Swiss neutrality – Commitment to peace has a price

The German philosopher Peter Sloterdijk recently argued that Switzerland disproves the widespread assertion that direct democracy is impossible. He went on to say: “That is why there is an attempt to level Switzerland. Both the attempt from outside and the self-levelling tendencies within the country must be opposed and countered with dissent.” The same can also be said of Swiss neutrality. This has been levelled for some time now, as well from the outside with pressure from the USA and the EU and owing to adjustment to the NATO level, but also internally, as there has been an unprecedented levelling of neutrality since the end of the Cold War. In the face of the war in Ukraine, this has now reached a low point, with the help of media and party-political barrages. Swiss neutrality has been practically pulverised. The outcome of the Bürgenstock Conference and the behaviour of the Federal Council make this fact abundantly clear. Switzerland is fully integrated into the ‘Western camp’ and is anything but neutral. In support of this gesture of submission, the argument is repeatedly put forward that Switzerland should finally comply with international law and the UN Charter rather than adhere to outdated treaties such as the Hague Convention. This argument is untenable and seeks to cement Switzerland’s current position in the international arena. It is opposed by the recently submitted neutrality initiative, which aims to re-establish Swiss neutrality in the constitution and in the consciousness of the Swiss population.

The UN Charter and 
the ban on the use of force

Switzerland has been a member of the UN since 2002 and is basically obliged to abide by the UN Charter. The UN Charter is applicable international law and contains a ban on the use of force. The preamble to the UN Charter states: “We, the peoples of the United Nations, determined to save future generations from the scourge of war […]”. This Charter is undoubtedly a major step forward after the Second World War and represents an important milestone on the road to the concretisation of international law. However, the prohibition of the use of force is immediately shaken again due to two restrictions. The first restriction refers to the “inherent right of individual or collective self-defence” (Art. 51). The second restriction describes the right of the UN Security Council to use force with a corresponding mandate (Art. 42ff.). Political practice since the founding of the UN demonstrates the problematic nature of these exceptions. Since the end of the Second World War, the major powers have used the restrictions on the prohibition of the use of force to stage wars directly or indirectly on a practically permanent basis. As the ‘only’ world power, the USA has continued this practice of war since the end of the Cold War, whether with or without a UN mandate.

The First Gulf War of 1990/91
as a ‘war in accordance with international law’ 
and the positioning of Switzerland

In compliance with a Security Council resolution, the First Gulf War of 1990/91 was “in conformity with international law”. After the occupation and annexation of Kuwait by Iraq, the Security Council had initially decided on economic sanctions. However, in view of Saddam Hussein’s intransigence, the USA was soon unwilling to wait any longer for the UN economic sanctions to take effect or to respond to the mediation efforts of Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev. The USA was pursuing its own geopolitical and power-political goals. Immediately after the expiry of an ultimatum and based on a Security Council decision, the Allied air force, led by the USA, unleashed a brutal air war against Iraq. Of the almost 90,000 tonnes of bombs dropped by the allies over Iraq, around two thirds failed to hit their intended targets. The number of mainly civilian victims of these bombings is estimated at 150,000. And this is supposed to be “in accordance with international law”? The air war lasted over a month, the subsequent attack by ground troops only a few days, until the complete surrender of the Iraqi army. But even after that, Iraq continued to be subject to a strict economic embargo, which was in turn secured by a Security Council mandate.
  Although Switzerland was not yet a member of the UN at the time, the Federal Council declared its autonomous implementation of economic sanctions against Iraq. According to the Federal Council, this was compatible with neutrality. A booklet on ‘Swiss Neutrality’ from 2004, which is however no longer available, states on page 21: “Switzerland is moving away from integral neutrality. It participates in economic sanctions against Iraq.” The new FDFA and DDPS brochure (of March 2022) does not even mention this any longer! This change in strategy, which also means an erosion of Swiss neutrality, was never discussed publicly. Economic sanctions against Libya, Haiti and Yugoslavia followed in the 1990s. The Federal Council’s 1993 neutrality report confirmed and emphasised this reorientation.
  Economic sanctions demonstrably achieve nothing, as eminently shown by the sanctions against Iraq, which continued for years after the war. Sanctions of this kind primarily affect the innocent civilian population and violate international law (especially international humanitarian law) and human rights. Destruction of the infrastructure and especially of the health system in Iraq had devastating consequences: according to UN organisations such as UNICEF or WHO, more than one million people died in Iraq between 1991 and 2001, including more than 500,000 children under the age of five, owing to the economic sanctions, i.e. the lack of food and medical aid these generated. Such facts are also confirmed by a dramatic report by Hans-Christof von Sponeck who, in protest against the sanctions, announced his resignation after around 16 months as coordinator of the UN humanitarian aid programme for Iraq. Switzerland is jointly responsible for these consequences suffered by the Iraqi civilian population, since it uncritically supported the economic sanctions and thus severely damaged its own neutrality.
  Sanctions of this kind would no longer be possible if the neutrality initiative were accepted, and Switzerland would have greater potential to promote peace. The Federal Council, rejects this initiative without a counter-proposal, and writes in response that sanctions serve “the maintenance of a peaceful and just international order”. As the above example shows, such a statement is completely out of touch with reality. Sanctions always mean intensified mutual alienation between the parties to the conflict; the actual war is prolonged and subsequent international understanding is made much more difficult.

