Report of the Federal Department of Defence, Civil Protection and Sport (FDDPS) aims for “new level of cooperation with NATO”
Scuttle Switzerland’s neutrality altogether? Not with us!
by Dr iur. Marianne Wüthrich
The renaming of Swiss neutrality to “cooperative neutrality”, planned by Federal Councillor Ignazio Cassis’ Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA), has not gone down well with the Federal Council as a whole. However, for purely tactical reasons: According to Swiss television, it does not want to “stir up dust in this geopolitically sensitive situation” and internally it does for to die not want to pave the way for the neutrality initiative, which will soon start collecting signatures: “If the Federal Council were now to officially relax the neutrality policy, then that would certainly also be an advantage for the opposing side, i.e. for the initiators.”1 The fact that citizens who make use of their direct democratic rights are regarded by the classe politique as the “opposing side” is one of the unpleasant phenomena of recent times.
National Councillor Franz Grüter (SVP, LU) and National Councillor Priska Seiler Graf (SP, ZH) provide a counterweight to such efforts, insisting in clear terms on the principles of neutrality and direct democracy.
In order to play down the fact that the Federal Council has practically abolished Swiss neutrality for the past six months, it has allowed Cassis’ neutrality report to disappear into a drawer, but is pursuing its goal of integrating our country into NATO/EU by other means: via the security report of the FDDPS, the new version of which Federal Councillor Viola Amherd also presented at the beginning of September.2
“New level of cooperation with NATO” – a concentrated load!
The supplementary report raises the misplaced question of whether Switzerland’s understanding of neutrality is still up to date “in order to take account of the balance between neutrality and solidarity with the Western community of values” (p. 9, emphasis mw.).
The balancing act à la FDDPS: “In view of the war in Ukraine, it is in Switzerland’s interest to focus its security and defence policy more consistently than before on cooperation with partners.” (p. 14) As if the Swiss NATO turbos had not been working towards closer ties between Switzerland and NATO long before February 2022 and also long before the Maidan coup in 2014!
In brief, some of the most blatant programme points of the Federal Council:
- Participation of the Swiss Armed Forces in “NATO exercises across the entire spectrum”, including “exercises for common defence” (p. 16).
- Invitation of NATO troops to exercises in Switzerland (p. 17)
- “NATO could also examine the interoperability and military capabilities of armed forces units in Switzerland.” (p. 17)
- Participation of the Swiss Armed Forces in NATO high-readiness task forces: “However, participation would have to be designed in a way compatible with neutrality […].” (p. 17)
“Compatible with neutrality” is nothing here! Even the lip service is of no use: “Joining NATO, which would mean the end of neutrality, is not an option for Switzerland.” (p. 14) National Councillor Franz Grüter, President of the National Council’s Foreign Policy Committee, rightly calls the Federal Council’s plans a “dishonest policy” (see interview).
Military integration into the EU?
Here, too, the FDDPS supplementary report sees possibilities for expansion, for example, participation in Permanent Structured Cooperation (Pesco) projects (p. 18) or the “formalisation” of security policy consultations with the EU (p. 19). So, another bilateral treaty that Brussels could use in the usual manner to put Switzerland under pressure?
Contribute to peace and stability beyond our borders
At least one of the authors of the FDDPS Supplementary Report still remembered the actual goals of Swiss security policy: “The overarching goal of Swiss security policy remains unchanged: to protect the ability to act, the self-determination and the integrity of Switzerland and its people as well as their livelihoods against threats and dangers and to contribute to peace and stability beyond the borders.” (p. 13) By joining NATO and EU war units, we can neither protect the security of Switzerland and its population nor make our contribution to peace. “Contributing to peace and stability beyond borders” must be put back at the centre of Swiss foreign policy. This is only possible with respect for the principle of neutrality. •
1 Brändlin, Roger. “Bundesrat will nichts ändern an Neutralitätspolitik” (Federal Council wants to change nothing about neutrality policy.” In: SRF News. Echo der Zeit of 7 September 2022
2 Supplementary report to the report on security policy of 2021 on the consequences of the war in Ukraine. Federal Council Report 2022 (provisional)
“Switzerland has massively weakened its foreign policy since 24 February. We absolutely have to formulate the term ‘neutrality’ more clearly right now”
Interview with National Councillor Franz Grüter, President of the Foreign Policy Committee of the National Council
(picture ma)
Current Concerns: The Federal Council did not want to hear about Ignazio Cassis’ neutrality report. But now, in the supplementary report of the Federal Department of Defence, Civil Protection and Sport (FDDCS) to the Security Policy Report 2021, “a new level of cooperation with NATO” is envisaged, which is even harsher than the “cooperative neutrality” of Federal Councillor Cassis. The Federal Council also emphasises in this report that joining NATO is out of the question, as this would contravene neutrality. Question for you: Isn’t the programme of this additional report a de facto NATO accession?
