‘It is the moral authority that goes hand in hand with true neutrality’

Current Concerns: What does neutrality mean to you? What does it mean for Switzerland to be neutral? And what significance does a neutral Switzerland have for other countries, for the world?

Scott Ritter: Let’s be honest: what is Switzerland? It is a very small country at the heart of the European continent. It is a beautiful country, and the people there are wonderful. They exercise a form of democracy that is unique in the world and highly effective. In fact, without Swiss direct democracy, the referendum on neutrality would not even take place. It is the living embodiment of democracy in action.
    But Switzerland in itself doesn’t bring to the world. There are other beautiful locations, there’s other nice people, there’s other interesting forms of government. What makes Switzerland unique is its neutral status; for it is this that makes it a global resource. We live in a world where conflict has become the norm. Peace is something people strive for, but we often fail to achieve it because we cannot find effective mediation between the parties to the conflict.
    Generally speaking, those who present themselves as mediators are in reality aligned with one side or the other. There is no genuine mediation; instead, hidden agendas come into play. Switzerland has the capacity to send truly neutral mediators – people who can be trusted to pursue no other goal than peace. This has made Switzerland a superpower, because a truly neutral state – particularly due to its neutral position – means that people come to Switzerland to have a safe place in which to conduct negotiations and hold discussions. And we have seen how Switzerland has repeatedly fulfilled this role in the past in connection with various treaties and conflict resolutions, and so on.
    What the world currently lacks, however, is a genuine peacekeeping force. The United Nations relies on Article 6 to deploy peacekeeping forces, but this is done through a vote in the Security Council. And I think anyone who has studied the history of the United Nations since its foundation, particularly during the Cold War, can see that the Security Council was extremely divided between the United States, France and the United Kingdom on the one hand, and the Soviet Union and Communist China on the other. These are, after all, the five permanent members, which meant that the Council became a body unable to commit to anything. And when it did commit itself, it committed to pursuing the agenda of one of the parties.
    What Switzerland could bring to the table is genuine, non-aligned neutrality. To say: We are here, we are at your disposal, and we can resolve conflicts in the way the United Nations should actually be doing. They are either unable or unwilling to do so, but we Swiss will. You have to be truly neutral, and some say that’s wishful thinking, Scott – why would we need that?
    The need for it is obvious today. Let’s look at Russia and Ukraine. I think the Russians are looking for a solution, but they cannot trust the mediators or the observers. They simply won’t do that. Ukraine wants a solution in which the mediators and observers are aligned to them. European countries and NATO countries stepping in and bolstering Ukraine’s position – that is no way to bring the two sides to an agreement, and as a result, Russia will continue to wage this war to the bitter end.

The war in Ukraine is a good example. We had the Bürgenstock Conference here in Switzerland, and we had the negotiations on Iran with Oman acting as mediator. Neither worked.

Oman – even though the negotiations took place here in Switzerland, they were held at the Omani embassy, which means they were not neutral. Ultimately, the Omani government could not be trusted because, although it presented itself as a neutral party, it was in fact acting on behalf of the United States. But if Switzerland were to take the lead – truly neutral, as a trustworthy party – then we could resolve the war between Russia and Ukraine today. If Switzerland were a truly neutral body, I would have no doubt that a genuine, independent, neutral observer force, capable of intervening between the two parties, would build the necessary trust – particularly on Russia’s part.
    Tragically, Switzerland has today all but abandoned this status. Although, from a constitutional point of view, one could arguably say that Switzerland still upholds a minimum of the promises or principles of neutrality. Yet Switzerland does not act like a neutral party. Switzerland has taken sides, particularly in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, and is behaving as an interested party. And in some cases, by providing weaponry, it is becoming not just an interested party, but a party to the conflict. This means that it is anything but neutral.
    So one must ask: why would Switzerland want to do this? What does it gain from it? Here, we must be very honest with the Swiss people. Your army only functions as long as it is a self-defence army. That is why no one invades Switzerland. If the Swiss Army is deployed outside Switzerland, it is a small, pitiful fighting force with no staying power, which will be slaughtered within the first month of fighting. In any conflict between opponents of equal strength. You are not in a position to build the necessary military structure to tip the balance in NATO’s favour. You are not the victorious power; you are not a superpower. You have a very small population and only very limited scope for fielding any significant military forces.
    And one more thing: as soon as you join NATO or become part of a European defence structure, your defence budget will be entirely subordinated to others. You will be required to build defence structures that do not serve Switzerland’s defence interests, but those of Europe. Your army will be trained, equipped and organised to fight outside Switzerland on behalf of others. Possibly even in places outside Europe. For Europe has a very far-reaching vision of how it operates. This, then, will be the fate of the Swiss men and women who serve in the military for Switzerland: to die in foreign countries and to wage a war that has nothing to do with Switzerland. So you gain nothing from it. It will actually dilute your ability to protect yourselves.

Opponents of the neutrality initiative claim that they, too, are in favour of Swiss neutrality – but without such a restrictive framework. They speak of “flexible neutrality” – in our view, a euphemism for arbitrariness. That is why the referendum on the neutrality initiative, which we will hold on 27 September, is so important.