International law is ‘precarious’

The example of the First Gulf War is a good illustration of the precarious nature of the international law valid today. The well-known Swiss international law expert Oliver Diggelmann also emphasises this fact in his basic work “Völkerrecht. Geschichte und Grundlagen mit Seitenblicken auf die Schweiz” (International Law. History and basics with sideways glances at Switzerland). With regard to, among other things, the UN Charter, he writes: “International law is not only created differently from domestic law. It is also enforced in a different way, is altogether more uncertain, more diffuse, less reliable in terms of expectations. The juxtaposition of the highly developed and the precarious, which is so irritating, is something we are not familiar with in the domestic sphere. This irritation is not temporary. It is not an anomaly of international law that will disappear any time soon”.
  The First Gulf War was just the beginning of the USA’s claim to power after the end of the Cold War. Before most of the subsequent wars, the USA did not even wait for a Security Council decision, but deployed its military machinery, supported by other ‘willing parties’ including mercenaries. The Serbia/Kosovo war of 1999, launched without a UN mandate, can be cited as an example. In this war, too, the most serious war crimes were committed. The use of DU ammunition (Depleted Uranium) had devastating consequences for the fighting soldiers on both sides as well as for the civilian population (‘Balkan syndrome’), and this was demonstrably due to the ammunition used. In Iraq and Serbia/Kosovo, the cancer rate has reached unimagined heights to this day. The USA and its allies blatantly violated the basic principles of international humanitarian law, but have practically never since been prosecuted on that account.

The ‘values-based order’ of the West

The Western narrative of a ‘values-based order’ is repeatedly being invoked in connection with the war in Ukraine. The question remains: what ‘order’ is meant here in our chaotic world, and, in particular, what ‘values’ are the Western states relying on? The value of ‘democracy’, for example, is undergoing dramatic erosion in some European countries and also in the USA, as we are currently witnessing. It is, however, interesting to observe how differently countries in Latin America, Africa and Asia view the current conflicts and wars. They counter with their own assessment the flat historiography that Putin violated international law with his attack on Ukraine and thus destroyed the ‘rules-based security order’ that had existed since the end of the Cold War. They emphasise the background and long history of conflicts and that the “right of self-defence under international law” has been part of Western war logic in most wars since the Second World War. This was – and is – merely intended to justify the wars themselves and the continuation of wars. Notably International humanitarian law is thereby being trampled underfoot.
  The countries of the South in particular are urging that the necessary reforms of the UN institutions, and especially of the Security Council, be tackled now so that these can finally take account of the newly emerging multipolarity of the world and so that international law can continue to evolve in a just manner.

Neutral Switzerland as guarantor
of international humanitarian law

Switzerland is the depositary state of the Geneva Conventions. It is precisely from this responsible position that Switzerland should defend international humanitarian law and take a credible neutral stance. International humanitarian law is less precarious than the UN Charter, the foundation of which in international law is unstable, as has been shown. The UN Charter is repeatedly slammed over Swiss neutrality, which has grown historically and is based on older treaties, such as the Vienna Congress Act of 1815 and a Hague Convention of 1907. In principle, the age of a document says nothing about its significance for the present. The preamble to the UN Charter puts it this way: “We, the peoples of the United Nations, determined [...] to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained [...]”. However, the essence of Swiss neutrality does not only consist of treaties and documents; neutrality is the head, heart and soul of Switzerland and is condensed in a certain attitude and in certain actions.
  The Swiss history of neutrality shows numerous positive examples of mediation and peace services. Unfortunately, these have not been analysed seriously enough, especially during the Cold War. This should now be made up for with concrete studies.

The significance of 
the neutrality initiative

According to the Federal Chancellery, the neutrality initiative will come to the vote. It provides the necessary clarity and gives guidance to parliament and the Federal Council. This is crucial in an increasingly belligerent era. Swiss neutrality should be clearly defined in the Federal Constitution. In a paper worked out to summarise its arguments against the neutrality initiative, the Federal Council says: “Affording a certain degree of flexibility, it (Switzerland’s current practice of neutrality) is an ideal instrument for safeguarding national interests.” Such a “cherry-picker mentality” will make Switzerland look like a profiteer. This “flexibility”, this neutrality à la carte should be a thing of the past, it must change.
  Swiss neutrality has a price. This price, high as it is, must be paid by Switzerland in favour of peace, even against great powers’ ill will. Because, as the Swiss historian Wolfgang von Wartburg writes: “There must be a place in the world that exclusively serves peace”. By accepting and implementing the neutrality initiative, we can ensure that there is no further rapprochement with NATO and that Switzerland can consistently serve peace. What the liberal thought leader Robert Nef says about the permanence of neutrality will then apply: “It is part of the nature of principles that they are built to last and must prove resistant to the changing spirit of the times”.
  Switzerland can redevelop this resilience and steadfastness by accepting this initiative. At the same time, it can initiate thought processes on how general international law (including the UN Charter) can serve peace even better if based on an image of humanity founded on natural law.  •

* René Roca holds a doctorate in history and is a member of the initiative committee ‘Safeguarding Swiss Neutrality (neutrality initiative)’.