Neutrality: Protection against Terror

by Matthias Erne

The shock of 11th September went deep, also among those this side of the Atlantic. The victims have not yet been buried, the wounds are still open and we are still trying to come to terms with what we have been confronted with. When someone from Switzerland attempts to analyse what has happened his thought immediately turn towards the negotiating table. In his mind that is where conflicts belong. Large scale terror and wars of aggression are no forward-looking alternatives. We must continue to spurn both of them. And there can be no ifs and buts about it, whether they be of the moral or legal kind.

Both terror and wars of aggression have the same purpose: change. They aim to bring about change in the government, or government policy, or a countrys borders. War principally strikes the opposing army, terror strikes at civilisation, causes terrible suffering and fear. But this fear is not the aim of terror, it is the illegal means of bringing about changes.

Switzerland is a neutral country. It has made permanent armed neutrality, a concept of preventing war, the maxim of its foreign policy. By doing so Switzerland guarantees four permanent objectives. It will never begin a war, it will never enter a war on the side of a warring party, it will never one-sidedly support warring parties, but it will vigorously defend itself against any attacking party. This foreign policy is complemented by the humanitarian commitment of the Red Cross, the Swiss Disster Relief Unit, and the offer that the country, on account of its impartiality, at all times be the place where talks around the negotiating table can take place.

This level-headed, non-aggressive policy means that there is no cause for terror or war against Switzerland. Since Switzerland is not a member of NATO, the UN and the EU, the country does not feel threatened, since no one has any cause to change the countrys foreign policy for one of war or terror. Thus the Swiss army has remained in its barracks and its stand-by level has not been increased. The government has also seen no reason to strengthen security measures, except for those of the U.S. embassy and the embassies of its closest allies.

In the last few days a number of analysts have pointed out that terror cannot be prevented in a free society since an autocratic police state is simply no alternative. Neutrality, and logically the renunciation to power politics, offers greater protection and security. Security through co-operation is unnecessary to a neutral country. Co-operation is a natural virtue to such a country, and it forges its security itself. To do so an efficient, democratically controlled secret service independent of alliances is required, and to overcome difficulties a country may have to face, a fully developed civil defence must exist, as well as a national alarm organisation and the rescue sections of the army to overcome large-scale disasters.

In the present situation it would certainly be appropriate for the neutral countries like Switzerland, Austria, Ireland, Sweden, Finland and Malta, in addition to the fight against terrorism and war, to speak out clearly in favour of the peaceful concept of neutrality.