A return to Swiss neutrality

“Many people believe that neutrality per se is amoral. Is that so?” “Amoral? No, on the contrary. Neutrality is one of the highest moral values. If all countries were neutral and would actively advocate armed neutrality, there would be no more war in this world.” (Stephan Rietiker, member of the initiative committee of the Neutrality Initiative).¹

The fact that the German government is eagerly serving its masters on the other side of the Atlantic with ever more “powerful” weapons (i. e., weapons that will extend and prolong the terrible slaughter) into the Ukrainian war is intolerable enough. But an intolerable bursting of the dam from the Swiss point of view is that some Social Democrats in the Swiss National Council want to follow the “big party brother” in Berlin and throw the remaining neutrality of our country completely overboard. On 24 January, the Security Policy Committee of the National Council (SPC-N) adopted two proposals by 14 votes in favour – not only from the Social Democratic Party! – and with 11 votes against, that are clearly contrary to neutrality. The National Council is urged to put a clear stop to this proposal.

Even the UN Security Council would hardly order
Swiss arms deliveries to a country at war

“The idea of redefining neutrality through exceptions would weaken the predictability of Swiss neutrality for potential belligerents [...]. Exceptions would expose Switzerland to pressure from belligerents to adopt their views on the justification of their use of force”. (Marco Sassòli, professor of international law at the University of Geneva)²
  According to the current War Material Act (WMA), the legal situation is crystal clear: an arms export to a foreign government can only be approved if the government has signed a non-re-export declaration (Art. 18 para. 1). And further: “Export trade […] shall not be authorised if: a. the country of destination is involved in an internal or international armed conflict” (Art. 22a para 2).
  The majority of the Committee now wants to overturn this ban, which is based on neutrality and humanitarian views, so that foreign governments can supply arms purchased in Switzerland to Ukraine. The Federal Council (the executive!) is to be given the power to “declare the non-re-export declaration as reversed at the request of a foreign government”. It is that simple to abolish neutrality … The draft of the National Council’s Security Policy Committee requires as a prerequisite a resolution of the UN Security Council or – if no decision is reached due to a veto – that “a violation of the prohibition of the use of force under international law pursuant to Article 2 (par. 4) of the Charter of the United Nations has been declared by a two-thirds majority of the General Assembly of the United Nations”.³
  Oliver Diggelmann, professor of international law at the University of Zurich, comments: “Only the UN Security Council can dispense a neutral state from its duties, and only if it orders coercive measures. Then, and really only then, do UN decisions take precedence over the law of neutrality.”⁴
  It should be added that although the UN Security Council can order military coercive measures against a member country in accordance with Chapter VII of the UN Charter (Art. 42 f.), it is rather unlikely that it would demand of Switzerland to renounce non-re-export agreements. What is quite certain is that the UN General Assembly can politically condemn an attack as contrary to international law, but this has no legal effect.

“Lex Ukraine”: an absolute absurdity

“Is it possible to be both neutral and in solidarity? [...] Yes, if it is a matter of solidarity with the victims, which always exist on both sides in wars. This is also the basic idea of the International Red Cross, which devotes itself at the service of the victims of all belligerents without taking sides.” (Robert Nef, long-time editor of the “Schweizer Monatshefte”)⁵
  The majority of the National Council’s Security Policy Committee is far removed from this profoundly compassionate attitude, which underlies the Swiss understanding of neutrality. Rather, their second proposal of 24 January, the proposed “Lex Ukraine”, tramples on the principles of the rule of law and neutrality and would even turn Switzerland into a true warmonger: “The non-re-export declaration will lapse if it is established that the re-export of the war material to Ukraine takes place in connection with the Russian-Ukrainian war”. This with a temporary amendment to Art. 18 of the War Material Act (WMA), which is to be declared urgent – that means, it would already come into force before a possible referendum vote.
  Professor Oliver Diggelmann: “But that is not possible, under international law, under neutrality law. You can’t say at the same time: Look, we’re neutral, and then immediately follow it up with: Look again, we also show a little military solidarity with the right side.”⁶

Green Party of Switzerland opposes this

11 out of 25 members of the Security Committee of the National Council voted against the unilateral lifting of the ban on arms exports to countries at war and thus against the weakening of Switzerland’s neutrality (media release of 24 January 2023). The “no” votes came from the Greens, the SVP and individual members of other parties. The clear positioning of the Green Party is particularly gratifying.
  Current Concerns asked Marionna Schlatter, National Councillor of the Green Party (ZH) and member of the Security Policy Committee of the National Council, why she voted no.

Current Concerns: Yourself and the two other commission members from the Green Party have rejected both proposals. What are your most important reasons from a neutrality perspective?
Marionna Schlatter: The Greens grew out of the peace movement. We consider the export of war material for a militarily neutral country to be fundamentally problematic. That is why we are critical of any relaxation of the legislation on the export of war material. We do not consider making an exception for the war in Ukraine to be compatible with the law of neutrality, which requires that parties to a conflict be treated equally with regard to the export of war material.

