Robert Nef: «Armed neutrality is a peace offering».»

In Switzerland, there is a growing tendency to relativize neutrality by using vague adjectives and linking it to defense alliances. This is a sign of inconsistency and a lack of historical awareness.

L’original article is published in German in Schweizer Monat.

Is it possible to be in favor of both freedom and neutrality? The answer is yes. Neutrality is a sensible option—both economically and in terms of security policy—for individuals and states that are open to the world. Anyone who offers something on the free market does not expect ideological, political, or religious alignment and consciously refrains from discrimination that has nothing to do with the concept of a transaction. Neutrality is neither selfish nor cowardly; in addition to its economic component, it has a strategic component that promotes world peace and helps prevent the escalation of conflicts.

Unfortunately, there is a widespread misconception in Switzerland—especially in political circles—that neutrality is «a thing of the past» and is merely a nostalgic concern of national-conservative patriots. Admittedly, few people explicitly call for its abolition, but it is only a short step from downplaying its importance with adjectives to effectively abolishing it.

The Danger of Joining Alliances

While membership in a defense alliance can certainly act as a deterrent to potential aggressors, on a global scale, it confers additional power on the dominant power within that alliance. This can provoke attacks from other alliances with different power-political objectives. It is true that common enemies make friends, but common friends can also make enemies.

An independent country should not allow itself to be defended at the expense of others, even though this significantly eases the burden on its budget. What a country saves at the expense of its allies, it pays for in terms of dependence. Admittedly, self-defense does not guarantee total security either, but neither can total security be achieved within the framework of alliances. In every alliance, there is a dominant power that sets its own priorities in the event of a crisis or war.

The appeal of global interconnection combined with nonalignment or neutrality under international law has tended to increase in recent years and decades—especially for small and medium-sized states. This fundamental stance, however, is credible only if it is coupled with a willingness to defend oneself militarily in the event of an attack. Otherwise, it effectively becomes a «bush behind which cowards hide,» as Swiss writer Lukas Bärfuss recently put it. As a neutral country, one must not offer a potential aggressor the «ideal scenario» of an intact country with a functioning infrastructure that could be conquered without a fight.

The Illusion of Eternal Peace

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, many politicians, diplomats, and military officials in Europe and Switzerland tended to adopt a ahistorical worldview, or even to repress history. For them, there was an irreversible trend toward «eternal peace» in Europe and toward the linear progression of an integration process. Other scenarios were no longer even considered. The war in Ukraine has revealed in a terrifying way that this idea was nothing more than an illusion.

Periods of relative peace have always been interrupted by irrational and unexpected outbreaks of violence, and given the current frenzy of change and adaptation, this must be taken into account in our country’s long-term foreign and security policy planning. As for the time horizon, the ordinary men of the Rütli were more courageous and far-sighted when they forged their alliance «for all time.» And the diplomats who stipulated «perpetual neutrality» at the Congress of Vienna in 1815 were also aware that the global strategic situation can change so drastically within a single generation thatit is wise not to entrust the foundations of foreign and security policy to the fluctuating assessments of the situation and the images of the enemy that arise in day-to-day politics.

Neutrality is anything but obsolete around the world. It is in the interest of a permanently neutral country to rid its guiding principle (as well as its non-membership in international organizations such as the EU and NATO) of the taint of raw self-interest at the expense of the so-called international community and to draw others« attention to the fact that neutral states could also be of use to them. The effectiveness of the principle of neutrality depends on its credibility, and credibility »from the outside” can only be expected if a country demonstrates reliability and consistency and communicates its position with sound arguments.

There are two adjectives that do not qualify the principle but rather emphasize it: «armed» and «perpetual.» They highlight its function and demonstrate to the outside world that neutrality in general is not a «passé» concept, but rather one that, overall, holds promise for the future and for peace—and not just for Switzerland. A nation that credibly renounces offensive capabilities, yet at the same time ensures the defense of its own territory with its own resources (and through reserved but free decisions regarding cooperation) makes a more forward-looking contribution to world peace than one who aligns itself (and simultaneously submits to) a world power fighting against other emerging world powers.

Neutrality and Foreign Policy

After World War II, the principle of neutrality was supplemented by the principle of solidarity. Here again, the question arises: Can one be both neutral and show solidarity? And here, too, the answer is yes—provided that solidarity is directed toward the victims, who are always present on both sides in wars. This is also the fundamental principle of the International Red Cross, which serves the victims of all warring parties without taking sides.

The effort to place neutrality within a broader context alongside other foreign policy objectives is addressed in the Federal Council’s reports on foreign and security policy. The two-pronged approach of «neutrality and solidarity» has been supplemented by two additional objectives, both of which underscore the central importance of neutrality: availability and universality. Availability refers to the permanent offer of mediation services, while universality refers to a fundamentally global openness.

Reliable maxims rather than relativism

The four maxims were developed as early as the 1950s by a commission that included the Swiss international law expert Rudolf L. Bindschedler. Today, the foreign policy debate focuses solely on the tension between neutrality and solidarity. However, the framework of objectives that has been gradually developed remains relevant and is becoming increasingly timely. And it can provide a sense of reliability in times of uncertainty, both at home and abroad.

The three complementary principles—solidarity, availability, and universality—do not undermine neutrality; rather, they describe functions that neutrality, contrary to what its detractors claim, can and does fulfill when properly managed. It is not «even though we are neutral,» but «because we are neutral» that we can pursue the other three objectives. Neutrality is not an opposing pole, but a prerequisite for humanitarian (not political!) solidarity.

Neutrality is also a prerequisite for access to mediation services and for universality in the sense of global openness and free trade. The importance of the principle of universality is growing. While it is certainly compatible with UN membership, it is not compatible with membership in the EU.

The popular initiative «Preserve Swiss Neutrality» (Neutrality Initiative), launched in November and aimed at enshrining perpetual and armed neutrality in the Constitution, facilitates a substantive debate on neutrality and its relationship to other constitutional principles. It is limited to the two terms mentioned and seeks to put an end to any weakening or relativization of neutrality, as well as to its gradual abandonment at the constitutional level. However, it cannot influence the tension between international law and national law. It is unlikely that an organized opposition will advocate for abandoning neutrality. It cannot be ruled out, however, that political parties might attempt to push the initiative’s proponents into a national-conservative corner while relativizing the principle of neutrality through vague adjectives. A rejection would likely be perceived worldwide as Switzerland’s farewell to neutrality. For «neutrality» is, above all, what is perceived as such by third parties, not what one declares oneself to be.

Le Regard Libre translates articles from one issue to the next Schweizer Monat, another Swiss monthly magazine of ideas, hence our partnership. The original articles are available on schweizermonat.ch. Robert Nef Robert Nef is a freelance journalist and author, and a member of the Société du Mont-Pèlerin and the Friedrich August von Hayek Society.

You have just read an opinion piece from our NEUTRALITY file, published in our print edition (Le Regard Libre No. 96).