Upside down world
Fairy tale about neutrality law that violates the UN Charter
by Dr iur. Marianne Wüthrich
Marianne and Werner Wüthrich. “Neutralität als Chance” (Neutrality as an opportunity). New edition available at https://neutralitaet-ja.ch/ or as a brochure by post from marianne.wuethrich@thurweb.ch
It is nothing new that some Swiss want to push for the abolition of Swiss neutrality and the NATO integration of our country – they started doing this long before 24 February 2022. Today they are using the Ukraine war to completely submit our country and its army to the “value west” and the “rules-based order” invented by some US strategists. To this end, they come up with a lot of ideas.
Participation in
the wars of NATO and EU?
Recently, the relevant Swiss NATO and EU turbos spread a “manifesto” for neutrality in the 21st century, which propagates the military integration of Switzerland into NATO and the EU: “A powerful army serves a credible security policy for Switzerland, independently whether Switzerland is neutral or not. During times of peace Switzerland prepares itself with NATO and the EU so that in the event of aggression it can defend itself militarily together with the democratic constitutional states. It works closely with them in armament, training and leadership, so that the interoperability of the armed forces and the combat of combined arms is ensured.” According to the manifesto, this is one of the “cornerstones of Swiss neutrality” (sic!).1
Hague Conventions – “antiquated”?
European law expert Thomas Cottier, co-author of this paper, then tried to mislead the majority of the population, who adhere to Swiss neutrality, in a newspaper article in order to advance the goals of the “manifesto”. To this end, he first wants to do away with the neutrality law of the Hague Conventions of 1907 and thereby give Switzerland the “green light” to supply arms to the war in Ukraine. The Hague Conventions contradict the prohibition of force in the UN Charter and are “out of time” anyway.2 The long-time Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) director and ambassador Martin Dahinden debunked this bizarre claim a few days earlier, also in a NZZ commentary: “Among the Opponents of Swiss neutrality A strange argument came up: The Hague Convention of 1907, which regulates the law of neutrality, is no longer valid because there was no ban on the use of force between states under international law at that time.” In reality, however, the Hague Conventions would only define the rights and obligations of neutral states in the event of war: “But they in no way concern – neither explicitly nor implicitly – the question of whether the use of force is legitimate or not.” Cottier & Co’s intention is clear, says Dahinden: an open departure from neutrality is not politically acceptable in Switzerland today. “Hence the resort to retelling the international law foundations of neutrality and claiming that the law of neutrality is no longer valid and is outdated.”3
It is noteworthy that Dahinden pointed out that in some wars it is controversial “whether it is legitimate self-defense or aggression that violates international law”. It takes some courage to make such a statement in times when freedom of expression has effectively been abolished.
Neutrality and the UN Charter
prohibition of the use of force
The aim of the UN Charter is to maintain world peace through “friendly relations between nations based on respect for the principle of equality and self-determination of peoples” (Article 1, paragraphs 1 and 2). The prohibition of the use of force under international law according to Article 2, Paragraph 4 of the Charter is central to achieving this goal. Thomas Cottier’s claim that Switzerland is obliged to deliver war material to Ukraine in accordance with the prohibition of force in the UN Charter and Ukraine’s right to self-defence is untrue. Only in the event of a resolution by the UN Security Council under Chapter VII (“Measures in the event of a threat or breach of the peace and in the event of acts of aggression”) would Switzerland be obliged to possibly tolerate the overflight of foreign war aircraft or similar, but certainly not an active contribution to the war such as deliveries of weapons. However, due to the constellation of veto powers, such a Security Council decision is not to be expected in the Ukraine war.
Wolf Linder, Swiss professor emeritus for political science, straightened things out in a key article from 16 July 2024. Regarding the relationship between Swiss neutrality and the UN Charter and, above all, its prohibition of violence, he stated that “the basic orientation of Swiss neutrality lies in universal international peace law, as laid down in the UN Charter.” The Charter’s prohibition of force is “the basis of neutrality that can be used to mediate, prevent and resolve conflicts worldwide. This does not mean doing nothing or remaining silent in conflicts. Neutrality earns its credibility when it raises its voice against all sides when it comes to violations of the law that endanger peace - including those committed by the ‘Western community of values’.”4
“Collective self-defense”
with NATO – That’ll be the day!
