Neutral mediation services or entering the war?

by Ralph Bosshard,* Switzerland

(25 January 2023) (Edit.) On 6/7 January 2023, “Swiss Standpoint” held a conference in German on the topic of “Swiss Neutrality and Peace” in Frauenfeld TG. Ralph Bosshard, one of the four invited speakers, has written the following text for our readership with some important aspects of content from the presentations and the discussion.

* * *

In Switzerland’s history, neutrality has had different functions and meanings depending on the geopolitical constellations at different times. At times when a functioning system of collective security existed, neutrality lost its importance to a certain extent. In the current situation, it is once again in vogue. But to indulge in self-contemplation would now be just as wrong as being arrogant.

Historical review

After the experiences of the Second Coalition War, especially in 1799, Switzerland was determined to avoid becoming once again the battleground of the great European powers. In the course of the creation of the Pentarchy of the Great Powers at the Congress of Vienna in 1815, Switzerland and the Netherlands were given the function of buffer states between the Great Powers. In the age of revolutions and rising nationalism in the 19th century, Switzerland’s neutrality fostered its internal cohesion. Ultimately, the armed conflicts over the unification of Germany and Italy were not in Switzerland’s interest and, on the contrary, threatened its unity.

During the Second World War, Switzerland remained neutral because of the failure of the project of a comprehensive coalition against Nazi Germany in the summer of 1939, and because the Western powers in particular proved incapable of providing the necessary assistance to the victims of German aggression. Faced with the choice between neutrality and annihilation, Switzerland chose the former. The often perceived Swiss indulgence in self-contemplation is therefore wrong: Swiss neutrality policy always took place in a pan-European environment and fulfilled its function there.

The “Neutrality initiative” is nothing but logical

The importance of neutrality is basically weaker in an environment with a functioning system of collective security that jointly counters breaches of peace than in a time of active conflict. However, periods with a functioning system of collective security have been the exception rather than the rule in European history. During the interwar period, hopes for the effectiveness of such a system were quickly dashed by the League of Nations. After World War II, the founding of the United Nations was soon overshadowed by the outbreak of the Cold War and the tensions among the victorious powers of World War II, which formed the core of the system.

After the end of the Cold War, euphoria arose and people, especially in the West, believed in an end of history as a succession of wars and peace agreements. The establishment of a collective security system did not succeed at that time, partly because Europe and the U.S. were unwilling to integrate Russia, the supposed loser of the Cold War, into such a system. Today we are experiencing its consequences. It is foreseeable that in the next decades we will again face a period of Cold War, during which neutrality will once again take on a higher significance. The timing and content of the “neutrality initiative” are nothing but logical.¹

Neutrality is the normal practice at international level

We should be careful not to exaggerate neutrality as a form of morally superior attitude. We would only fall into the same mistake made by self-righteous and moralising top politicians from countries that have every reason to be self-critical. Nor is Switzerland’s neutral stance a special case in history, but rather the normal practice: out of more than 190 member countries of the UN at present, only a minority are involved in the numerous current conflicts that are, unfortunately, underway. Switzerland is in good company and its stance is not indecent, as a top Swiss politician recently proclaimed. Anyone who examines the origins of conflicts – which is currently a rather rare activity – understands that it is often more a fight between grey and grey than between black and white.

Mediation services with modesty

Switzerland has traditionally offered its mediation services in conflicts and continues to do so now. It would be completely wrong to address a mediation activity with the pretence of moral superiority. What is required is an in depth knowledge of the history, language, geography and culture of the parties to the conflict, as well as of the geopolitical, economic and geostrategic interrelationships of the conflicts. As a Swiss, one must be aware that, despite our lack of a colonial past, we are perceived as Europeans and may encounter a certain degree of mistrust, especially among countries outside Europe. An appearance of modesty is therefore a must.

Active foreign policy instead of de facto entry into war

The way protagonists deal with potential mediators in conflict situations is always an indicator of the desire for peace. As a country whose inhabitants benefit from great prosperity and a high quality of life and which was spared the devastating conflicts of the twentieth century, Switzerland is often met with envy. All those countries that have been less fortunate in their history expect from it, not entirely unjustifiably, a contribution to the solution of problems. That is why Switzerland must pursue an active foreign policy. At present, there is an opportunity to work on political solutions in cooperation with a majority of states that are not involved in the current conflicts. This is the better alternative to a de facto entry into the war, which many European countries have already carried out.

Now would be the right time for Switzerland to pursue an active foreign policy that looks beyond the borders of the EU and refrains from hasty partisanship. But there is reason to fear that we are falling back into the old indulgence in self-contemplation. For years now, the Swiss Army has been using scenarios in training and army planning that are modelled on the “Tannenbaum” plans² of the German Wehrmacht of 1940. Now they will probably create scenarios of a Russian invasion. Both are equally wrong.

* Ralph Bosshard, born in 1966, is Swiss with roots in Appenzell. He first studied General History, Eastern European History and Military History. He then completed the Military Leadership School at the ETH Zurich and the General Staff Training of the Swiss Armed Forces. This was followed by language training in Russian at Moscow State University and a training course at the Military Academy of the General Staff of the Russian Army. Ralph Bosshard knows the regions of Eastern Europe and Central Asia from his own experience and from his six years of work at the OSCE. Among other things, he served as special military advisor to the Swiss Permanent Representative to this organisation. In the context of his current work, he is also preparing expert reports on the military situation in the Ukraine conflict and previously on the situation in Kazakhstan and in Armenia/Berg Karabakh. To contact the author: ralph.bosshard@bkosoft.ch  / https://bkostrat.ch

(Translation “Swiss Standpoint”)

1 https://www.neutralitaet-ja.ch/initiative

2 The term “Tannenbaum” is used to describe a number of German plans for the occupation of Switzerland during World War II, which Otto-Wilhelm Kurt von Menges drew up on behalf of the Army High Command starting in June 1940. (Wikipedia)