A bastion of reason takes a stand against NATO saber-rattling

The national rally for neutrality held on the last Saturday of August brought the “Bundesplatz” in Bern to life. It was not primarily a show of force – nor was it intended to be – but rather an affirmation of the key reasons to vote “Yes”, coming just weeks before a vote that is crucial for an independent Switzerland. Around 2,000 committed citizens – clearly hailing from all parts of the country and holding widely diverse political views, as evidenced by the dignified debate held in front of the Parliament Building – patiently and attentively braved the heat.

Amidst a “No” campaign waged by opponents in an emotional, hurtful, and irrational manner – fueled by an apparently orchestrated media onslaught – the rally provided an overview of the main arguments for why this pivotal initiative deserves a resounding “Yes”. The move toward the EU and NATO – invoked by opponents – stands in diametric opposition to the neutrality Switzerland had, until recently, maintained with such care and prudence. In our highly volatile world, the EU and NATO do not champion dialogue and the non-violent resolution of conflicts; instead, they advocate for sanctions, economic warfare, and the military-backed dominance of the Western world – all in line with American dictates. Consequently, “the rest of the world” watches with alarm as the once-impartial Switzerland – a nation that served the cause of global peace – aligns itself ever more closely with circles intent on preparing for and winning the next great world war.
    Warning voices have long pointed out that such madness will yield no victor, but rather the ruin of all – and most certainly of Europe. That is why enshrining the principle of permanent neutrality in the Swiss Constitution is the need of the hour.
    Against this backdrop, the rally on 29 August was yet another urgent appeal to reason. It was ignored–almost in unison by our major “quality media.” The proceedings of this serious and compelling rally can be viewed in full on TransitionTV at the following link: www.youtube.com/watch.
    It is well worth listening to the speeches in their original wording.
    Initiated by Urs Hans, founder of Public Eye on Science – who also handled the welcome and moderation – the event featured the following speakers:

• Welcome and moderation by Urs Hans, Public Eye on Science;
• Professor Dr Alfred de Zayas, UN expert on human rights and international law;
• Dr Pascal Lottaz, neutrality researcher and Associate Professor in Japan, neutralitystudies.com;
• Jacques Baud, Colonel (General Staff, ret.), joining live from Brussels;
• Professor Dr Wolf Linder, political scientist, “Neutrality for Peace and Reconciliation”, swissneutralitynow.ch;
• Ralph Bosshard, Lt.-Col. (General Staff, ret.), military analyst, special advisor to the OSCE;
• Philipp Kruse, Attorney-at-Law (LL.M.);
• Jean-Daniel Ruch, former Swiss ambassador;
• Michelle Cailler, lawyer, President of the Federal Movement Romandie;
• Maria Pia Ambrosetti, Member of the Cantonal Parliament, HelvEthica-Ticino.ch;
• Massimiliano Ay, Member of the Cantonal Parliament (Ticino), Partito Comunista;
• Christoph Pfluger, publisher, initiator of the Movement for Neutrality.

The following are excerpts from various speeches:
    “According to reports by several UN special rapporteurs, unilateral coercive measures [economic sanctions, such as those the Federal Council intends to continue imposing] cause humanitarian catastrophes, hunger, misery, death, and migratory movements. They have consistently been condemned as human rights violations in reports issued by the UN Commission on Human Rights, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the High Commissioner for Human Rights. On 25 March 2024, I spoke about this at length before the UN Security Council in New York. Consequently, a complaint was filed with the International Criminal Court seeking to have these unilateral coercive measures declared crimes against humanity under Article 7(k) of the Rome Statute. I am filled with consternation that the Federal Council has issued a recommendation against the Neutrality Initiative. I consider this a disastrous mistake. It looks as if Switzerland were deliberately acting in opposition to the annual resolutions of the UN General Assembly and the Human Rights Council.” (Alfred de Zayas, translation of all quotes Current Concerns)
    “Neutrality is not an affair of Left or Right. It is the Swiss people’s affair. And it is absurd for the Social Democratic Party to today reduce such a crucial issue to Vladimir Putin. We must insist – across the political spectrum–on having this debate. Whatever happens on 27 September, we need a national dialogue on how we wish to define the concept of neutrality. It concerns us all. […] Neutrality stands in opposition to this capitalist expansionism. It seeks to keep Switzerland on a course toward an international, humanist identity – one that champions all victims of war.” (Pascal Lottaz)
    “The question [of neutrality] goes deeper. It is about the future of our country. On a world map, our country is barely visible. Yet, we are one of the most well-known and respected nations. This is not due to our chocolate or our watches, but rather to the fact that ours is the most reliable country. It is the credibility derived from its neutrality that defines its greatness. I have personally observed that, even during UN missions, the Swiss cross on a flag carries more weight than the United Nations flag when it comes to encouraging the parties in conflict to engage in dialogue.
