The History of Neutrality

[In diesem Artikel geht es um die Herausforderungen der Neutralität in der Schweiz, besondere im Hinblick auf die Debatte im UNO-Sicherheitsrat. Wir dachten, eine Übersetzung ins Deutsche würde ihn leichter zugänglich machen. Lesen]

I am writing this article in Switzerland, the country that, perhaps more than any other, has sought to adopt neutrality as part of its national identity. The Swiss loudly proclaim their neutrality as part of a subliminal narrative of moral superiority. They point to it as evidence of their own cosmopolitanism and broad-mindedness. It has become a foundation-stone of Switzerland’s foreign policy, proof of the fundamental honesty and trustworthiness of the Swiss. Neutrality has even been linked with topography, ‘the reliable and strong people of the mountains’, secure in their own isolated fastness, literally above it all. It has facilitated the growth of activities from banking to hosting international bodies such as the League of Nations, the Red Cross (whose flag is an inversion of the Swiss flag) and even a nuclear particle physics research facility (CERN). It has attracted investment and created jobs; however, this source of ‘business’ may be under threat.

A Brief History of Swiss Neutrality

Academic consensus is that neutrality was formalised in the Treaty of Westphalia (1648), probably a de facto result of the signatories agreeing that no foreign armies would cross Swiss territory. Two myths arose in the late nineteenth century concerning the age and origin of the doctrine. The first claimed it to be at least 130 years older than Westphalia, the second that it was an independent Swiss initiative. These myths strengthened Swiss national identity at a time when nation-states were emerging across Europe.

A recurring motif then and since is the conflation of neutrality with non-judgmentalism, a morally desirable attitude which also encourage domestic multiculturalism. Nineteenth century ‘privatisation’ of religion and twentieth century secularisation have led to modern nation-states assuming a greater role in determining normative standards of ethical behaviour. In the case of Switzerland neutrality has been seized upon by the federal government, which has sole responsibility for foreign policy, as a badge of moral leadership in the creation of social cohesion. The Cantons that make up Switzerland rather than the Federation have primary responsibility for this.

Changing Perspectives

The separation of foreign policy from domestic governance unravelled with the arrival of modern global technological communication and a sharp rise in immigration. The technique of selective ‘knowledge’ of foreign regimes adopted, for example, in the Second World War has become untenable. For instance, modern detailed satellite imagery of the Uighur concentration camps in China has rendered impossible the practice adopted by Switzerland and many other nations in the 1940s of ignoring or denying the Holocaust. Thus, a visit by the Swiss President to China in 2019 under the guise of general strengthening of relationships was subject to considerable scrutiny.

The history of reparation payments to compensate for the mishandling of Jewish gold in the 1940s demonstrates the consequences of modern transmission of knowledge. For decades after WWII there was only muted acknowledgement that neutrality played a role in easing the path of the Nazi regime, in part attributable to fear of triggering demands for large compensatory pay-outs by Swiss banks. In 1962 an unsupervised audit to identify unlawfully withheld Jewish assets resulted in payments of just CHF35mn in 1995 terms. The subsequent global outcry, driven largely by external campaigners, eventually led to a US$2.1bn settlement.

The 1990s neutrality debate was framed almost entirely by questions of financial restitution. Apart from the question of justice, restitution should arguably be viewed as part of a wider discussion about collective responsibility for the Holocaust by an ostensibly Christian population. The Catholic Church has since been the most prominent in apologising for its complicity with the Nazi regime. However, the change of discourse from specific apology to one group of victims to acknowledging the moral implications of neutrality has been halting and recent. The first apology, specifically to the Jews as victims, was made in 1998, but only in 2020 was a document issued with a wider acknowledgement that ‘inasmuch as the bishops did not oppose the war with a clear ‘no,’ and most of them bolstered the [German nation’s] will to endure, they made themselves complicit in the war’.