From a democratic point of view: the parliament banned arms exports to countries at war and civil war in 2021 as an indirect counter-proposal to the popular initiative “No weapons to civil war countries (corrective initiative)” in order to persuade the initiators to withdraw the initiative. And now to reverse the tightening?
With the indirect counter-proposal to the corrective initiative, more restrictive legislation on arms exports to civil war countries came into force in May 2022. The proposal was supported by a broad coalition of political parties and civil society, as well as by a large part of the population. This wish for strict export conditions for war material should finally be respected. Instead, the first opportunity is being taken to weaken the issue again.

The Swiss’ debate about sense
and purpose of neutrality is at hand

“The permanent neutrality of modern Switzerland […] acts as a promise, not only to act neutral according to any given situation, but to be willing to act neutral towards all potential conflicts in the future. The very core of the logics of neutrality is not to refrain from all international affairs, but to engage in active relationship management to be on good (or at least acceptable) terms with all parties involved in a certain conflict. Hence, diplomacy is always committed most when wars or international conflicts prevail.” (Pascal Lottaz, Dr phil. Historian and Philosopher)⁷
  We as Swiss people have to hold on to neutrality as an indispensable pillar of the Swiss state model even stronger these days. Especially because we have to be able to manage the urgent upcoming humanitarian and diplomatic tasks within the many wars and crises on this globe.
  From another perspective, the NZZ editorial department is thinking about to where an open discussion on the future of neutrality among the population may lead; If one wants to wave through the passing on of armament goods, Switzerland has no way around an altercation about this question. It is dawning on the journalist that the neutrality initiative could “suddenly gain chances” during such a debate. The fact that neutrality is deeply rooted in the national identity of the vast majority of Swiss men and women, even nowadays, does not suit the mainstream medias’ book at all for a long time now. The “Neue Zürcher Zeitung” explains their reservations against the neutrality initiative with the following: “Its approval would restrict Switzerland’s ability to cope with international conflicts even more than it is the case today.”⁸
  That means: The acceptance of the initiative by the Swiss people would avoid the ever-growing integration into the EU and NATO as intended by the “Neue Zürcher Zeitung” and other actors. So let’s get going!
  The closing words shall be given to SP National Council member Fabian Molina: “The value of neutrality according to the Den Haag convention in 1907 is the fact that Switzerland can take on a very special role as a peace power. As a state without alliances, we can invest into peace promotion, act as mediators and open doors, unlike the NATO countries. We should use this opportunity even more than we have done in the past.”⁹
  So even EU-Turbo Fabian Molina has internalised a piece of neutrality. This is also a part of Switzerland.  •

¹ Grob, Ronnie. “Tauziehen um die Neutralität” (Tug of war over neutrality). Interview with Pro-Schweiz President Stephan Rietiker and SP National Councillor Fabian Molina. In: Schweizer Monat of December 2022/January 2023
² Sassòli, Marco. “Neutralität gibt’s nicht à la carte” (Neutrality is not à la carte). In: Schweizer Monat of December 2022/January 2023
³ Kommission will Wiederausfuhr von Kriegsmaterial in die Ukraine erlauben” (Committee wants to allow re-export of war material to Ukraine). Media release of the Security Policy Committee of the National Council, 24 January 2023
⁴ Wanner, Christine. “Soll das Schweizer Kriegsmaterialgesetz angepasst werden?” (Should the Swiss War Material Act be adapted?) In: Radio SRF, Echo der Zeit of 26 January 2023
⁵ Nef, Robert. “Die bewaffnete Neutralität ist ein Friedensangebot” (Armed neutrality is a peace offering). Guest contribution in Schweizer Monat of December 2022/January 2023
⁶ Wanner, Christine. “Soll das Schweizer Kriegsmaterialgesetz angepasst werden?” (Should the Swiss War Material Act be adapted?) In: Radio SRF,Echo der Zeit of 26 January 2023
⁷ Lottaz, Pascal. “Im neuen Kalten Krieg ist die Schweiz Konfliktpartei”. (In the new Cold War, Switzerland is a party to the conflict). In: Schweizer Monat of December 2022/January 2023
⁸ Gerny, Daniel. “Die Schweiz in der Neutralitätsfalle: wie es so weit kommen konnte – und drei Wege, wie sich die Politik befreien kann” (Switzerland in the neutrality trap: how it could come to this – and three ways in which politics can free itself). In: Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 28 January 2023
⁹ Grob, Ronnie. “Tauziehen um die Neutralität” (Tug of war over neutrality). Interview with Pro-Schweiz President Stephan Rietiker and SP National Councillor Fabian Molina. In: Schweizer Monat of December 2022/January 2023