Crypto Affair: Neutrality at risk?

“We should analyse the matter boldly, coolly, soberly”

Paul Widmer: “Neutrality is Switzerland’s most important foreign policy guideline and is supported by the overwhelming majority of the Swiss. It is therefore natural to be worried when one hears such news. On the other hand, I do not share the view that Swiss neutrality has been ‘insanely damaged’. We should analyse the matter boldly, coolly, soberly.” – “Something like this must be investigated because it lies at the heart of our neutrality.”

Already at the Congress of Vienna code-breaking was commonplace

According to Paul Widmer, the Crypto AG case is a big issue in Switzerland, but hardly an issue abroad. “The ‘International New York Times’ has not yet reported a  single sentence about it, while the ‘Washington Post’ – which, together with ZDF and SRF, has raised the matter – states in its main title that the CIA was able to listen in on dozens of codes, that’s the big news. The fact that it’s a Swiss company comes second.” The Swiss government was only mentioned in a small note in so far as it ordered an investigation. The fact that governments obtain information by all possible means is, according to Widmer, nothing new. Even the Austrian statesman Metternich boasted at the Vienna Congress that he had cracked eighty secret service codes.

As ambassador, Widmer had once asked a member of the Federal Intelligence Service whether he had to expect that his conversations in the Swiss embassy would be bugged. Paul Widmer: “The answer was: with one hundred per cent certainty.”

When asked by the interviewer whether Paul Widmer, as ambassador, also communicated in encrypted form, the latter explained that it had happened from time to time that a ciphertelex had been used, but very rarely. Today, communication is mainly done by e-mail, sometimes encrypted, or traditionally by letters that are carried from country to country in a courier bag.

Questions about the investigation

Various options for investigating the case have already been mentioned. The Federal Council has commissioned former federal judge Niklaus Oberholzer to investigate the case. Which instrument would be most suitable? “The best way is certainly not to have too many duplications. Logically, the Control delegation should deal with it.” [The Control Delegation of the Federal Parliament supervises activities in the field of state security and the intelligence services²] Because, according to Paul Widmer, there is a danger that several investigative bodies will not come to exactly the same conclusions. “This would not be conducive to clarifying the situation if one wants to achieve a good result.” On the question of Marc Lehmann, SRF, whether the Federal Council should not communicate its steps to the public instead of just pointing to the report expected in June: “Would that really be a good idea? Let’s give the bodies charged with this task the time and opportunity to do their job properly. Once the results are available, the Federal Council should go public and announce what conclusions Switzerland must draw from them.

Lehmann: “The aim of the current clarifications should be to dispel doubts about Switzerland’s credibility as a mediator. In concrete terms, Switzerland is part of various diplomatic actions, for example with postman services between Washington and Tehran, which have no diplomatic relations with each other. If Iran, which has also used the encrypted machines of Crypto AG, were to conclude that Switzerland can no longer be trusted, could there be consequences?”

Widmer: “We have to make sure that something like this doesn’t happen again, but we must not forget: Crypto is not a company of the Swiss state, but a private company based in Switzerland. [...] [emphasis mw]” Lehmann: “But with ‘Made in Switzerland’ you already benefit from the idea of neutrality.” Widmer: “Yes, and that’s an abuse that was clearly perpetrated here, so we must clear it up.” – “The best thing is to pursue a policy that we can stand by.” 

No external activism

Asked by the interviewer if Switzerland should approach those governments that might feel affected, for example in private talks at the Security Conference in Munich, Paul Widmer replies: “At the Security Conference in Munich, there is certainly no need for action. This is where professionals meet who are not surprised by what has happened. What we have to do, on the other hand, is to take domestic political steps: This is not what we want to happen in our country. Externally, I would advise calm, not activism. As far as I know, so far not a single state has protested.”

“We want our neutrality to have a good reputation. The most important thing is not that the secret service is working well; the most important thing is that our country’s reputation, its foreign policy reputation, is good. Therefore, this can only be damaging, but as I said, let’s not exaggerate, let’s see our country in the general concept of international relations. There the priorities are currently different.”

Has one Federal Councillor known about it or the Federal Council as a whole? A big difference

Who has known what? The focus is on former Federal Councillor Kaspar Villiger, Defence Minister in the 1990s. According to the interviewer, he is said to have known about the ownership of Crypto AG, which supplied its encryption devices all over the world. It makes no sense to speculate about this, says Paul Widmer.