"swiss neutrality" should not allow zelensky's "peace conference" in switzerland.....

There is no solid definition of Swiss neutrality in the Swiss Federal Constitution. The neutrality initiative demands the Federal Council to actively pursue its peace function. Our country would thereby regain scope. The 2022 launched neutrality initiative has been achieved. On 11 April the initiative committee submitted 133,000 signatures for the initiative. This sets the course for a referendum on a definition of neutrality in the Swiss constitution.

Who is afraid of neutrality?by Pascal Lottaz*

A neutrality enshrined in the constitution would create clarity for us – and for the abroad. Whether the Federal Council should, in a first phase draw up a counterproposal to the initiative or whether it favours a rejection without alternative is still up in the air at the moment. However, it can be assumed that it will not support the original wording of the initiative, as it restricts the competence of the Federal Council to freely interpret the concept of neutrality. In its reports on neutrality from 1993 and 2022 the Federal Council argued repeatedly that neutrality requires “flexibility so that it can adapt to the course of time” (2022, p. 8). The panel of magistrates will therefore have to decide whether it wants to propose a less strict definition of neutrality or whether it wants to adopt the “all or nothing” strategy of trying to sink the request at the ballot box.

From great powers for great powers

One way or another, the initiative will from now on force a debate about the definition of neutrality and its anchoring in the Swiss state structure. In particular our neutrality is currently mentioned by the constitution in two places in the Constitution (Art. 173, 85) but is not given any meaning there. In this respect Swiss neutrality differs from that of Austria, for example, where a Federal Constitutional Law of 1955 (BGBl. no. 211/1955) also describes the foreign policy maxim in more detail: “For the securing of this purpose in all future times Austria will not join any military alliances and will not permit the establishment of any foreign military bases on her territory”. Switzerland lacks such a “strict” definition at constitutional level.
The Austrian example clearly shows that a definition in the constitution does not stand in the way of a flexible interpretation of foreign policy. For example, Austria 1955, despite a “strict” definition of neutrality immediately decided in favour of joining the UN (which Switzerland did not do until 2002) and joined the EU in 1995 – something that the conservatives in Switzerland often criticise as incompatible with neutrality.
It is also sometimes argued that such a constitutional text is unnecessary because Swiss neutrality is based on the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, which is not wrong under international law, but overlooks an important point. The Hague Conventions define the rights and obligations of neutral states in times of war and apply to all states that decide not to join a war. The treaties do not contain any special clauses for “perpetually” neutral states such as Switzerland, which has made neutrality its foreign policy maxim. The Hague Conventions were primarily made by great powers for great powers, which in the 19th century were occasionally neutral (“situational neutrality”), but not as a fundamental principle. That is why seeking for instructions for perpetually neutral states during times of non-war in these agreements is futile.
A definition of neutrality enshrined in the constitution for the specifically Swiss perpetual neutrality would create clarity for us – and for other countries, what can be expected of Switzerland. Moreover, in terms of domestic policy, it would only specify the minimum requirements for the organisation of our neutrality policy, not the precise details. This is also the case with the present initiative text, which is anything but radical.
The present initiative text is a balanced approach to reconciling conservative and progressive values of Swiss foreign and security policy under one roof. The wording of the four proposed paragraphs:

“Switzerland is neutral. Its neutrality is perpetual and armed.”
“Switzerland does not join any military or defence alliance. An exception is made for cooperation with such alliances in the event of a direct military attack on Switzerland or in the case of actions in preparation for such an attack.”
“Switzerland does not participate in military conflicts between third countries and does not take any non-military coercive measures against belligerent states. Exceptions are Switzerland’s obligations towards the United Nations (UN) and measures to prevent the circumvention of non-military coercive measures by other states.”
“Switzerland uses its perpetual neutrality for the prevention and resolution of conflicts and is available as a mediator.”

Paragraphs one and four are the initiative’s balancing act of harmonising peace policy with military self-defence. While the wording would make a Switzerland without an army more difficult (but not impossible), it is at the same time an olive branch to pacifist-minded fellow citizens that Switzerland should actively pursue a peace function in the international system and understand its neutrality in this sense – and not as isolationism.
Paragraph two mainly throws a lot of sand in the gears of the NATO turbos, who are working behind the scenes on a creeping accession (aptly christened “crypto-Atlanticists” by political scientists Filip Ejdus and Catherine Hoeffler). It would also be impossible for Switzerland to participate in a common EU defence structure, should one ever be designed. At the same time, however, the paragraph takes realistic political circumstances into account by not ruling out joint defence per se in the event of a direct attack on Switzerland. The Federal Council would therefore not have to impose emergency law in order to cooperate with one or other foreign power in the event of an attack. While this is certainly a gateway for crypto-Atlanticists to further expand Switzerland’s military ties through a back door, the paragraph is a compromise to keep options open for an uncertain future.

