Current Concerns: The central demand of the “Study Commission on Security Policy” of the Federal Department of Defence, Civil Protection and Sports (DDPS) is to “focus cooperation with NATO and the EU as well as with neighbouring countries on joint defence capabilities. Military cooperation in an emergency should be prepared as far as possible and practised with partners.” National Councillor Grüter, will Switzerland be safer if it practises war together with NATO and the EU?
Franz Grüter: I believe the opposite is the case. On the one hand, this statement is a declaration of capitulation. Because it means that our army is no longer capable of guaranteeing the security of the people in our country. This is also consistent with the statements of the head of the army, Corps Commander Süssli, who says that the army can only hold out for another four weeks. Instead of Mrs Amherd focusing on how to get the army back on its feet, making sure that everyone is equipped, that they have enough material, weapons and ammunition, she is shifting the focus in a completely different direction and initiating Switzerland’s participation in NATO alliance exercises.
NATO alliance exercises:
completely unacceptable!
If a NATO member state were to be attacked, the other countries would have to provide assistance [according to Article 5 of the Washington Treaty]. For example, in the event that NATO member state Turkey were to be attacked, we would have to practise standing on the Syrian border with Swiss soldiers. This is so incompatible with our proven neutrality that we have to say: The direction in which Mrs Amherd is trying to steer the army is completely unacceptable.
Viola Amherd’s study commission report goes one better. It says in black and white: “Switzerland basically has two options in the event of an attack on a European NATO country and its invocation of the duty of assistance under Art. 5: It can invoke its neutrality or […] abandon its neutrality and participate in the defence of Europe.”
Completely unacceptable! The National Council rejected participation in NATO alliance exercises in June. I hope that the Councillors of States will come to their senses and do the same. [On 18 September 2024, the Council of States unfortunately decided the opposite; mw]. Otherwise, we should consider whether the decision to participate in NATO alliance exercises should be challenged by a referendum, which is definitely an option.
It is commonly believed that NATO is purely a defence alliance. But NATO is set up as an offensive army under the leadership of the USA. These are not theories, as the example of Afghanistan shows. The war in Afghanistan was started in 2001 as a NATO “alliance case” in order to install a “renewal government”. Does Switzerland have to get involved militarily in countries like Afghanistan? That is completely irresponsible. The NATO-led bombing of Libya in 2011 was another example of this. It would certainly not be in Switzerland’s interest to get involved in something like that and end up with Swiss soldiers coming home in body bags. That is the reality.
NATO troop
transports through the Gotthard?
According to the study commission’s report, Switzerland should not represent “a security gap” for NATO and must “be prepared to make substantial contributions to the security of its partners.” Today, the main issue is Switzerland’s participation in “Military Mobility”, a so-called EU project within the framework of Pesco (Permanent Structured Cooperation), which the Federal Council has waved through. The aim of this project is to “simplify cross-border troop transports by removing administrative hurdles.” In reality, “Military Mobility” is not an EU project, but a covert NATO project. I quote from the study commission’s report: “In addition to the EU member states, the USA, Canada, the UK [despite Brexit] and Norway are also involved.” NATO troop transports through the Gotthard?
That’s right. Pesco is a preliminary stage to an EU defence alliance. But here you can see that not only EU states are involved. The fact that Switzerland wants to participate sounds harmless at first glance. However, we can see very clearly what this means in concrete terms from the example of Austria. Let me quote some figures: In 2023, over 4,500 foreign military transports passed through Austria, and there were around 6,200 overflights of Austrian airspace by foreign military aircraft. NATO troops passed through the country for manoeuvres, but above all tanks, weapons, ammunition and other armaments destined for the NATO war effort by the Ukrainian army.
By participating in this Pesco programme, Switzerland would allow itself to be harnessed into the same corset. You have to imagine that: If thousands of tanks, aeroplanes and troops were suddenly to come through the country, Switzerland could not possibly still be a neutral state. So we have to say: Stop the beginnings!
I think we need to show people what this would mean for our country. It’s time for a complete rethink in the DDPS. As long as Mrs Amherd is in office, this will hardly be possible. This is also shown by the expert reports she is having written by external people. There is an old saying: “An expert makes sure that he fulfils the opinion of the client.” For this reason, the study commission’s report cannot be described as independent and neutral.
But it’s not just a matter for the DDPS, Parliament also has to do something, or how do you see it?