Franz Grüter: It is a dishonest report, a dishonest policy. If one were honest, one would have to say: the way in which Switzerland is to cooperate with NATO according to these ideas is not a formal NATO accession, but it is in fact a NATO accession. One would take part in all joint exercises, one would be integrated into this alliance, one would go far beyond the previous cooperation within the framework of the “Partnership for Peace”. All of this would mean that Switzerland would more or less be in without formally joining. That is why, in my view, we must compete with these efforts with all our might. Because they quite simply violate our neutrality.
Alarming! We have to explain to the public as broadly as possible what the exact intentions are, and that for Switzerland this means that we would also be integrated into NATO in terms of defence and would therefore no longer be independent. Moreover, in my view it is unconstitutional.
NATO could come to Switzerland to check whether we are complying with interoperability.
Switzerland already makes sure that it uses Western technologies in its procurement. In my view, there is nothing a priori wrong with that, but if interoperability is misused as a precursor to joining NATO, then that is extremely dishonest. And because this preliminary stage already violates the constitution, I am of the opinion that this should be submitted to the people. Because that’s not the way to do it: to make a pseudo-accession through the back door, which is actually an accession.
What options does Parliament have against this additional report? Can you do something, or can you do nothing against the report itself, but only later against drafts for corresponding decrees?
Traditionally, the reports of the Federal Council always come to Parliament, the Federal Council presents them, and it has already happened that Parliament has said, no, we don’t want that, and has rejected a report. Parliament will probably approve the FDDCS report because its majority is very close to this alliance at the moment. We have heard that the president of the FDP said that we have to get much closer to NATO. We in the SVP will probably be the only ones to fight this. If this step should really be initiated and the Federal Council plans a law, it must bring it to parliament, then one must consider whether to take the referendum. It is not yet on the table, it is not yet a bill, not yet a draft law, but this report is a preliminary stage that has been set in motion.
The ETH Center for Security Studies recommends that the FDDCS use the war in Ukraine as a pretext for expanding military cooperation with NATO and the EU. Should we give up neutrality because of the war in Ukraine? Doesn’t the same question arise in every war? Such demands have come up before, in the Second World War, for example.
Especially when there is a war, it is not at all easy to be neutral. Anyone who is neutral is of course always put under pressure by both sides. That is also the case in this war. We have been put under pressure by the Americans and also by the Russians. Various political actors, as the ETH report also shows, want to use the opportunity of the Ukraine war to recklessly abandon quite tried and tested instruments of Swiss foreign policy. I recently spoke personally with ICRC President Peter Maurer. He says quite clearly: If we were to supply weapons to Ukraine, that would be deeply against neutrality and would do enormous damage to Switzerland’s humanitarian tradition, namely that with the ICRC we always help people on both sides, support both. Neutrality is extremely important, especially for the ICRC, so that we can continue to do this credibly.
Recently, a prisoner exchange took place between Russia and Ukraine. One was not unmoved by the fact that it was carried out by Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Do we really want to take Switzerland out of its “core business” of neutrality policy and leave our good offices to others?
Switzerland has massively weakened itself in terms of foreign policy with its actions. That is why we are no longer recognised internationally as a neutral country. Even Joe Biden said in a speech that he thanked Switzerland for no longer being neutral. Russia and many other states also say we are no longer neutral, and the newspapers write it: On 28 February, four days after the outbreak of war, the “New York Times” wrote: “Switzerland has given up neutrality”. You can see the result clearly now: We are no longer considered for the Good Offices. Ukraine would have very much liked Switzerland to take on the protecting power mandate vis-à-vis Russia. A good example of a protecting power mandate is the relationship with Iran and the USA, where Switzerland plays a mediating role between the two states, which no longer have direct diplomatic relations. So we are a kind of postman in this. It is precisely in this sense that Ukraine wanted to use Switzerland, but Russia said no. In fact, you almost don’t believe that Turkey is now suddenly stepping into this role.
Once again, I believe that Switzerland has massively weakened its foreign policy since 24 February. I regret that very much. We absolutely have to formulate the term “neutrality” more clearly, especially now.
That is why the neutrality initiative is being launched, not by Christoph Blocher alone, but by a large group, “Pro Schweiz” (Pro Switzerland) and many others. I assume that our party will logically also support writing perpetual armed neutrality into the Federal Constitution in the sense of integral neutrality. This would also include that we no longer take sanctions, because sanctions are war measures without weapons. In today’s case, our sanctions even have a feedback loop to the Swiss population, because we suffer from them. The Russians have never made so much money with gas and oil, the rouble has appreciated by 40 percent, but we are paying the price. Our population pays much higher energy prices, we no longer have a secure energy supply. I think a lot of things have gone wrong here, where Switzerland has no longer lived up to its traditional role, with tangible consequences that we are now noticing.
