"Switzerland and Sanctions? Neutrality is Not a Magic Shield"

With Russia's unleashed war against Ukraine, much has been spoken and written about regarding Switzerland's role between neutrality and international sanctions. And much of it has also been said disproportionately, disregarding the legal, political and historical realities in which our country has acted and still acts. Aiding us in clarifying the issue is historian Sacha Zala, the Bern-based director of Swiss Diplomatic Documents, an institute and research group that is also a member of the Swiss Academy of Humanities and Social Sciences.

Sacha Zala, let's begin with the concept of neutrality: is there a document that defines its outlines?

"International law is regulated much less densely than domestic law. Also, many things are based on practice and custom. Next, many rules, which we believe are strictly defined by international law, are instead the result of our own creations, for instance, the issue of the export of arms, regulated by our own laws and ordinances and legitimized often even by popular votes. The few rights and duties of a neutral country, however, are defined precisely by the Hague Conventions concerning the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in the Event of War on Land and Maritime Warfare, which were concluded on October 18, 1907, and are still valid today. The fifth convention is the one relevant to Switzerland and was approved by the Federal Assembly in 1910, and thereby became part of Swiss law. Of course, the war that was intended to be regulated by these conventions was completely different from that of today. Just think of missiles, drones or cyber warfare, which practically do not have a classical territorial component as it was thought of then, in the early twentieth century. For example, what does 'Swiss territory' even mean in cyberspace?"

But then how relevant are these Hague Conventions dating back more than a century still today?

"I would say that outside of Switzerland no one really knows about them anymore. Since 1907 the world order has undergone three epochal caesuras. If we count Russia's war against Ukraine also as a historical caesura, which future historiography is likely to do, we are now actually in the fifth radical transformation of the international order since these Conventions were signed. For Switzerland, neutrality plays a fundamental role in national cohesion, and the Hague Conventions are the cornerstone for the legal definition of neutrality. And that's why they are still part of our political debate. But for other countries it is now outdated law. Ireland, for example, is a neutral country and is even debating the issue of arms exports in these weeks, but in Irish policy there is never any mention of the Hague Conventions."

Switzerland therefore still refers to the Hague Conventions. But what are the cornerstones that govern the rights and duties of neutral countries in it?

"The first article states that the territory of neutral countries-in the document defined by the term, then used, of "powers"-is inviolable, and in the second that it is forbidden for belligerents to pass through a neutral state's territory troops or convoys either of ammunition or supplies. Articles 7 and 8 go on to stipulate that a neutral country is not obliged to prevent the export or transit, on the behalf of this belligerent or that one of the belligerents, of weapons, ammunition, and, in general, of anything that may be useful to an army or a fleet. Nor are neutral countries required to ban or restrict telecommunications by belligerents, then the telegraph. But Article 9 specifies that any restrictive measure or prohibition, if at all, must be applied by the neutral country to both warring parties. Evidently, the right of neutral states to react, when attacked by another country, is also stipulated."

One must not make the mistake of confusing things, between international law on neutrality, one's own national laws and sanctions

So, the issue of sanctions as we understand it nowadays is already contemplated there?

"Because of the specific nature of Article 7 of the Hague Convention, we could say yes, but one must not make the mistake of confusing things, between international law on neutrality, one's own national laws, and sanctions such as those that were decided in the international arena and were adopted by Switzerland after Russia unleashed the war against Ukraine. And a lot of confusion has occurred from several quarters when the issue has been addressed, as concepts and institutions that should be considered separately have been mixed together. In the final analysis, although in Switzerland we like to hide behind supposed obligations that arose from neutrality, the issue of sanctions is not a legal issue but a genuine political one. Moreover, resorting to history, perhaps all the way back to Nicholas of Flüe, is a total anachronism: economic sanctions in the modern sense originated with the creation of the League of Nations in 1919."

Sticking with neutrality: how exceptional is it for Switzerland's, which in recent months has been flaunted at every turn?

"It is only we Swiss who identify with the uniqueness of neutrality. In the history of international relations, however, neutrality is the normal status for most states with respect to the majority of conflicts. For example, in the 1982 war for the control of the Atlantic Falkland-Malvinas Islands between Britain and Argentina, the United States of America or Italy or Australia, like Switzerland, remained neutral. Our conception of neutrality is very much shaped by the two world wars and the fact that, in the end, Switzerland emerged unscathed, in contrast to other neutral states such as Belgium or Norway that were invaded instead. Thus, during the Second World War for Switzerland, trade policy in favor of the Axis Powers was much more decisive, for example, with a credit of one billion granted to Germany to supply itself with Swiss arms and equipment. It can therefore be said that while neutrality is a legally well-defined "vessel" under the 1907 Hague Convention, Switzerland, depending on the case and historical period, has filled it with the policy that suited it best, not least to guarantee itself room for maneuver. Which other neutral countries have always done as well."

