Indulging in war rhetoric or defending neutrality

In the ongoing debate surrounding Swiss neutrality and the neutrality initiative that has been launched, emeritus international law experts and former ambassadors are also weighing in and attempting to dismantle Swiss neutrality. They join the ranks of those who bow to the zeitgeist and indulge in war rhetoric that will inevitably drag Europe into the abyss. Beyond Russophobia and anti-Americanism, the neutral position is the only moral one and requires a deeper reflection. It focuses on the conflict and seeks peace. International law experts and Swiss ambassadors should know that the right to neutrality cannot simply be dismissed as “outdated” and replaced by the UN Charter. They repeatedly claim that this charter contains an “absolute prohibition of aggression and violence”. They deliberately overlook the two exceptions: firstly, the “right of individual or collective self-defence” (Art. 51). Today, every warmonger claims this right for themselves and incorporates it into their logic of war. On the other hand, the Security Council’s right to use armed force (Art. 39ff.). The Security Council thus assumes the role of a “world judge,” relegating the other countries – i.e., the UN General Assembly – to the status of compliant followers. This cannot possibly be the basis for neutral country. The law on neutrality can at best be supplemented in consultation with the signatory states, but remains irreplaceable for neutral countries.
  The neutrality initiative aims to strengthen this moral position and expose the prevailing unspeakable logic of war. Therefore the initiative must be accepted in the upcoming vote, even if Switzerland is criticised from all sides as a result. As a neutral country, it must endure this for the sake of peace.  •