Disinformation must come from Russia – or does it?

In response to a postulate from the National Council on 9 March 2022, the Federal Council published a report on 19 June 2024 outlining “the extent to which Switzerland is affected by influencing activities and disinformation campaigns” and what measures are required to combat them.¹
  The report is not a prime example of neutral and factual information, as it is permeated by the tubular thinking that disinformation threatening Switzerland comes primarily from Russia or China: “From a Swiss perspective, actors that aggressively represent other values, norms and political systems and seek to undermine democratic institutions are particularly relevant in terms of state and security policy. The activities of Russia, but also China, are likely to remain the most relevant for Switzerland’s security in the medium and long term.” Although “Western states and alliances […] are also active in the information space”, according to the report these are generally “not to be categorised as a threat to Switzerland in terms of security policy […]”. (Report, p. 3/4)
  Information from Russian media on the war in Ukraine is discredited as disinformation as a matter of principle: “Russian social and online media channels offer a global audience an alternative interpretation, disinformation and deliberate falsification of reality in Ukraine.” (p. 4) In contrast, the report tries to persuade us that our mainstream media provide us with true and carefully researched information: “Quality media with high journalistic standards and an interested, critical audience, as is generally the case in Switzerland, help to curb the impact of influencing activities.” (p. 21) The real media world looks different: If it weren’t for other, independent media outlets, it would often be downright exasperating to see the disinformation and negative influence coming at us from our “quality media”.

Two examples of
Russian “influencing activities”

Example 1: “Since Russia placed Switzerland on its list of ‘unfriendly states’ following the imposition of sanctions in connection with the war against Ukraine, Russian disinformation activities tailored to Switzerland have increased, most recently in the context of the high-level conference on peace in Ukraine organised by Switzerland in summer 2024.” (p. 14) This is outrageous! Our ‘representatives of the people’ have been shouting along with the chorus of ‘Western values’ against Russia for years, imposing sanctions, freezing Russian assets without following the legal process, considering arms deliveries via NATO states to the warring party Ukraine and organising a show of united warmongers in a luxury resort near the Rütli – and if the Russian government doesn’t find this particularly funny, they are outraged. Incidentally, numerous Western authors in Switzerland and abroad have also spoken out with harsh criticism of the squandering of Swiss neutrality and taxpayers’ money. The Federal Council would be well advised to take these voices in East and West seriously and change its course.
  Example 2: Do you remember the uproar caused by the authorities and the media in autumn 2022? Because the Federal Council, in tow with the EU, stopped buying Russian gas and thus jeopardised the supply for its own population, we were pressured by the authorities to shower and heat less. According to a report by the Federal Council, a Swiss daily newspaper published proposed legislation according to which residents who heated their homes to over 19 degrees were to be fined or imprisoned. In the midst of this situation, a fake federal advertising poster circulated on X/Twitter and Telegram, claiming that anyone who denounced their neighbours who heated their homes too much would receive a reward of CHF 200 (Report, p. 15). No Russian inventions, just domestically produced reports.
  Now the Federal Council is actually accusing the Russian media of disseminating these Swiss media products: “International media, including the German-language RT, replicated this report on the same day.” The photomontage was distributed “via various social media and online platforms, including via non-authentic accounts attributed to the Russian influence network”. “The narrative it conveyed implied that the democratic system and the rule of law in Switzerland were dysfunctional and that autocratic conditions prevailed in this country. The aim was to unsettle and divide the population.” (Report, p. 15, emphasis mw).
  If that isn’t a concentrated load of disinformation, and one written by the Federal Council! Firstly, it regards it as disinformation when Russian media pass on the embarrassments that appear in the Swiss media. Secondly, according to the report, they are not even allowed to publish what other international media also publish. Thirdly, it is apparently not clear whether the fake poster was even passed on Russian platforms, and fourthly, the narrative criticised by the Federal Council is unfortunately not so wrong: the proposal from Swiss sources to prosecute citizens for their behaviour behind their own front door, i. e., in their private sphere, is of course contrary to human rights and undemocratic. Fifthly, the population was indeed unsettled in autumn 2022, but not because of the Russian media, but because the Federal Council failed to fulfil its obligation to provide sufficient gas.

At least …

• No ban on RT and Sputnik: Despite its adoption of almost all EU sanctions against Russia, the Federal Council has at least not adopted the ban on Russia Today and Sputnik, nor does it intend to do so, as it considers it “more effective […] to counter untrue and harmful statements with facts instead of banning them”. (Report, p. 21/22) In principle, we can agree with this. But who should decide what the facts are, if not us citizens?

• Freedom of opinion in accordance with the Federal Constitution and the Federal Supreme Court: Even if it threatens to be lost in the confusion and legal breaches of the “turnaround”, the Federal Constitution protects freedom of opinion and information and thus the free formation of opinion (see box).

The Federal Council also has to admit that “[t]he dissemination of false information is in principle protected by the freedom of expression as defined [by the articles of the Federal Constitution cited in the box].” The Federal Supreme Court firmly stands on constitutional ground: “In its case law, the Federal Supreme Court represents the basic assumption that individuals should be able to hear every opinion and information in order to form their own opinion in the free exchange of all statements.” (Report, p. 18)

So who’s pursuing
disinformation policy in this case?