    Neutrality rests on credibility and the trust it inspires. Credibility and trust are two phenomena that either do or do not exist. One cannot be only half-credible or offer only half-hearted trust. The predictability of neutrality is an essential component of its credibility. […] Our forebears in Switzerland understood that neither democracy nor neutrality tolerates double standards. One cannot be half-democratic or half-neutral. One cannot be neutral one day and not so the next. This consistent practice of neutrality has made Switzerland a country whose flag is respected worldwide, and it has shaped who we are. It is this attitude that fostered listening and dialogue and became part of our democracy. We do not seek to judge or condemn, but rather to understand and find solutions. […] Neutrality is not a means of staying out of conflicts; it is a means of helping others to resolve them.” (Jacques Baud)
    “Neutrality is not about professing sympathy. Neutrality has nothing to do with preferences for a particular state or people. Neutrality is a principle that has accompanied Switzerland throughout 150 years of its history – and one that has served us well. Neutrality clearly does not follow our collective sympathies or emotions; instead, it asks: ‘What are the consequences?’ And positive outcomes are precisely what neutrality seeks: the absence of war, non-participation in wars, and the attempt to resolve conflicts peacefully. That is the morale, those are the ethics of neutrality which we should uphold. […]
    Sanctions are unjust; they are an instrument of war, not of peace. The restrictions on sanctions proposed by the initiative represent a renunciation of force that is consistent with neutrality. […] Sanctions are dictated not by law but by power – more specifically the power of the strong. […] It is therefore right for the initiative to limit sanctions. […] They are incompatible with neutrality and the ideal of peace.” (Wolf Linder)
    “In the Ukraine conflict, Switzerland brokered a peaceful solution in the form of the Minsk Agreements and established an observer mission while chairing the
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE).[…] Yet those in power in Kyiv, Brussels, and elsewhere thought a bit of war might secure them a better deal. That is why they now feel compelled to drag Switzerland and its ʻgood offices’ through the mud.
    I know of no observer mission in a war zone that was treated as disrespectfully as the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission in Ukraine – a mission I was part of for a time. Our staff were verbally abused, threatened, and fired upon; two of them were literally blown up. I witnessed this firsthand on the spot. I do not need newspaper editing or hired pens of the transatlantic press to explain to me what I saw and heard in Ukraine and Nagorno-Karabakh.
    It is a guilty conscience that resonates in the vitriolic statements people make about Swiss neutrality – such as those to be heard yesterday on the Swiss TV programme ‘Arena’. The very same people who eventually realised they could neither win nor end the war they had knowingly and willingly accepted – those same people now call those who campaign neutrality cowards. And even though they cannot defend themselves or their allies, they even offer their protective umbrella to those who do not need it.” (Ralph Bosshard)
    “I am convinced that our entire Western civilisation and our progress have been based – ever since the ancient Greeks – on curiosity and the will to understand. And since the time of the ancient Romans, the principle that ʻ‘the other side must also be heard – audiatur et altera pars’ has been applied, even to suspected serious criminals. This means that, no matter how much divides us at first glance, we must listen to the other side and speak with them. This applies all the more to a state that calls itself neutral, like Switzerland. It must be our ambition to hear the other side, to understand them, and to establish a dialogue through diplomatic means; for only such understanding is consistent with our neutrality and our fundamental civilisational values. ” (Philipp Kruse)
    “This flexibility regarding neutrality – ladies and gentlemen, this amounts to double standards and arbitrariness, and it has damaged the credibility of our neutrality. This kind of ‘two pronged neutrality’ – a flexible neutrality – has severely harmed the credibility of our neutrality (and continues to do so), but that is not all; it has also damaged Switzerland’s credibility on the global stage.”