The sanctions tool should have been part of our political baggage as early as 1920 but...

The instrument of sanctions has been part of Switzerland's baggage since when?

"In the modern sense, the instrument of sanctions is the cornerstone of the collective security idea of the League of Nations, the international organization promoted by Woodrow Wilson, the U.S. president at the time, precisely to avoid the mechanics and automatisms of alliances that had triggered the tragedy of World War I. The member countries of the League of Nations, in the name of collective security, had pledged mutual military support in the event of armed aggression. In addition, economic sanctions to be applied against aggressors had also been defined-for the first time formally at the multilateral level. The instrument of sanctions should therefore have been part of our political baggage as early as 1920, when Switzerland, after being chosen to host the seat of the League of Nations, by popular vote decided to join it."

Can you explain why you used the conditional tense?

"Precisely in an effort to succeed in the internationally very symbolic vote for membership, Switzerland had succeeded in obtaining a waiver regarding the obligations enshrined in the Covenant of the League of Nations, namely exemption from mutual military assistance. In contrast, our country had accepted the principle of economic sanctions decided by the organization. It was precisely this major concession to Switzerland, which to put it plainly clashed frontally against the very principles of collective security of the Covenant, that necessitated an almost mythological legitimization of the uniqueness of Swiss neutrality. Otherwise, other neutral countries would also have wanted the same advantage and thus take advantage of the defense guaranteed by the Covenant without, however, having to pay the costs."

And how did the issue of sanctions turn out?

"In 1933, with Adolf Hitler's rise to power, Germany, as Japan had already done, left the League of Nations (the United States, on the other hand, had never joined the Covenant). The deteriorating international situation had begun to undermine the body's existence. When the government of Benito Mussolini in 1935 unleashed war against Abyssinia, a fully-fledged member of the League of Nations, sanctions were decided against Fascist Italy. For its part, the Federal Council, after consulting with Swiss economic organizations, finally decided not to implement them, blatantly going against what it had promised in 1920. Precisely in order to justify this volte-face, it invented the argument of a "return to integral neutrality," a supposed prior state that before the creation of the League of Nations obviously could not even exist."

You explained that during World War II Switzerland was not saved because it was neutral, but mainly because of its trade policy. What about after the conflict?

"In 1945, at the termination of hostilities, for the Allies, our country was practically among the so-called 'carrion states,' along with other neutrals such as Francisco Franco's Spain, the Portugal of Antonio de Oliveira Salazar, a dictator like Franco, and Sweden, which had allowed German troops to transit through its territory during the conflict. Given how the neutral states had bargained, the institution of neutrality fell to zero as a reputation, so much so that when the UN, the Organization of United Nations, was founded in 1945, only those countries that had declared war on Nazi Germany, fascist Italy and Japan, the third nation that made up the so-called Axis, were admitted. Three nations that were nonetheless admitted to the UN in the following decades."

Switzerland even went so far as to silence more than praiseworthy episodes involving its citizens

How, then, was the Swiss side to react? How did our country move?

"In order to rebuild a kind of virginity of neutrality, Switzerland even went so far as to suppress more than commendable episodes of which its citizens had been protagonists. Such as that of Vice-Consul Carl Lutz, who in Budapest during World War II had helped save tens of thousands of Jews by making passes for them to be deported. The Federal Council at the time went out of its way to avoid publicity for Lutz's work, because having cheated the Nazis, he had not shown neutrality. But the neutrality card internationally by then no longer worked. In 1946, probing the ground to apply for admission to the UN with the same exceptions obtained at the time by the League of Nations, Switzerland did not even get a response to its letter of request. In short, Switzerland's tactics had not gone down well, interested in the rights due to UN members but not in the duties to which all others had to submit. As Sweden, on the other hand, had agreed to do, quietly admitted to the UN as early as 1946, despite being neutral until now, like us. This Swiss reluctance to accept its international duties is perhaps the main reason for its long absence from the UN, until the membership vote in 2002."

So when did our country finally fall in line with the sanctions system?

