and the subsequent European wars of succession. Foreign armies were already barred from marching through Switzerland as early on as 1638. The Confederation reinforced its policy of neutrality with a frontier protection arrangement – the so-called Defensionale – which was provided and paid for communally, and a type of stone wall system running through neutral areas and towns. The first official declaration of neutrality by the Cantons dates from 28 March 1674. After the French Revolution, and in the upheaval of the Napoleonic Wars, Switzerland was drawn into the worst neutrality crisis of its history. Both the French and the allies in league against them turned Switzer- land into a war zone and an occupied territory. It is interesting that Swiss neutrality emerged strengthened from this crisis: it was recognized internationally on 20 November 1815. In 1907 Switzerland’s right to neutrality as it is still valid today was satisfactorily codified on an international basis at the Hague Conference. In both World Wars, a neutral Switzerland succeeded in obliging the nations at war to respect its boundaries – although not without great defence efforts that placed a heavy burden on both the state and its citizens.
Special aspects of neutrality
In conclusion, it is fair to say that during the first three centuries, neutrality primarily served the interests of domestic policy, whereas in the last two centuries it has served the interests of foreign policy. Switzerland did not invent neutra- lity, but has in many respects given it a character all of its own. Switzerland’s neutral status differs fundamentally from that of other states. Swiss neutrality is perpetual; the concept of "neutralité perpétuelle" has been anchored constitu- tionally since 1815. The tradition of Swiss neutrality can only preserve its impact on other nations if it is applied without interruption, and reappears intact at every opportunity. Swiss neutrality is non-aligned; it permits neither a defensive nor an offensive alignment with other states. Furthermore, Swiss neutrality is armed. This means that our country has an obligation to defend itself, and must at all times guarantee that no force is exercised from its sovereign territory. Swiss neutrality was freely chosen, and not dictated by foreign powers. In fact the Paris document of 1815 simply re-confirms hundreds of years of neutrality in practice at the request of the Swiss people. And finally, until recently, Swiss neutrality was integral, i.e. complete. In the period between the two World Wars Switzerland joined the League of Nations and temporarily took part in economic sanctions imposed by the League. Otherwise, however, Switzerland has throughout the 20th century generally pursued a policy of retaining trading activities with crisis regions at the level of previous years. In the Golf War of 1991 Switzerland tolerated military flights through its airspace by foreign powers. At the beginning of the 1990s Switzerland became involved in international economic sanctions then directed against Iraq. Switzerland has recently started to participate in economic sanctions on a regular basis and it is strange that few people here at home are commenting on this. Are we to conclude that starving a nation is a more humane means of imposing a collective will than the use of weapons? Do we really believe that despots and dictators are the only ones to feel the consequences of an economic war? Why do we assume that fellow human beings suffering from hunger and loss of work will continue to regard Switzerland as neutral when it is so evidently involved?
There is no doubt today that Switzerland is internationally authorized and indeed obligated to stand by its neutrality. Any unmediated abandonment of neutrality would infringe the principle of trust, both inside and outside Switzerland. Although not a part of the Article defining the purpose of the Swiss Constitution, our constitutional lawyers believe that through long custom, neutrality has acquired the status of a material constitutional right. Any move to abandon Swiss neutrality would certainly involve an obligatory national referendum. This is why all attempts to jettison fundamental principles of neutrality in defiance of the will of the people are so very worrying, and so little conducive to creating a climate of trust.
Neutrality is a policy of peace
Numerous leading personalities in politics, culture and society appear to dislike the low profile of our small, neutral country. They long for a "mission", for visions and spectacular deeds – as demonstrated recently by the high media impact created by flying in twenty randomly picked exiles from the Balkans. Granted, neutrality restricts our room to manoeuvre and our government’s foreign affairs activities in a manner that it may consider annoying or even painful. Neutrality offers virtually no scope for heroic deeds or prestigious international profiling. Neither, however, does it give us any scope for the hysterical euphoria of victory or the fascination of war, which we cannot explain rationally, but must repeatedly acknowledge as facts. Neutrality preserves us from abandoning ourselves to uncontrolled emotions, from any ill-considered temptation to rush into war, and from any tendency towards the banalization of cruelty and violence.
But neutrality means more than just not taking part in conflicts. It implies voluntary rejection of supranational power politics. Seen in this light, there is no doubt that Swiss neutrality embodies the positive substance of a fundamental peace policy. And indeed Switzerland applies the same principle of peace it embraces at home in its relations with other states and peoples. If we work on the assumption that people and nations are by nature violent and warlike, any state that stays out of conflicts is making a contribution to world peace. Our neutrality harms no-one. And anyone who tries to sacrifice it to an illusory European or global solidarity, and to drag us into a war, is certainly not acting morally.
Conventional Swiss neutrality fulfils at least five functions: it has an integrating effect at home, preserves our indepen- dence internationally, guarantees free trade with the rest of the world, contributes to European equilibrium and has an important "service provider" function. Without doubt, there has been a marked increase in the importance of neutrality with regard to the last category in particular, although the provision of "good services" is certainly not the exclusive reserve of the neutral state. Experience shows, however, that recipients of such services are more willing to trust a "powerless", non-partisan neutral state with a long history as a provider of services. On the other hand, the neutral state must take care not to allow its non-involvement in the conflicts of this world to be presented as shirking or responsibility dodging. It can compensate for the reserve that neutrality imposes in a number of ways: granting asylum for refugees, the Red Cross, disaster aid, the execution of missions as a protecting power, the headquarters of international organi- zations – judged by objective criteria, these functions should invalidate any reproaches of self-interest levied against Switzerland. But it would be hypocritical if we were to idealize our neutrality as entirely philanthropic and selfless. Indeed it is only right that national interests are tied in with international considerations. Over the last few years in particular, it has become noticeable that the actions of our political representatives are less and less guided by the need to safe- guard the interests of we Swiss. As a general rule, they have started by asking what others expect of us, instead of giving some thought to what we want.