    And that is precisely why this initiative can restore some of that credibility – or even a great deal of it – provided we apply the same maxims and principles in every situation. We must apply the same principles and standards in every situation, not pick and choose à la carte. […] We want to be a country with a backbone. This initiative provides that backbone – to the Federal Council and to Switzerland.” (Jean-Daniel Ruch)
    “A crucial vote lies ahead today. On 27 September, the Swiss people will vote on the very neutrality my father quietly upheld and for which he sacrificed years of his youth [1,200 days and nights of active service, risking his life to protect our borders and our neutrality, as the speaker noted elsewhere – pk]. Who speaks of this neutrality in today’s televised debates? In every broadcast, it is the same voices, the same men in suits, the same diplomats, the same military figures telling us about war, telling us about a game of chess.
    And what of us women – us mothers who bring children into the world, sons who could be conscripted just as my father was? Are we heard? Are we given a voice?
    It is never women who decide on wars. Yet it is they who lose their children. It is they who pay the price because men wanted to play with weapons. That is why they have a right to a say. They have not only the right but the duty to demand a definition of neutrality, in order to protect their children. They have every right to tell Federal Councillors, diplomats, military leaders, and politicians, that they reject military alliances that threaten their children’s lives. I am not here, then, because union representatives were expecting me.
    I am here because I have a voice – as a lawyer, as a citizen, but also as a mother. And that voice–our voices, my friends! I have come to tell you one simple thing:
    Neutrality is not indifference, nor is it weakness; it is quite the opposite – it is a challenge. It means choosing to stand firm between the opposing sides – not out of cowardice, but out of courage – so that one day, you can extend a hand to both.” (Michelle Cailler)
    “Freedom, truth, neutrality. These three words appear to denote three distinct principles. In reality, however, they describe a single thing: a people’s right to think for themselves and to decide their own destiny independently. […]
    International cooperation does not mean surrendering decision-making authority to others. Cooperation always presupposes the option to say no. When saying no is no longer an option, this ceases to be cooperation and becomes subordination. And if an organisation arrogates an influence incompatible with our democratic sovereignty, we must have the courage to withdraw.”
    “We do not want an isolated Switzerland; we want a Switzerland open to the world – yet one that remains the master of its own decisions, ready to cooperate, but not to submit. Capable of defending itself, but unwilling to be dragged into the wars of others. ” (Maria Pia Ambrosetti)
    “Neutrality is not just a ordinary political claim like all the others. Without neutrality, there is no national sovereignty, and we end up in NATO. Without national sovereignty, there is no popular sovereignty. Ultimately, we would find ourselves obeying laws enacted by the EU. And without popular sovereignty, there is no direct democracy.
    I say this to the leaders of the Social Democratic and Green Left: without direct democracy and without national sovereignty, social reforms are impossible. Neoliberal elites will impose ‘Bilaterals III’ on us – with an EU that cannot speak of peace but instead drives the arms race, sabotages negotiations with Russia, and turns our country into a military target. These irresponsible individuals, who bow to the dictates of NATO and the EU, want to drag us into war. This Neutrality Initiative is not a right-wing initiative; it is an initiative rooted in solidarity, pacifism, and progress.” (Massimiliano Ay)
    “Any threat with a major enemy, ...here from the Federal Palace – even from the Left – causes stock prices to rise. Every article attacking neutrality makes the rich richer. Every broadcast that stokes fear of war makes the few richer and the many poorer. This is the classic scenario of the war business. Yet fear also serves the purpose of control. Discontent is growing in Europe, and it is growing in Switzerland, too. And that discontent must be controlled–digitally, financially, politically, and militarily. Most NATO exercises are about controlling or suppressing uprisings. […] But simply not being afraid is not enough. […] We must replace fear with hope. Hope for a neutral, peaceful Switzerland capable of mediation. Hope for a country where we can once again live in safety and peace. We can open the door to that country on 27 September.” (Christoph Pfluger) •