Switzerland and global war: positioning despite neutrality?

A tank chain is built into the red brick wall of St. John’s Cathedral in Warsaw. It stands inconspicuously in a side street and is nevertheless an oppressive reminder of one of the most cynical moments of the Second World War: The SS had just put down the Warsaw Uprising in the fall of 1944 when the German occupiers almost completely destroyed the Polish capital – with flamethrowers and Goliath tanks .

The Red Army, which had already advanced to the eastern bank of the Vistula at this point, simply watched the murder and pillaging without intervening. The Polish resistance was crushed and at the same time Poland’s symbols of statehood were crushed. The Nazis did the dirty work for the Soviets. Stalin, the dictator in the Kremlin, wanted to expand his power far to the west. Poland should be as weak as possible after the war.

Nevertheless, the people of Warsaw immediately rebuilt their old town true to the original. In the mid-1950s, within the historic city walls, it almost looked as if the devastation had never occurred. An act of will, a rebellion, an act of “never again”. Poland is not yet lost; the first line of the Polish anthem, the “Dombrowski March”, was obviously also valid for the Moscow-based communists.

The NATO eastern flank as the core of resilience against Russia

It is precisely this spirit of resistance against totalitarian power politics that animates the Warsaw Security Forum, which has been bringing together decision-makers and experts in transatlantic security policy every autumn for ten years. War is a battle of wills, and Ukraine’s will to win the war is stronger than Russia’s, a retired general said at a podium.

Compared to the discourse in Switzerland, the forum seems like a parallel world. While the threat in Switzerland is formulated as abstractly as possible, in Poland it is a daily reality. The question is not whether the existing army should be fully equipped, but rather how many divisions it will take to repel a Russian attack and at the same time support Lithuania.

There is no doubt about the will to defend ourselves on NATO’s eastern flank. This year’s forum therefore also tried to strengthen the connection with the old, western Europe. Instead of mocking Berlin’s quiet behavior and the big but actually ineffective words from Paris, the Warsaw Security Forum is calling for the Weimar Triangle to be revived in its 2024 annual report.

This discussion group between Poland, Germany and France was created in 1991 to expand foreign and security policy integration beyond the newly fallen Iron Curtain after the end of the Cold War. Less than fifty years had passed since the Warsaw Uprising and the expulsion of the German population from the areas east of the Oder and Neisse.

 

Iran is on the Mediterranean

Another thirty years later, the situation has changed fundamentally: Poland has emerged as the security policy center of strength in Europe and of resilience against Russia. A strengthened Weimar Triangle should demonstrate to the EU that Warsaw, Berlin and Paris can still follow a common path despite all their differences.

Only a united Europe offers sufficient protection so that the member states cannot be played off against each other as objects of the new power politics. Russia’s ambiguous war already extends deep into the interior of the continent. Germany in particular is intended to be destabilized and alienated from NATO. China is also trying to get individual EU states on its side.

The Eurasian autocracy – China, Russia, Iran and North Korea – has long since attacked the West in several locations at the same time: most obviously in Ukraine, but the conflict in the Middle East can also be understood as part of a global conflict. Iran is challenging not only Israel, but the West as a whole. The regime in Tehran has become a close ally of Moscow and a supplier of weapons.

In addition, Iran has had armed forces on the Mediterranean for years: indirectly through the Shiite terrorist organization Hezbollah in Lebanon, directly with units of the Revolutionary Guard in Syria, and sometimes side by side with the remaining troops of the Russian army. Just as Ukraine defends itself against Russia, Israel defends itself against Iran.

Neutral – but to whom exactly?

To put it even more clearly: Ukraine and Israel are fighting in the same war against the same enemy, simply in different contexts. The often justified criticism of Israel’s actions has turned into open anti-Semitism in Europe. The progressive division of Western societies is intentional and is also weakening the Ukrainian defense struggle.

This idea of ​​a global war of Eurasian powers against the West corresponds to a broad consensus of the Warsaw Security Forum. The connection between the conflicts in the supply chains is particularly clear. The Russian army fires North Korean shells and Iranian drones in Ukraine. In addition, Russia has also become China’s junior partner in terms of technology.

The regime in Beijing has so far not directly interfered in the Middle East or Europe, but is ensuring that Russia at least does not lose the war against Ukraine. The Chinese strategy is aimed at dominance in the Pacific and Taiwan. Unrest on the other side of the great Eurasian tectonic plate is helping to keep the United States busy around the globe.

Lin Fei-fan, deputy secretary general of the National Security Council of Taiwan, said in Warsaw unequivocally: “China is not a peacemaker, but a driver of conflict.” The warning is also aimed at Switzerland, which spoke out in favor of a Chinese-Brazilian peace initiative on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly at the end of September.

With such attempts to strengthen its role in neutrality policy, Switzerland is likely to weaken its strategic position. Kiev has already protested in Bern because Ukraine’s territorial integrity is excluded from China and Brazil’s proposal. This neutrality only benefits the attacker in a global war of aggression. The question arises as to why Switzerland wants to be neutral at all – and, above all, towards whom.

“But that can’t be the end of the story.”

The situation could become particularly delicate if the war in the Middle East escalates further. An Israeli air strike that hit Iran hard led to a test: is it a legitimate act of self-defense or a preemptive strike in the gray area of ​​international law? The UN Security Council is currently meeting under the Swiss chairmanship and will deal with the situation one way or another.

Switzerland will not be able to avoid taking a position. For adaptation or resistance. For one’s own democratic, constitutional principles or indifference to injustice. For a minimum of universal laws or the anarchic pursuit of sheer profit. Switzerland can still decide for itself which side it wants to be on.

External pressure is likely to increase. In Warsaw, various panels discussed sanctions against countries that support or even enable the Russian-Chinese war effort. This could present Switzerland with a dilemma: not because of Russia, but because of its close trade relations with China. Because foreign policy in Bern is always foreign economic policy.

Switzerland and China concluded a free trade agreement ten years ago, which has so far enabled economic relations on an equal footing – and a certain degree of self-confidence in their relationship with the EU. But Beijing’s power behavior and the hardening in Chinese-Western relations could restrict or even completely interrupt trade.

While larger companies have long been relying on de-risking, many Swiss SMEs remain active in China: not only to protect their own investments, but also because personal business and trust relationships have grown over the years. It is therefore wrong for the Federal Council to simply wait and act as if the special relations with China were completely unproblematic. The decision for freedom will be painful and takes time.

 

It would be helpful if Swiss politicians addressed the view on NATO’s eastern flank. Learning from Poland means defending freedom. Because the existence of the Polish state is one of the strongest symbols against the brute force of power politics. “Never again” here means “never again oppression,” “never again lack of freedom,” even if the price for this is high. Switzerland is no longer used to acting so consistently.

One of the last radio messages from the Warsaw Resistance was intercepted in London: “A people in which such bravery lives is immortal,” said British War Prime Minister Winston Churchill, describing the message of free Poland in his memoirs. Churchill calls the failed uprising “The Martyrdom of Warsaw”: “But that cannot be the end of history.” This imperative still applies today.