Those promoting neutrality often invoke a vague notion of moral superiority: “We are unsullied by the dirty business of conflict, violence and war”. The examples above demonstrate the weakness of this logic. One can go even further, because neutrality at its worst can be indistinguishable from weakness, indecisiveness, and even outright cowardice. The consequences may be beneficial or damaging, but it is difficult to uphold an argument that neutrality is fundamentally virtuous.

Modern Neutrality Circumscribed

Switzerland continues to promote a narrative portraying itself as the world’s great neutral mediator, above the heat of conflict and debate. However, Swiss impartiality has increasingly failed to hold up to scrutiny. For example, JusticeInfo.net, a privately funded NGO in Lausanne dedicated to exposing global injustice and war crimes, has demonstrated that the Swiss criminal proceedings against a former Liberian dictator compared unfavourably with the Finnish war crimes trial of the former Sierra Leone regime. Herein lies the modern dilemma of neutrality. If ‘no man is an island’ holds true, the possibility of nation-states remaining isolated has diminished sharply with the advent of modern communication.

The Information Age has exposed the extent of many illicit activities, sometimes to the disadvantage of countries claiming to offer non-partisanship. The War on Terror resulted in exhaustive efforts to trace terrorist financing. The US has deployed new tracing technology to combat tax evasion and any financial activity linked to criminal enterprises. Swiss banking secrecy, along with similar policies in many offshore centres, has come under aggressive American attack. It is no longer possible to possess a Swiss ‘number-only’ bank account. The counter argument that ‘as a neutral country, we do not question sources of funds’ is now unacceptable. Switzerland has been forced to adopt polices of full disclosure and to call out depositors whose funds appear to have come from activities or nations deemed unacceptable by other Western democracies. Put another way, neutrality no longer allows for the suspension of judgement.

Within the country, mainstream politicians trying to contain the rise in populism have utilized Switzerland’s tradition of neutrality in conjunction with policies of cultural tolerance. They seek to address one of the ironies of modern Switzerland. In a wealthy country that presents itself as a haven of peace, populism in the form of the far-right Schweizerische Volkspartei (‘SVP’) has achieved greater success than in any other Western European country. It has become a major political party and part of the Federal Council, successfully forcing referenda that have approved a range of divisive policies such as banning the building of minarets and wearing of burqas.

Neutrality May Damage Both Foreign Standing and Domestic Social Cohesion

Switzerland became a full member of the UN in 2002, part of a process of acknowledging the unavoidability of global engagement. After fierce domestic debate it has decided to apply for non-permanent membership of the Security Council from 2023. Problematically this has been presented as part of the continuation of ‘neutral international engagement’. I suggest that the UN’s record is itself open to debate. As permanent members of the Security Council China and Russia regularly veto motions critical of them; meanwhile, in 2020 alone seventeen motions condemning Israel were passed compared with a total of six for the entire rest of the world. In 2019 Switzerland refused to vote with 36 other countries calling for an investigation into Jamal Khashoggi’s murder.

Whether neutrality remains a realistic policy option in 2021 is now openly questioned in Switzerland for the first time. The former Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey recently published a book advocating ‘active neutrality’. While acknowledging “the huge challenges” of neutrality, she supports it as enabling mediation and non-violent intervention. She appears to define ‘neutrality’ as the pursuit of pragmatic engagement in world affairs, a strategy of praxis divorced from moral judgement.  Whether this is feasible in the modern inter-connected world is debateable. Any nation acting as an arbiter will be assumed to have reasonable knowledge of the activities of all parties, whether or not they are admitted openly. Moreover, in a country where, in common with much of Europe, recent immigrants make up almost 7% of the population, it is difficult to divorce domestically-held views from foreign policy.

The principle of neutrality will not disappear.  As long as there are wars and disputes there will be a demand for channels of communication between enemies, often away from the public eye. However, the circumstances of its use and understanding of its consequences are changing. In a modern world where it is no longer possible to entirely ignore the unending abundance of genocide and other acts of oppression and war crimes throughout the world, neutrality can no longer be convincingly framed as a byword for objectivity and humanitarianism. In reality, it is a political policy like any other.