There are certainly critical attitudes in parliament, and there are often alliances from different points of view, for example between the left and the SVP. The fact that many parliamentarians, especially in the FDP and in the centre, no longer see what has brought peace to our country – neutrality is a peace project! – is completely incomprehensible to me.1
Neutrality initiative:
recalling the value of neutrality
The orientation of the DDPS shows the mindset of some Federal Councillors and unfortunately also of many parliamentarians, for whom neutrality is a thorn in the side. This is also shown by the Federal Council’s latest foreign policy report for the years 2024–2027. Neutrality is not mentioned there at all, nor is the importance of Switzerland as a location where conflicts could be settled. This completely ignores the current state of the world. According to the UN, there are over 150 wars, conflicts, civil wars and smouldering conflicts in the world today. I believe that it is more than time to reflect on what has brought peace and security to our country over the last 200 years and that, above all, we need places in this world where parties to disputes can find each other, where we can mediate, where talks can be held, where we can talk to each other. The value of neutrality – neutrality is not an instrument, but a value – is completely underestimated by these people. That’s why I’m glad that the popular initiative on neutrality will soon be put to the vote. I believe that at the end of the day, the Swiss people will have to say: Which direction do we want to go in?
Some participants in the Amherd Study Commission expressed the view that good offices and peacebuilding are closely linked to neutrality, but others argued that Switzerland does not have to be neutral in order to provide good offices. What do you think about the credibility of a Switzerland that is not neutral?
I think you can illustrate this with very banal examples. If two people are arguing and you try to settle the dispute, then it probably makes sense to everyone that you need a mediator who is not a party. If the mediator is in favour of one party or the other, he or she will not be accepted and cannot take on this role at all. Such dispute settlements – in foreign policy we speak of good offices – can only work if the small state in question does not become a party itself. When we participate in alliances such as NATO or the EU, we are a party, we are no longer neutral. And we cannot decide whether we are recognised as neutral or not. The Federal Council can say for a long time: “We are still a neutral state”. The fact is that on 28 February 2022 [when Switzerland adopted the EU sanctions against Russia, mw], the “New York Times” reported: “Switzerland has given up its neutrality”. These were the big headlines in the UK, Spain and France. The question is: are we still accepted? We can declare a hundred times that we are still neutral. If this is no longer perceived as such in the international community, then we are no longer neutral. Both the USA and Russia have clearly stated that Switzerland is no longer neutral. We have weakened ourselves considerably.
We still have areas where we are accepted as a neutral state. I would like to remind you of the protecting power mandate between the USA and Iran, which works well. Even if Switzerland buys compatible weapons systems, that doesn’t hurt anyone. But we must clearly reject anything that goes beyond that. This shows that we are on the wrong track with the policy we are currently pursuing.
Thank you very much for the interview, Mr Grüter. •
1 In Switzerland, it is often not the party but the individual personality that is decisive. Centre Councillor of States Heidi Zgraggen, for example, made an impressive statement in the Council debate on NATO Art. 5. Two other centrist members of the Council of States also voted against NATO Art. 5 exercises, Beat Rieder from Valais and Peter Hegglin from Zug. [Note mw]
(Translation Current Concerns)
“A little anecdote: two years ago, the Delegation of the Foreign Policy Commission – of which I was then the President – visited Japan. It deeply touched me when in the evening, at dinner, older Japanese politicians came to me and told me how much Japan appreciates and how incredibly important they found that Switzerland always remained neutral during World War II, even towards Japan who was the aggressor*. That has earned their great respect for our country up to today. As people who are almost 10,000 Kilometres away from us, they said: “Hebed Sorg” (watch out for your neutrality), pay attention, that you don’t give up this path. That is something which remains in my memory. I felt, as that told me this: This was not just an empty phrase, rather it came from deep inside.” (National councillor Franz Grüter)
* Switzerland had the protecting power mandates for all powers of war, who wished, including Japan. It visited war prisoners, exchanged injured persons in all countries at war. As a neutral helper, Switzerland did not distinguish between “victims” and “aggressors” and it must not do so today either. (mw)
US military transit:
Convoys crossing Austria
“From 13 to 23 August 2024, US military forces will be transiting through Austria. The reason for this is the ‘Saber Junction’ – an international exercise in Germany in which several armies are taking part. The NATO exercise ‘Saber Junction’ – led by the US Army Europe and Africa – takes place annually. NATO countries and partner countries – including Albania, Belgium, Georgia and Romania – take part. Austria is not involved.
Around 300 vehicles pass through Austria during this period. The first vehicles will enter via the Thörl-Maglern border crossing (Carinthia). The exit to Germany will be via the Suben border crossing (Upper Austria). […]
Transits of members of other armed forces through Austrian territory will be examined by the Federal Ministry of Defence […] and permitted in accordance with military neutrality. […]”
Source: Press release of the Federal Ministry of Defence of 12 August 2024
Austria allows thousands of NATO
military transports across its territory
“Over 10,000 foreign military transports and air force overflights were recorded by the Austrian federal government in the previous year. The practice is a violation of neutrality, some overflights were even illegal airspace violations. […]”
Source: Salzburger Nachrichten of 21 February 2024. Reproduced at https://www.stimmenfuerneutralitaet.at/artikel/
(TranslationCurrent Concerns)
Our website uses cookies so that we can continually improve the page and provide you with an optimized visitor experience. If you continue reading this website, you agree to the use of cookies. Further information regarding cookies can be found in the data protection note.
If you want to prevent the setting of cookies (for example, Google Analytics), you can set this up by using this browser add-on.