There is no such thing as flexible neutrality. It is an artificial concept invented by politicians to justify what they do not actually want. Yeah, it’s like having a flexible marriage. Are you cheating or are you not cheating? I mean, a marriage is a marriage. Neutrality is neutrality. There is one definition of neutrality, and it is not flexible. It is absolute. That is what would give Switzerland its strength. Flexible neutrality means that, at times, one acts as an active military force on the side of a particular nation. And as I have already said: the problem with that is that one is then trained, organised and equipped to wage a different kind of war. Neutrality means deciding for yourself who you are, what you are and what you stand for. And what gives a neutral Switzerland strength and credibility isn’t power. You are not militarily powerful and never will be powerful.

At this point, many say: “That is why we must join NATO and the EU.”

No, you will be the weakest link, and they will rob you blind. All the wealth you possess will flow to others to finance other wars and other armies, and the army you end up with will be the weakest link in NATO. You will have the weakest army in NATO. Luxembourg will be stronger than you. So that is the truth.
    What gives Switzerland its strength is not the concept of traditional military power. It is the moral authority that goes hand in hand with true neutrality. Do you want to see who is the most respected person in the room when two nations are at war with one another? Not the general on that side who has won a dozen battles, nor the general on this side who has won a dozen battles. Because the fact is: they cannot win the decisive battle; they have fought each other to the point of exhaustion and are desperately seeking a solution. The most powerful person in that room is the neutral mediator who can bring about peace. All eyes are fixed on that person. That person enjoys status and stature that is unimaginable. That could be Switzerland, if it chooses to practise neutrality in a meaningful way. Not flexible neutrality. Genuine neutrality.

How do you define genuine neutrality?

First and foremost, you have to live a pure life. I mean, if you want that, you can’t just say: “I am pure.” You have to live a pure life. So, first and foremost, you must have a military that is truly non aligned. A military that is its own military. Truly independent. You need a nation, a population, that rejects the idea of wars of aggression – anything other than pure self-defence. The Swiss could only tolerate the use of force if they were physically attacked by another party. For neutrality is a matter of mindset. It is not just a word; it is not simply a matter of not being able to become neutral. If you are not neutral, you cannot say: “Oh, today I am neutral.”
    Neutrality begins at birth. Once one has truly internalised the concept: “We are independent of others.” We adopt a non-aligned stance, which does not mean that we cannot share common values. Of course we can share common values, but it means not aligning too closely with the values of others and, in times of conflict, understanding that there are two sides to every story. And when the decision is made that a neutral mediator is needed, then it is time to come in. We know, of course, that we will not always send Swiss observers into a conflict. There are wars that must be won – for example, the victory over Nazi Germany. I do not believe that anyone wanted a neutral Swiss observer to intervene and prevent the Red Army from capturing the Reichstag. Some wars must be won.
    But what if the time comes – for example, in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, where there are strong opinions on both sides as to who is right and who is wrong – when it becomes clear that they are merely bashing each other’s heads in and beating each other to death, and both sides are desperately searching for an option that does not exist today because Switzerland has decided not to be neutral? If Switzerland were neutral, however, we could end this war today.
    As I said earlier: the strongest, most powerful person in the room is not the general. It is the neutral Swiss observer and mediator who holds the greatest authority – the greatest moral authority. So the first thing we must do is encourage the public to engage with the true meaning of neutrality. It must be part of everyday life, so that when we train our soldiers … Look, I myself could never be a neutral observer. Why? I was trained as a ‘Marine’. I have a different way of thinking. My mindset is shaped by violence. But you need someone who understands violence – not in the sense of wielding it, but in order to prevent it. That must be a neutral person. Someone who prevents violence. Who understands how important it is to sit down and listen. Not to have preconceived notions, not to tip the balance. But you can’t simply send a soldier who has been trained to NATO standards to the neutral academy and expect him to suddenly become a neutral observer. No, that would take a very long time; it’s impossible. That is why Switzerland is such a unique resource, because the concepts of neutrality are still deeply rooted in its very core. The departure from neutrality is a new phenomenon.
    The Neutrality Initiative is a moment in time. You are not going to be able to recapture this moment. If Switzerland renounces its neutrality, it will inflict lasting damage upon itself. This is not a mistake that can be undone. It will spell the end of Switzerland as we have known and cherished it for decades; you will become something you are not today. And all Swiss people who are proud of who they are today – and they have every right to be proud – must understand: otherwise, you will become a very small, insignificant European tourist destination. That’s it, that’s all.

Thank you very much for the interview, Scott Ritter. •

* Scott Ritter is a former intelligence officer in the US Marine Corps who, during his career spanning more than 20 years, served in the former Soviet Union helping to implement arms control agreements, on the staff of US General Norman Schwarzkopf during the 1991 Gulf War, and later as the UN’s chief weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998. Ritter was a fierce critic of the American decision to go to war against Iraq again in 2003. He is the author of twelve books. His latest book is “Highway to Hell: The Armageddon Chronicles 2015–2024” (Clarity Press).