The army as an instrument of resistance
Neutral Switzerland has not led any wars since the 16th century, but it has remained ready for action. The military system of the small armed, neutral state differs fundamentally from that of other countries. In big, authoritarian states, the military embodies power; for these states, war is the last political option. If there is no other way to achieve their goal, these states will use force to get want they want. In Switzerland, however, the military has been driven for centu- ries by the will to resist power, not the will to exercise power. Even today, our military system is still defined by the concept of resistance. The top men in our Defence Department who persist in dreaming up schemes of armed service abroad seem to have forgotten this. A growing number of anti-neutrality views are being expressed by our most senior army leaders and printed in our military journals. The impact of official statements such as "Nowadays, peace is assu- red abroad", is catastrophic. How am I, as a battalion commander, to motivate my soldiers to throw themselves into an ordinary repeat course at home when statements such as these are made by our top military representatives? The same goes for the rash comment that our army will "go to the dogs" if it does not serve abroad. This is a tragic error on the part of our military leaders, who will indeed end up achieving exactly the opposite of what they want to achieve; armed professional troops serving abroad, membership of a league of big players, a modern "Holy Alliance" of the good and the just would certainly be a welcome relief for all those army members and employers just waiting to throw off the burden of military service. It is a sure fact that entering into political or military alliances of these kinds would give an important advantage to anti-military supporters. Is it any wonder that the people who recently thought to make war impossible by abolishing our army are now the ones advocating armed service abroad?
UN membership: an overhasty act of obedience
The Federal Council – empowered by a big parliamentary majority – is currently working out a communiqué on UN membership, an issue which the Swiss will be asked to vote on within the next four years. And yet we know only too well that the UN cannot, contrary to what it might protest, function as a collective security system, because it has no military resources of its own. It is either powerless, or merely an instrument in the hands of the United States of America. Collective security is incompatible with exclusive leadership by one country. No country, the USA included, has ever gone to war to see that right is done, or to punish wrongdoers; the only reason a country goes to war is because it believes that it is in its own interest to do so. The United States did not become involved in the unjust First World War until 1917, after the Germans declared unrestricted submarine warfare. And the USA did not get involved in the even more unjust Second World War until after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour. In the Gulf War, there were oil reserves at stake. And the current bombarding of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is – may I be permitted to make a very plain assessment – a welcome opportunity to test the effects of new weaponry. In the United Nations of today, it is the USA, as the undisputed leader with aspirations of dominating the world, that dictates what is just and unjust. In view of recent events, Switzerland has no reason at all for uncritical admiration of the politicians of the United States as friends and preservers of justice. Our neutrality is not compatible with any recognition of American aspirations of global leadership. Anyone who seeks to take Switzerland into the UN today – as the government and parliament plan to try to do once again – is not acting morally, but opportunistically at best.
As regards NATO, this organization has nothing whatsoever to do with collective security or with questions of what is just or unjust. Membership of this classical military alliance would quite certainly entail Switzerland giving up its neutra- lity and submitting itself to American aspirations of leadership. If anything, it would have been more logical for Switzer- land to join NATO in threatening Cold War times, but not now, when there are virtually no more signs of any direct threat. Integration in NATO – as called for recently by one of the big non-socialist parties – would be nothing other than over-hasty obedience and an act of pure submission.
Giving a new meaning to neutrality
In recent times, demonstrative optimism has led to attempts to organize this world by creating multinational alliances and institutions. To many people, neutrality appeared to be an outmoded relic and an isolationist shackle. It emerged with a somewhat tarnished reputation after the Second World War, and although the good services we have rendered since then have for the moment restored it in the eyes of the world powers, it is now coming under attack again as European integration proceeds. Historically, it is true that our neutrality developed out of the conflicts between our neighbours, and it had to prove itself against these neighbours in particular. Yet anyone who sees neutrality purely as a remedy in the event of war between our neighbours must necessarily doubt its purpose since the likelihood of such a war appears highly improbable. But Swiss neutrality has acquired a new meaning since the time of its origins. The globalization we hear so much about has tended to "shrink" the world, so that nations now have to determine their policies in relation to the other countries of the world, not just their neighbours. Our fundamental policy of peace, our status as a worldwide trading partner and the good services we render are an excellent basis for our relations with other countries. If we give our neutrality this broader, contemporary meaning, it will remain a justifiable concept for a long time to come.
In my view, the current massive criticism against neutrality will work in its favour – perhaps more so than the dogmatic, somewhat paralyzing tendency of past decades to take neutrality for granted. The more the leading circles scratch away at Swiss neutrality, the more it will, I hope, become a subject of discussion amongst people at small private gatherings and in organized interest groups such as e.g. the "Campaign for an Independent and Neutral Switzerland". It will then have been our decision and our will to breathe new life into the concept of Swiss neutrality.
Our small neutral country has often been threatened by external forces. Today, however, the challenge comes less from an aggressive power, than from a loudly and moralistically trumpeted ideology of size. If we can resist this pressure, our small state and its neutrality will not emerge destroyed, but reinforced and brighter than ever.
wars.