A masterpiece of disinformation is Thomas Cottier’s association of Switzerland with the “right to collective self-defense” in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter: “Switzerland has been a member of the UN since 2002. It has decided to take part in collective self-defense in favor of Ukraine, which is largely supported by the NATO states and the EU.” As the author knows very well, Switzerland cannot take part in “collective self-defense” in the Ukraine war or elsewhere, because this is tied to a military alliance, i.e., primarily to NATO membership. The Foreign Office of the Federal Republic of Germany writes: “NATO is an alliance of collective defense.” An example of this is “the reinsurance measures in the eastern alliance area that were decided upon as a result of the annexation of Crimea in March 2014, which violated international law, and the continued destabilization of eastern Ukraine by Russia.”5
Quite a distortion of the duty of mutual assistance in the event of an armed attack on the territory of a NATO state. As is well known, neither the Ukraine war nor the numerous previous NATO wars took place on the territory of NATO member states.
But back to Switzerland. The untruthful claim that she is participating “of her own decision” in the collective self-defense of NATO and the EU6 in Ukraine is intended to pave the way for the neutrality-contrary plans of “Manifestation Neutrality 21”.
Blood on our hands?
It cannot be the case that a Swiss law professor suggests that Switzerland must defend the “international order” from the US test tube and the “security of Europe” by not only allowing the transfer of Swiss war material to third countries, but also “directly the export of war material to Ukraine for its defense and to protect the civilian population”. Switzerland is “entitled to do this under international law and also obliged under human rights”, Cottier claims (!).7 For this purpose, Cottier also uses Article 54, Paragraph 2 of the Federal Constitution. It says that Swiss foreign policy is committed to “preserving Switzerland’s independence” and “contributing to peaceful coexistence between peoples”. By marching in NATO’s wars? By aiding and abetting the slaughter of men, women and children using Swiss weapons? We‘ve come a long way!
Neutrality initiative: anchoring neutrality
in the federal constitution
The successfully submitted neutrality initiative counters such deviations from the tried and tested Swiss path of neutrality by anchoring perpetual armed neutrality in the federal constitution as an indispensable principle of Swiss foreign policy for the good of one’s own country and the world. On the great importance of neutrality in a world of wars, Wolf Linder: “To play down neutrality today is short-sighted. The risks of war are increasing worldwide. Ukraine shows as an example that many conflicts could have been prevented or resolved peacefully if the ‘neutrality’ option had been seriously considered in a timely manner. In the multipolar world, the risk of war increases if all countries join one of the major power blocs. On the other hand, peace has greater chances worldwide if more countries remain or become independent and neutral. That’s why neutrality has a future and advantages not only for our country.”8 •
1 Manifest. A neutrality for the 21st century of 29 May 2024
2 Cottier, Thomas. “The core question of the neutrality debate.” In: Neue Zürcher Zeitung of 12 July 2024
3 Dahinden, Martin. “On the retelling of the law of neutrality”. In: Neue Zürcher Zeitung of 8 July 2024
4 Linder, Wolf. “More neutrality or more NATO?” In: Neue Zürcher Zeitung of 16 July 2024
5 https://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/de/aussenpolitik/regelbasierte-internationale-ordnung/nato/verteidigung/207412
6 According to Article 42 Paragraph 7 TEU, the EU states also have a right to mutual assistance.
7 Cottier, Thomas. “The core question of the neutrality debate.” In: Neue Zürcher Zeitung of 12 July 2024
8 Linder, Wolf. “More neutrality or more NATO?” In: Neue Zürcher Zeitung of 16 July 2024
Neutrality advocates not wanted in the DDPS!
mw. The fact that DDPS head Viola Amherd and her army chief Thomas Süssli would rather see Switzerland in the NATO today than tomorrow is nothing new. But the fact that they are throwing out deserving and blameless high-ranking officers and diplomats because they have apparently spoken out in favour of neutrality and criticised the linkage of Switzerland to NATO is a scandal of a higher order.
This is well known: According to an article in Weltwoche, the two major generals Guy Vallat (almost 60 years old, i.e. a few years before retirement) and Mathias Tüscher (57 years old), both of whom have worked successfully and undisputedly for the DDPS for many years, recently fell victim to the Personnel Security Review (PSP) of the Federal Department of Defence, Civil Protection and Sport (DDPS).
Weltwoche comments: “The exact background to the Vallat/Tüscher case remains unknown. However, sceptical voices can be heard from within the DDPS: Their impression is that voices critical of Nato are being tolerated less and less at the top.”1 So much for the neutrality that is often invoked by the Swiss government, but is in fact being observed less and less.
