Who is afraid of the neutrality initiative?

The launch of the neutrality initiative at the beginning of November last year was successful, and the project is now in the phase of collecting signatures. Rarely does an initiative have such a topical relevance. The war in Ukraine and the demands directed at Switzerland for direct or indirect arms deliveries are putting Switzerland under intense pressure as a neutral country. Recently, however, there have been increasing indications that certain circles are actively obstructing the collection of signatures for the initiative and want to unsettle the Swiss population. The aim is to undermine the broad support for Swiss neutrality and cause it to crumble. Manipulation techniques are being used to denigrate the initiative and its authors, with the aim of preventing people from signing the initiative in the first place and causing it to fail at the collection stage. If this does not succeed, at least a carpet of misinformation has already been laid out for a future voting campaign. For example, the historian Marco Jorio calls the neutrality initiative the “Putin initiative”, an outrageous statement without any reference to reality. Is this meant to eliminate one’s own reflection?
  A high point of such defamation is now provided by the historian Jakob Tanner, who makes the supporters of the initiative appear as they were ideologically related to dictators and fascists (“Neue Zürcher Zeitung” of 22 May 2023). In doing so, Tanner reaches into the mothballs of the old-68 neo-Marxists. He wants to tear the mask off the faces of alleged “fascists” and ignores the fact that with the help of the initiative, citizens simply have an original democratic concern, namely to discuss a cornerstone of Switzerland’s understanding of the state and to anchor it more clearly in the Federal Constitution. In addition, some statements on the neutrality initiative simply misrepresent facts. For example, Tanner claims that the Federal Council adopted the EU sanctions against Russia after a “five-day learning phase”. However, the Federal Council did not do this after a closed meeting out of “higher understanding”, but because of massive threats from the USA. In addition, the Swiss major banks – among them ironically the CS! – also put pressure on the Federal Council after the start of the Ukraine war; because for them the lucrative US business was in danger. The US government threatened with sanctions, if Switzerland did not give in. Did this course of events escape the attention of the bank critic Tanner or is he, like the FDP president, now firmly in the hands of the “transatlantics”? This also shows striking parallels to the 1990s, when Tanner was part of the Bergier Commission and helped to deconstruct the Swiss understanding of history. Obviously, many commentators also today are not concerned with the analysis of historical sources, but rather with the devaluation or reevaluation of Swiss values such as neutrality and humanity.
  Myths about the origins of the initiative are also intensely spread, and many people are willing to disseminate them further. There is no doubt that Christoph Blocher [Swiss People’s Party, national-conservative] gave the impetus for the initiative. For some, just this name alone is enough to turn off their own critical mind. Blocher’s idea was then taken up and implemented by a non-party group. The real initiative text was developed through an interactive process. The result of this are the present articles that are to be incorporated into the Federal Constitution. They are also based on a detailed legal expert opinion. The initiative was therefore not hatched in some back room and is not controlled by any party headquarters. All those involved, and now above all the initiative committee, are genuinely concerned to finally clarify the pending issues surrounding Swiss neutrality.
  Incidentally, there are also opponents of the initiative who would like to see such a fundamental discussion on Swiss neutrality and who therefore sign the initiative. Only in this way it will be possible that the population can discuss the proposal objectively. The central question is whether Switzerland should return to integral neutrality in a democratic process. Already for thirty years, or more precisely since the First Gulf War in 1991, Switzerland has had only a “differential” neutrality. It supports economic sanctions, some of which have devastating effects on the civilian population affected, but which have practically no influence on the course of a conflict. Such an approach harms the work of the ICRC and demonstrably weakens the Good Offices. Switzerland is facing one of the greatest challenges since the Second World War. Does it want to subjugate itself submissively with Europe to the US dictate and thus put power or force before right and humanity? Or does it want to strengthen international humanitarian law as a neutral country and actively offer a hand to end wars and reconcile opponents?  •

* René Roca holds a doctorate in history and is a member of the initiative committee “Preservation of Swiss neutrality (neutrality initiative)”.