Thank you very much for the interview, National Councillor Grüter. •
No vote on the “Stop F-35” initiative – Federal Bern ignores the direct democratic rights of citizens
Interview with National Councillor Priska Seiler Graf (SP/ZH)
(picture priskaseilergraf.ch)
mw. In order to prevent the Federal Council’s planned purchase of 36 F-35 fighter jets from the US weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin, a group of citizens, consisting partly of opponents of the armed forces but also of supporters of Switzerland’s armed neutrality, launched a popular initiative in August 2021. The main arguments of the initiators: The F-35 was developed for wars of aggression and is “massively oversized and unsuitable” for Swiss needs. In addition, “the US secret services are always in the cockpit – a scandal from a democratic point of view.”
Within a year, the necessary 100,000 signatures had been collected, and on 22 August 2022, the Federal Chancellery confirmed the initiative’s success. Now one would expect our “servants of the people” to wait for the referendum on the initiative before signing the purchase agreement with the US. This was also the plan: “The Federal Council originally intended [...] to wait until a possible vote on the popular initiative’’against the F-35 (Stop F-35)’ was through before signing the purchase contract.” But on 2 June 2022, a majority of the Council of States approved the purchase and demanded that the contracts be signed by the end of March 2023, because otherwise Lockheed Martin would allegedly deliver on worse terms. The Federal Council had “changed its mind in the meantime” and supported the quick conclusion of the contract. On 15 September, the majority of the National Council also gave the Federal Council the green light to sign the contract by the end of March (media releases of the Council of States of 2 June 2022 and of the National Council of 15 September 2022).
As the subject matter of the popular initiative thus fell by the wayside, the initiators withdrew it with a heavy heart. The way in which the Federal Council and the parliamentary majority have ignored the direct democratic rights of the citizens is a scandal. Current Concerns asked National Councillor Priska Seiler Graf (SP, ZH), who announced the withdrawal of the initiative, about this.
Current Concerns: National Councillor Seiler Graf, the popular initiative against the purchase of the F-35 fighter jet came into being on 22 August with over 102,000 valid signatures. Now the initiative committee, of which you are a member, has withdrawn the initiative. Why?
Priska Seiler Graf: Unfortunately, the early signing of the treaties made the referendum obsolete. The Alliance against the F-35 did not want to offer a hand for a pseudo-referendum in which the electorate could not decide on the actual purchase decision. A vote after the contract has been signed is nothing but a democratic farce. For this reason, we withdraw the popular initiative.
However, we remain convinced that the F-35 is a bad buy and a risk worth billions for Switzerland.
But the 102,000 signatories have a right to a vote!
I can very well understand their disappointment, as I am myself. However, the Federal Council and Parliament – especially the bourgeois parties – have made it impossible to hold a democratic vote due to a lack of political will. The receipt is now a massive damage to direct democracy in Switzerland.
The risks and problems of this procurement were on the table through this initiative, but a broad and public debate was prevented by the undemocratic behaviour of the Federal Council. The political damage caused by this will certainly be with us for some time to come.
Wouldn’t a popular discussion on the dubiousness of a US stealth bomber for the Swiss Armed Forces nevertheless make sense, especially today when the Federal Council is considering joint combat exercises with NATO?
I am very sceptical about so-called NATO Art. 5 exercises, i.e., alliance exercises. I don’t believe that this kind of exercise would be possible in terms of neutrality policy. The real question is whether one wants to join NATO and give up neutrality. We can have this discussion, but it should be a political decision and not a “technology-driven” one about a fighter jet.
Thank you very much for the interview, Madam National Councillor.
***
mw. And what does the responsible Federal Councillor have to say about this “massive damage to Switzerland’s direct democracy”? Head of the FDDPS Viola Amherd: “For me, this procedure is very democratic.” In response to the accusation that the hasty signing of the agreement would be an affront to the 100,000 or so people who signed the petition for a referendum, the Federal Councillor gave an astonishing answer: “An initiative has no legal precedence – and if special treatment were given to this initiative, we would hardly be able to realise any more projects. Whether that would be democratic, I don’t know.” (“Neue Zürcher Zeitung” of 14 September 2022. Emphasis: mw)
So the best thing is to abolish direct democracy, because otherwise our “servants of the people” can no longer do everything that suits them? This is precisely why the Swiss wrote direct democracy into their constitution: Here the people decide which “projects will be realised” and which will not! •