Immediately before Berset’s visit, top German politicians from the traffic light parties had tried to put moral pressure on Switzerland. It was those like the chair of the defense committee, Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann, and the chair of the foreign affairs committee, Michael Roth, who had publicly pressed the chancellor again and again for German arms deliveries. They argued that one cannot remain neutral in the Ukraine war. And both threatened via the press not to place any more armaments orders in Switzerland. Of course it wasn’t used.
This was and is Berlin’s hope, Scholz formulated it in the presence of his guest Berset: With its “turning point in time”, Germany is breaking with a dogma of not delivering weapons to war zones. And just as Germany could break with one of its previously iron principles, other states could do the same.
Weapons deliveries: Scholz bites his teeth on Switzerland
But Switzerland doesn’t do that. It sticks to its neutrality dogma – and does not supply arms to Ukraine, not even indirectly. Scholz bit his teeth on Switzerland.
The Swiss Berset, a social democrat, also said this bluntly to “dear Olaf” at noon today. Switzerland is sticking to its neutrality, which is also a question of its international credibility – and does not mean “indifference”. What it means, however, is that Switzerland is providing military support to “neither side”.
The Swiss interpretation of neutrality is hidden behind this formulation by the President: If Berne decided to supply arms to Ukraine, Russia should not be denied this either. Critics in Switzerland counter that international law has since evolved. While at the beginning of the last century war was still the continuation of politics by other means, war is now outlawed, with severe consequences: you can help someone who has been attacked to defend themselves by supplying them with arms, without being a party to the war yourself.
China, Brazil, Switzerland: The others just don’t want what Germany wants
In any case: If you count the vain attempt by German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock to get China to join the West in the Ukraine war, and the attempt by the Federal Chancellor and his Economics Minister Robert Habeck to achieve the same thing in Brazil, with today’s Switzerland flop of Scholz together, then a triple boom comes together.
The others just don’t want what Germany wants. Not China, not Brazil, not Switzerland. The value-based, idealistic hope that a German role model could also prompt other countries to “change the era” has now failed in three cases within just one week.
The Chinese refuse to interfere in their affairs and do not want to hear lessons about Taiwan and human rights from a German “teacher”.
The Brazilians are happy to take 200 million from the Germans to save the rainforest, only to cut it down all the more. And in the Ukraine war, the left-wing Lula da Silva unabashedly pro-Russian positions – and unilaterally calls on Americans and Europeans for peace. This is not how the Red and Greens in particular had really imagined the change from the right Bolsonaro to the left – and thus ideologically friendly – Lula. And the Swiss remain what they always were: politically neutral.
It almost looks as if the value foreign policy is on the wrong track
All three countries follow their own interests and not moral concepts, such as those loudly and publicly advocated by Germany with its traffic light government. Although it is not clear whether “silent diplomacy” used to work better when dealing with unwelcome countries, the three examples show that the public conflict does not help either.
In a nutshell: national interests beat supranational values. It almost looks as if the value foreign policy is on the wrong track. Maybe it’s also a dead end.
A year ago, Annalena Baerbock uttered a sentence that was as big as it was dazzling. The Green Federal Foreign Minister opened the discussion about a national security strategy for the Federal Republic and then said this: “When it comes to questions of war and peace, when it comes to questions of right and wrong, no country, not even Germany, can be neutral.”
Where does this certainty of being able to dictate their policies to other countries come from?
Why should Germany be able to state that “no country” can remain neutral on questions of war and peace? Where does this certainty of being able to dictate their policies to other countries come from? One can study that other countries interpret the “order of law” to which Baerbock refers differently in terms of international law.
In any case, it can be said that Switzerland sees things differently. And ironically, the Swiss Greens take the opposite view of their German party friends on the issue of arms deliveries to Ukraine. In general, the country’s neutrality and even more how this dogma should be understood are hotly debated in Switzerland.
The conservative Swiss People’s Party SVP even wants to tighten it again by means of a referendum. As a result, Switzerland should no longer be allowed to take part in sanctions, which it is currently doing against Russia. And Olaf Scholz’s guest, Alain Berset, recently warned of a “war frenzy” in the heated debate about Swiss arms deliveries, in the style of Wagenknecht, Schwarzer and Co.
Neutrality as a protection for sometimes dirty deals?
In their joint appearance, Scholz listed all sorts of similarities between Switzerland and Germany. For example the many personal relationships – around Lake Constance alone, 60,000 people commute between Switzerland and Germany every day. Scholz also emphasized that Switzerland supports the sanctions imposed on Russia by the West.
Scholz and Berset diplomatically ignored the fact that the Swiss government recently refused to cooperate in an international project to arrest the billions of Russian oligarchs in the country. The government in Bern justified this with the protection of personal rights, such as data protection, which has always had a high priority in Switzerland.
Since the Congress of Vienna in 1815, neutrality has served to protect them. Today there is a debate in Switzerland as to whether Switzerland is at risk at all and if so, whether it can protect itself at all. Switzerland is surrounded by NATO countries. The left frequently raises the accusation that political neutrality today primarily serves as protection for sometimes even dirty deals.
