Decisive weeks lie ahead for Swiss security policy. Disaster is looming in the army’s finances, as is the case with the intelligence service. A major effort is needed to change course.
Heidi’s shouting, the sound of the alphorn and the mooing cow mark the beginning and end of an overseas journey via Zurich Airport. In the Skymetro, which connects the terminal for intercontinental flights in the middle of the runway with the Swiss mainland, passengers see twelve seconds of Switzerland projected onto the tunnel wall: mountains and snow as far as the eye can see, plus sounds reminiscent of the smell of the Alps and goat’s milk.
The folkloristic farewell and welcome greeting at the otherwise discreet and sophisticated Zurich airport reminds us before and after every major trip of the inner contradiction that is part of Switzerland’s success model: the peculiar connection between the globalized reality and the persistent homesickness for the legendary origins in the Alps. The country lives as an idea, as a feeling and as a constant task.
However, the existential imperative to focus on itself prevents Switzerland from paying more attention to the dire security situation. Terrorism is back, two armed conflicts in the immediate vicinity threaten to escalate, and the Kremlin wants to lower the threshold for the use of tactical nuclear weapons. Even cautious scenarios leave the uneasy feeling of living in a pre-war era. But there is little to no sign of this in Swiss politics.
The intelligence service is paralyzed
Symptomatic of the denial of reality by the political-media bubble in Bern was the outrage over a specific scenario discussed in NATO circles, with which the Defense Department (DDPS) wanted to underline the urgency of military rearmament. The proposal itself, a fund solution for rapid army financing, is out of line with the landscape, but not the scenario. It describes the consequences if Ukraine loses the war against Russia.
Instead of dealing with the content in concrete terms, some security politicians were annoyed by the “zigzag course” and the “doom and gloom” that did not correspond with the previous statements of the VBS. In fact, the Federal Council exercised noble restraint with security policy forecasts. But it is precisely the nature of dangerous situations that they do not obediently adhere to the politically embellished reports.
It is the duty of the DDPS to present the views of the partner countries to the other departments – especially the NATO frontline states in the Baltics or Scandinavia, which are specifically preparing for an expansion of the Russian attack against the West. However, the question arises as to why the Federal Intelligence Service (NDB) does not also make it very clear that Russia’s hybrid war is also aimed at Switzerland.
On the one hand, the Federal Council does not want to expose itself at any cost. Concrete scenarios would possibly show a need for action – with uncomfortable political and financial consequences. Therefore, the motto is not to alarm anyone. On the other hand, the FIS is still primarily concerned with itself. A transformation that is necessary but implemented without sensitivity has been limiting the service’s activities for months.
Last week, the department provided the NDB director with the deputy secretary general as a coach, along with additional resources to complete the transformation quickly. Thanks to this measure, the intelligence service should be able to concentrate on its operational activities again. To put it more bluntly, this means that the NDB was no longer able to carry out its task with the required quality.
No common understanding of the threat
But the security politicians, who are usually outraged by every little thing, seem to have simply accepted the partial disempowerment of the intelligence chief. They simply lack seriousness. There is no other explanation for the rejection of the army’s payment framework in the National Council’s Security Policy Commission (SiK). The debate in the plenary session in the autumn session threatens to slide into a chaotic general assembly of self-profiling.
If Parliament fails to adequately fund the army, the timely military build-up is in danger of failing. However, the responsibility for this would not primarily lie with security policymakers, but with the Federal Council. Instead of agreeing on a joint approach over the summer, the departments involved simply stubbornly did their own thing.
As usual, sympathetic parliamentarians and the media were called in to ensure that the respective “ideas fixes” were heard. It is more than a technical error that the fund was recycled again and presented to the National Council’s SiK. In doing so, the DDPS firstly gambled away the willingness of the Finance Department (FDF) to compromise and secondly triggered the dynamic that ultimately led to the current blockade of the payment framework.
Swiss politicians cannot agree on a common understanding of the threat or on defensive measures. Even in a study commission headed by former employers’ president Valentin Vogt, angry shouts drown out the broad consensus. Individual representatives’ own egos and their own programs seem to be more important than a basic consensus on security policy.
Belief in the special case does not protect Switzerland
The report of the study commission summarizes what has long been obvious: the threat situation requires a more rapid expansion of the army, the expansion of military cooperation and better conditions for the arms industry. In addition, a majority of the commission supports the idea of aligning Swiss neutrality more closely with the UN Charter. Switzerland should differentiate between the attacker and the defender.
But these considerations could be pushed into the background next week when another expert commission presents the results of its work: Serge Gaillard, the former director of the Federal Finance Administration, and his team will put forward proposals on how the federal government’s structural deficit can be eliminated. The additional expenditure to at least fully equip the existing army is the pièce de résistance.
If they could, the economic experts around Gaillard would scale down the threat. Then national defense would also be cheaper. As has been the case in recent decades, the army would be geared to the financial possibilities that remain after all domestic cohesion funds have been deducted. This is another reason why Swiss security policy is facing decisive weeks: it must succeed in averting a disaster in the army’s finances.
Belief in the exceptional case alone will not protect Switzerland. There is an urgent need to address the threat situation – this should be possible even if the actors are not named for reasons of neutrality: the potential for an attack on Switzerland is there, and the inhibition threshold to actually use these weapons is continually decreasing. Rich and weak is a bad combination in the current situation.
A fragile construct needs a robust defense
It is no longer simply prosperity that is under threat, but rather Switzerland’s liberal promise of being able to achieve something through its own efforts and – sometimes a little stubbornly – to go its own way. But it takes the will to really defend this opportunity and this country. Indifference to change and the flight into self-deception that everything will turn out well this time too are endangering precisely what makes Switzerland what it is.
It is now up to Federal President Viola Amherd, the head of the DDPS, to take the lead – first within her department: the Federal Council needs an integral situation report with constantly updated scenarios. To achieve this, the FIS must be placed under the newly created State Secretariat for Security Policy so that it can actually perform its hub function.
Then Amherd must overcome her fears and approach her colleague in the Finance Department, Federal Councillor Karin Keller-Sutter, who is certainly not against the army. The two women together would be credible ambassadors for military growth.
In order to change course, a major effort is now needed – and an escape from the mental Heidiland. Switzerland is not an untouchable idyll, but is just as exposed to geopolitical changes as the rest of the world. The successful model between globalization and goat’s milk is a fragile construct. This makes a robust national defense all the more important.