‘Tages-Anzeiger’ headline 22 June 2024: “Fake news on Russia Today: ‘Switzerland wants to attack Russia’”. According to the newspaper, Priska Seiler Graf, SP National Councillor and President of the National Council’s Security Policy Committee (SPC-N), is the ‘victim of a propaganda story’ on RT DE.
  These are the facts:

SPC-N aims at transferring
Swiss weapons to Ukraine war

On June 18, 2024, the SPC-N proposed an amendment to the War Material Act (KMG). According to this amendment, the transfer of war material purchased in Switzerland by mainly Western countries² to a third country should be permitted if the third country “exercises its right of self-defence under international law”. The non-re-export declaration signed by the buyer state five or more years ago should be ‘considered lifted’ under certain conditions.³ The vote in the committee was 10 to 10 with 4 abstentions in favour of weakening the export ban to a war-torn state, currently Ukraine, with a casting vote by the committee’s President, Priska Seiler Graf (SP).
  It’s hard to believe: The same parliamentarians, mainly from the SP, who a few years ago successfully campaigned for a de facto ban on the transfer of Swiss-made weapons to war zones, now want to open the gates for arms deliveries into a hot war.

Quote Priska Seiler Graf
after the commission’s session

“We amended the War Material Act to the effect that re-exports of war material, i.e., indirect arms deliveries, are possible in very particular cases. And of course, it’s about Ukraine, that arms deliveries to Ukraine, arms that countries like Germany, France or Denmark bought from Switzerland, should be possible in future.” Question from the journalist: “And what about neutrality? Is it in danger?” Seiler Graf: “We had international law experts involved in the commission, we consulted them. They didn’t say it would be impossible under any circumstances or at all. There wasn’t quite a consensus on how far the law of neutrality actually goes. The Commission concluded that a political decision was needed if it was not really clear under international law. We have now made this decision. And neutrality is not in danger with this solution”.⁴
  A veritable rollercoaster ride: “There wasn’t quite a consensus” of the international law experts and the parliamentarians present on whether the planned regulation violated neutrality or not, but ‘ghaue or gschtoche’ (whatever the cost) half of the Commission members plus the President pushed the matter through. And in the end, they reassure themselves and the deceived citizens by saying that neutrality is not in danger.

Draft law contrary to
neutrality and international law:
consultation process underway

By the way, on 18 June the Commission didn’t ‘amend the War Material Act’, as Priska Seiler Graf claims, as it is not authorised to do so. Rather, the SPC-N sent its draft ‘for consultation’⁵ , which isn’t in line with Swiss legislative procedure, neither. This is because the National Council and the Council of States and, in the final instance, the people decide on parliamentary initiatives by means of an optional referendum – this also applies in the present case, regardless of the extraordinary consultation procedure.
  As already mentioned, the draft is contrary to neutrality. The statement in the media release: “The draft is within the framework of neutrality law” deliberately misleads citizens. Moreover, the draft is contrary to international law, as it explicitly bypasses the UN Security Council: “In the eyes of the SPC-N, the proposed amendment would allow Switzerland to support Ukraine in a situation in which the UN Security Council is unable to determine a massive violation of international law”. This is a violation of the UN Charter.
  Here, action is needed: The consultation of the SPC-N on its draft will last until 21 October 2024. Citizens and citizens’ groups opposing the abandonment of the unique Swiss model can send their comments as a PDF or Word document to armscontrol@seco.admin.ch and also disseminate them among the population.

Comment by RT DE 

After these outrageous events in the Swiss parliament, the frank commentary by Russia Today entitled “Switzerland wants to bomb Russian cities” from 19 June 2024⁶ is unfortunately well deserved and largely correct in terms of content. The fact that Swiss politics, after the ‘Bürgenflop’ (the flop of Bürgenstock), is once again giving cause to expose our once highly esteemed country to ridicule hurts our souls. The Russians cannot be blamed for this either. It’s just that the over-focus on the President of the Security Commission and the comments about her make-up or her childhood dreams are tasteless and contribute nothing to an objective discussion. As for the so-called fake pictures, everyone can easily recognise them as montages: Portrait of Priska Seiler Graf, destroyed houses in the background or the launch of a missile. Legend about the destroyed house: “Neither the fact that she is a mother of three children nor Switzerland’s traditional neutrality seem to influence her. She uncompromisingly calls for more arms deliveries to Ukraine. More death for the Russians”. Legend about the flying missile: “SP National Councillor Priska Seiler Graf: ‘Neutrality is not in danger at all’”.
  RT DE’s concluding remark must have been a real shock to us Swiss: “Should a war between Switzerland and Russia actually break out, as was instigated by Seiler Graf, an ICBM missile would take a cosy 13 minutes to travel from Russia to Zurich-Kloten [the National Councillor’s place of residence]”. Yes, it is hard to be confronted with the unpleasant reality. By supplying weapons to a war zone, Switzerland would not be contributing to peace, but to the deaths of men, women and children, while at the same time jeopardising our own security. We should thank any journalist for pointing this out to us. Do we carry on recklessly wasting our neutrality – or do we take strong countermeasures?  •

¹ «Influence operations and disinformation». Report ot the Federal Council 19 June 2024.. https://www.newsd.admin.ch/newsd/message/attachments/88281.pdf
² alisted in annex 2 of the War Material Ordinance
³ Text of the motion https://www.parlament.ch/centers/documents/de/SIK-N%20Presserohstoff%20D.pdf
⁴ https://www.blick.ch/politik/priska-seiler-graf-die-neutralitaet-ist-ueberhaupt-nicht-in-gefahr-id19858324.html
⁵ Press release from 28 June 2024. https://www.parlament.ch/press-releases/Pages/mm-sik-n-2024-06-28.aspx
⁶ https://de.rt.com/schweiz/209632-schweiz-will-russische-staedte-bombardieren/