"In fact, it was as early as the early 1950s and by an act of force, in the midst of the Cold War, the confrontation between the Western bloc and the communist bloc with the Soviet Union at its head. The United States did not like the fact that Switzerland continued to export goods and merchandise to communist countries that were considered to be of strategic importance, which was forbidden to NATO member states. The U.S. had therefore sent one of its representatives, Harold Linder, to clarify once and for all how things should be, threatening that Switzerland, if it did not, would in turn be overwhelmed by the same sanctions. Faced with such an aut aut aut, the Swiss government, represented by Jean Hotz, explained itself to the American will, but asked that the agreement signed in 1951 (called the Hotz-Linder-Agreement) not be formalized in written form, so that the appearance of a neutral country could be safeguarded. When the facts were proven, however, Switzerland as a result of this agreement became fully integrated into the NATO sanctions system."

And once the Cold War ended, after the opposition between two well-defined major blocs came to an end?

"In 1989, with the fall of the Berlin Wall, there was a further momentous change. As far as Switzerland was concerned, this meant asking what it meant to 'be neutral' in a completely changed context in terms of international politics. Thus the Federal Council, with its 1993 Neutrality Report, redefined the scope of its neutrality policy. Since then, the Federal Council in several concrete cases-from Iraq to Yugoslavia to Libya and many others-decided to adhere to the sanctions decreed by the international community. We can say that since the end of the Cold War Switzerland has followed the sanctions, as it has been now with those enacted by the European Union against Russia. All this has always happened while perfectly safeguarding the principles of international law that neutral countries must observe according to the 1907 Hague Conventions."

Can you give us a couple of examples, concerning the sanctions to which our country has aligned itself?

"When Saddam Hussein's Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, the United States who later led the coalition of armies that fought against Iraq's in the first Gulf War, asked Switzerland to allow U.S. military aircraft to fly over our territory. The Federal Council responded with a clear "no," saying that in any case that Switzerland would enforce the sanctions against Iraq decided by the international community. Thus, our government complied with the 1907 Hague Conventions, according to which a neutral country cannot allow troops or convoys of both ammunition and supplies to pass through its territory by warring parties. This concept was reaffirmed by Federal Councillor Viola Amherd, minister of defense, regarding the current international crisis, when she said that Switzerland, if at all, only allows overflights by humanitarian flights."

Therefore, as far as sanctions are concerned, there is nothing completely different and nothing surprising about the sanctions, considering those decided by Switzerland against Russia in the wake of the military attack against Ukraine...

"Indeed, because in this regard the Federal Council has followed the policy that in the area of sanctions it has been following for some 30 years now, since the fall of the Berlin Wall. It makes me wonder who questioned the actions of the Federal Council when it decided to align itself with the sanctions decided against Vladimir Putin's Russia, citing alleged obligations of neutrality. It seems not everywhere realized that Switzerland is also subject to intense, powerful pressures and that the neutrality argument does not catch on, just as it did not in 1951 with the NATO sanctions. In fact, given the stakes and the financial importance of Switzerland, our country could also be subject to sanctions. The banking secrecy dispute or the controversy over Jewish assets lying in Switzerland after World War II demonstrated quite clearly that if the international community agrees to put pressure upon Switzerland, in the long run it is impossible to escape international standards."

I mean, is that the case or is it still the case, neutrality or non-neutrality?

"To assume that we are not part of this world is naive, just as it is naive to believe that neutrality is some sort of magical space shield that allows us to do what we want without regard to the interests and power of others. We are, however, not an island, by any means. International relations are based on power relations all the time, and if the international community steps in united, even neutral Switzerland cannot escape."

Historian

Sacha Zala was born on November 24, 1968, and is a native of Brusio, Valposchiavo. He studied history, political science and constitutional law at the University of Bern where he is now a professor. He has also taught at the universities of Zurich, Basel, Lucerne, Geneva, Neuchâtel and the German University of Heidelberg. Historiographical issues, history of history, international politics and Swiss foreign policy, European nationalisms, minorities and border regions are his fields of research. In 2002, he began working with Swiss Diplomatic Documents, of which he became director in 2008.

The Dodis Research Group

The Swiss Diplomatic Documents research group, whose Internet portal is www.dodis.ch, is part of the Swiss Academy of Humanities and Social Sciences. The scholarly staff members of Dodis specialize in Switzerland's relations with specific countries and international organizations or in particular subject areas. Members of Swiss Diplomatic Documents are also engaged in university teaching and impart their expert knowledge on specific historical issues through specialized publications and by addressing the public and the media. They organize scientific colloquia and conferences on particular aspects of Switzerland's international relations and present papers at conferences on contemporary history both at home and abroad.