Accordingly, candidates for the post of head of the newly created State Secretariat for Security Policy (Sepos) who were in favour of a neutral Switzerland, i.e. independent of the NATO, were obviously unwelcome, including Ambassador Jean-Daniel Ruch and the longstanding diplomat and Lieutenant Colonel in the General Staff Thomas Greminger. Instead, Markus Mäder, who is pushing ahead with the Nato rapprochement at full throttle, was appointed head of the Sepos. According to Weltwoche, Greminger was considered “too Russia-friendly” in “NATO-affine circles”. In fact, Greminger’s most urgent task as Switzerland’s Permanent Representative to the OSCE was to hold talks with Russia and Ukraine in order to reach an understanding. He would have almost succeeded in doing so in the highly explosive year of 2014, together with Federal Councillor and FDFA head Didier Burkhalter and Swiss diplomat Heidi Tagliavini, if various Western governments had not blocked the OSCE’s beneficial activities. If Swiss diplomats are no longer allowed to hold talks with all parties, then our neutrality has truly abdicated.
Unconstitutional attitude
checks by the DDPS
Incidentally, the NATO-hungry Sepos chief Mäder is also in charge of the specialist centre for personal security checks...
As far as the constitutional rights of citizens to freedom of expression and privacy are concerned: the “data collection and processing” of the DDPS’s personal security check covers, among other things, “religious views or activities”, “ideological views”, “political views or activities” and “trade union views or activities”, but also “data on close personal relationships and family circumstances of the person to be checked, in particular: 1. Civil status, 2. Intimate sphere and sexuality, 3. Relationship to family, 4. Identity of parents, 5. Circle of friends.”2 These are just a few examples of the extent to which the DDPS tramples on the freedom of expression and privacy of its employees.
Exemplary work of
defence attaché Guy Vallat in Paris
Divisional Officer Guy Vallat has been working in Paris for three years as defence attaché for France, Belgium and Luxembourg. Weltwoche author Rafael Lutz suspects that Vallat “perhaps spoke a little too much in his office, and then also with the “wrong people””, could have become “a thorn in the side of the DDPS top brass”. Laconic communication from the DDPS dated 4 July 2024: “The Swiss defence attaché in Paris, Divisional Officer Guy Vallat, will resign from his duties on 15 July 2024. As part of a properly conducted personal security check (PSP), he could not be issued with a security clearance.” Take a look for yourself at the radio interview with Guy Vallat that Lutz mentions in his article. If a Swiss citizen is no longer allowed to work abroad in this diligent manner and remain in contact with his colleagues from all countries, it is high time we started to seriously worry about the future of our country. •
1 Lutz, Rafael. “Purge wave in the army?” in: Weltwoche No. 28 of 11 July 2024
2 Annex 7 of the “Ordinance on Personnel Security Checks (VPSP)” of 8 November 2023; https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/filestore/fedlex.data.admin.ch/eli/cc/2023/736/20240101/de/pdf-a/fedlex-data-admin-ch-eli-cc-2023-736-20240101-de-pdf-a.pdf
A defence attaché is ‘a silencer’
Guy Vallat: A defence attaché is a silencer, a man or woman who listens to what others have to say. My main task is to build a bridge between the French and the Swiss, especially between the intelligence services of the French and Swiss armies. It’s about explaining to Switzerland why France decides this way and Switzerland decides another way. [...]
RFJ: You were nominated for this position three years ago, and shortly afterwards the war in Ukraine broke out. Did this conflict have an impact on your duties?
Of course, initially it meant a lot more work for me and my staff, but in Paris in particular there are many more ambassadors with defence attachés. The Corps comprises 105 countries with 170 members, including countries that are living in this international situation with the well-known differences that are the result of this war. And the unity of the Corps is important so that we can do our work. Today it is not easy for people who have to fulfil their goals and instructions to listen to each other and talk to each other again.
Does that mean there are opponents of war sitting around this table?
There are representatives of states with inevitably conflicting goals and interests sitting opposite each other here. And my job, the job of the board of the Corps of Attachés, is to enable these colleagues to continue to work together and talk, talk, talk.
As far as the tensions between Russia and Nato are concerned, what role should Switzerland, which is not a member of Nato, play?
I think its traditional role, that of good offices. I don’t think it needs to go beyond this role. Frankly, I think we have managed to take a good, solid, open position so far, but it is not an easy task for our country.
Can you summarise the role of a defence attaché?
I believe that, thanks to our neutrality, I can remain in dialogue with all my colleagues without any hidden agendas, because Switzerland does not pursue any goals. I think I manage to talk to all my colleagues, but the perception of us has of course changed, as it has for every European partner.
Source: Guy Vallat: ‘Un attaché de défense, c’est un taiseux’.
In: Radio Fréquence Jura RFJ of 17 March 2024;
https://www.rfj.ch/rfj/Actualite/Region/20240317-Le-divisionnaire-Guy-Vallat-en-visite-dans-le-Jura.html
(Translation Current Concerns)