Blatant violation of neutrality and democracy

On 27 March 2024, the Federal Council announced that it would not join the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) “for the time being”. It had already declared the same in 2018 and 2019.¹
  This is big news from the Federal Palace! Unfortunately, it is nothing new for us citizens that our “servants of the people” violate the principle of neutrality, but what is happening here is unprecedented. For more than five years now, the Federal Council has been ignoring the will of the Swiss Parliament, which voted clearly in favour of joining the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in 2018 (see box).

Journal for the Swiss Abroad:
Federal Council’s duty to accede

“Switzerland is defined, among other things, by its commitment to conflict resolution, nuclear disarmament, and world peace. […] Which is why signing the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) immediately would seem to be a no-brainer for the Federal Council. […] To ratify the TPNW would also be in keeping with Switzerland’s humanitarian tradition. And yet the same Federal Council has hit the brakes.” With these crystal-clear words, Swiss Review, the magazine for the Swiss abroad, is reminding the Federal Council of its duty to Switzerland and the world.²

Peace-loving states join the UN Treaty
on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons³

The treaty “contains a comprehensive and explicit ban on nuclear weapons, prohibiting their use, threat of use, production, stockpiling, acquisition, possession, deployment, transfer, testing, and any support for these prohibited activities.” (Federal Council press release of 27 March 2024) The TPNW thus goes much further than the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which was recognised by the five nuclear powers – the USA, Russia, the UK, France and China – and has since been recognised by practically all countries in the world.
  The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons has been in force since 2021 and has already been ratified by 70 states, the majority of them from the Global South, while the five nuclear powers mentioned above and the entire West – with the exception of the neutrals Ireland and Austria! – remain white on the world map.⁴ Switzerland would have every reason to follow the courageous example of Ireland and Austria and join the peace-loving states of the world. Instead “[t]he Federal Council still holds the view that the effectiveness of the TPNW is limited, since neither the nuclear-armed states nor the majority of Western and European countries recognise it.” His masters voice – more than embarrassing for the once neutral and independent Switzerland.

Federal Council tries to wriggle out

According to all surveys and the more than 132,000 signatories of the neutrality initiative that has just been submitted, Switzerland’s neutrality corresponds to the will of the vast majority of Swiss people. The Federal Council correctly states in its press release: “The use of nuclear weapons would hardly be compatible with international humanitarian law.” But then it wriggles out again and claims that “joining the TPNW is not in Switzerland’s interests, given the current international context […].” Why not? The Federal Council fails to give us a more precise answer in its press release. It merely states that it adopted its report on a parliamentary postulate on 27 March. It is worth taking a look at the report.

Accession would have “negative
effects on cooperation with NATO”

In the report of 31 January 2024 on the “Consequences of Switzerland’s accession to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons for Switzerland’s foreign and security policy”⁵, we learn about the alarming mood of war being cultivated in the Federal Council. We spare our readers the absurd accusations against Russia, whose “use of military force” has prompted many European states to “strengthen their defence preparedness” – it doesn’t get any more twisted than that. And we note with displeasure how the Federal Council waxes lyrical about Sweden and Finland joining Nato (and the EU accession that preceded it): “Two states that cultivated a long tradition of neutrality during the Cold War and later evolved from neutral to non-aligned states when they joined the EU and the Lisbon Treaty came into force have now come to the conclusion that their security is better guaranteed in Nato.” (Report, p. 2)
  Under the heading “Risks” (of joining the TPNW), the report comes to the point: “Even if current military cooperation is not likely to be directly affected according to current knowledge, joining the TPNW would complicate Switzerland’s position in security partnerships. This is particularly true in relation to NATO, which is a declared nuclear alliance and will remain so for the foreseeable future.” (p. 3) Why would accession “complicate” Switzerland’s relationship with NATO? What comes across rather cryptically on page 4 of the current report is translated into readable language by the Swiss Review on the basis of a Federal Administration paper from 2018, “saying that Switzerland would probably cooperate with nuclear-weapon states or their allies, in the extreme case of self-defence against an armed attack. As a party to the TPNW, Switzerland would abandon the option of explicitly placing itself under a nuclear umbrella within the framework of such alliances [i.e. NATO and the EU]”.⁶
  In plain language: by voting against the TPNW, the Federal Council is heralding Switzerland’s de facto accession to NATO.

The burning question of
security for neutral Switzerland

The Federal Council omits the most important question in its construct: Namely, whether Switzerland would actually be safer under the nuclear or conventional protective umbrella of NATO (and the NATO-EU Sky Shield) than it has been in over 200 years as a neutral state. For anyone familiar with Swiss history, the answer is clear. Thanks to its neutrality, Switzerland was able to stay out of all the wars raging around it, especially the two terrible world wars of the 20^th century.
  A second, no less important question: Who is NATO supposed to protect us against?
  The Russian ambassador to Switzerland, Sergei Garmonin, recently remarked in a lecture in Kloten that the DDPS (Swiss Federal Department of Defence, Civil Protection and Security) had said that “Russia could deploy tanks or even its navy (!) against landlocked Switzerland”. In fact, Russia has never attacked Switzerland (apart from General Suvorov, who fought against the French on the Zürichberg at the end of the 18^th century) and has no plans to do so today.
  The Russian ambassador also pointed out that President Vladimir Putin had recently reaffirmed that he had no intention of attacking NATO. However, Sergei Garmonin warned that Switzerland’s relationship with Russia would not be helped by a rapprochement with NATO.⁷

Remain a neutral country
and make ones contribution

One aspect of the Federal Council’s report should also be addressed: “One of the possible risks of accession is that the TPNW may meet with little understanding, or even outright rejection, from major international players and Switzerland’s bilateral and multilateral partners.” (p. 4)
  The fact that the major powers have “little understanding” for the neutral position is nothing new. We know this from history: warring powers regularly called on Switzerland to position itself on their side. It is the fate of the neutrals not to be “understood” by the warring powers. But even if the centres of power do not understand the neutral Swiss position, the main thing is that we ourselves understand neutrality as the foundation of our self-understanding as a state and our activities in the world.
  Switzerland can only make its contribution to peace on the basis of its neutrality, through the indispensable work of the ICRC and its willingness to provide its good offices to all warring parties who so wish.
  In the Ukraine war, too, our Federal Councillors would be well advised to remember that Switzerland’s peace work is not possible if it sanctions one party and supplies weapons to the other – whether directly or in a ring swap. And in the Gaza war, the Federal Council and Parliament must not be deterred from doing all they can to support the ICRC and the UN aid organisations, above all the Palestinian relief agency UNWRA, so that they can bring a little light into the hell of the people in the Gaza Strip.  •

¹ “Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons: Federal Council sees no need to change direction at this time” Press Release by the Federal Council of 27 March 2024
² Forster, Christof. “Ban Nuclear Weapons? Yes, but …”. Swiss Revue No. 2 of March 2024 
³ TPNW: Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons
⁴ https://www.icanw.org/signature_and_ratification_status
⁵ Auswirkungen eines Beitritts der Schweiz zum Kernwaffenverbotsvertrag auf die Aussen- und Sicherheitspolitik der Schweiz (Consequences of Switzerland’s accession to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons for Switzerland’s foreign and security policy). Report of the Federal Council in fulfilment of postulate 22.3800 Dittli, 31 January 2024
⁶ Forster, Christof. “Ban nuclear weapons? Yes, but …”. Swiss Revue No. 2 of March 2024 
⁷ Lecture given in Kloten town hall on 22 March 2024