Reminders of the banking secrecy

The biggest change to the previous understanding of neutrality is in paragraph three, but here too with a great deal of reservation. On the one hand, it is stipulated that Switzerland will not only not participate directly (militarily) in the wars of third countries, but will also refrain from “non-military coercive measures” – i.e. sanctions – against one or other party to the conflict. On the other hand, two exceptions are proposed at the same time: UN sanctions, which are universal by nature, would continue to be supported by Switzerland, and secondly, the Swiss Confederation could continue to take “measures” to prevent other (friendly) states from circumventing sanctions. This exception is also important primarily for reasons of Realpolitik.
It would be fatal if Switzerland were unable to support any sanctions imposed by third countries (the EU and the US), as both of these very important trading partners for Switzerland have the unpleasant habit of not only imposing primary sanctions on counterparties, but also threatening third countries or their institutions via secondary sanctions. If Switzerland were not to adopt certain sanctions imposed by the US and the EU itself and thereby help to circumvent these primary sanctions (even if only in the eyes of the US and the EU), Switzerland itself would be subject to sanctions that could damage the Swiss economy in the worst possible way. Let us not forget that banking secrecy was not lifted voluntarily by the Federal Council in 2009, but as a result of threats by the US to sanction UBS and Credit Suisse, which could have meant the downfall of both banks.
UN sanctions, which are universal in nature, would continue to be supported by Switzerland. Admittedly, this is not a positive, sovereignty-based argument for sanctions. But as a non-self-sufficient, small landlocked country in the heart of Europe that depends on trade, you have to comply with certain dictates – especially if they come with the threat of force. The text of the initiative explicitly permits compliance. This means that, even if the initiative is accepted, Switzerland would not automatically have to reverse all sanctions imposed on Russia (and other states) if the proxy war in Ukraine and the NATO-Russia conflict have not ended by then.
So, what is the point of this initiative text, you might legitimately ask. Well, its importance lies in the principle. The new article on neutrality would make it clear that Switzerland regards its neutrality in principle as a freedom of alliance and also wants it to be understood in principle in economic terms (which is sometimes also referred to as “integral neutrality”). However, this does not mean that Switzerland would not make exceptions or jeopardise its existence for these principles. The principle aims to reverse certain tendencies that have materialised in Swiss foreign policy since the end of the Cold War.

Measures against warring parties

Although sanctions would not be impossible per se, such a definition of neutrality would ensure that Switzerland does not (virtually) automatically adopt sanctions imposed by foreign countries, but acts under the more cautious – and sovereign – maxim that only the “most necessary” sanctions are taken, as was the case in 1998 and before.
Furthermore, although the threat of secondary sanctions is not unusual, especially for the USA, it is nevertheless an unfriendly act, which the EU has refrained from doing until recently. It is therefore quite likely that there will be foreign sanctions in the future that will come without the threat of secondary sanctions and which Switzerland will not have to comply with in anticipatory obedience, but can reject with reference to this constitutional article. Switzerland would therefore gain more room for manoeuvre with this article – not lose it.
It would also allow Switzerland to dispense with symbolic sanctions, such as the closure of Swiss airspace to Russian civil aviation. This measure is completely pointless, as Russian aircraft are obviously unable to pass through Swiss airspace without flying over the sanctioned EU airspace.
Such measures against warring parties could be avoided in future – provided the EU does not threaten to impose secondary sanctions – in order to remain more credible in terms of neutrality policy than is currently the case.
The constitutional article would also send a strong signal in the military field that the electorate is not in favour of the creeping integration of the Swiss defence system into the structures of NATO and the EU and wishes to distance itself from plans for collective military operations.

The constitutional article would also have a strong signalling effect in the military sector

It would be a counterweight to the Federal Council’s plans, which, at the latest since the supplementary report to the previous year’s security policy report published in 2022, have completely geared the federal security doctrine towards integration with NATO and the EU. “Cooperation” with both institutions, including ensuring “interoperability”, is currently at the centre of the Federal Council’s security thinking. This can be seen crystal clear, for example, in the decision to participate in the European Sky Shield project or in the constant political rapprochement with NATO. In 2023 for example, for the first time a female head of the DDPS (although the emphasis here is not on gender) not only visited the NATO headquarters, but also attended a meeting of its highest body, the North Atlantic Council.

Is it good to go with the flow?

In both military and economic terms, the text of the initiative is designed to act as a counterweight to these tendencies towards interdependence and to steer the ship of state away from the Swedish and Finnish course, which consists of first operationally undermining neutrality in order to throw it completely overboard when the time comes (if a sufficiently large external shock occurs).
Even before it came into being, the neutrality initiative was criticised in many ways. It was often portrayed in the media as a right-wing Blocher initiative, even though the independent initiative committee also included left-wing representatives and various SP representatives, trade unionists and the Communist Partywere firmly behind the initiative.
Of course, opponents of neutrality have also been active in the last two years – from crude statements such as neutrality being an “identity-creating lie” (publicist Roger de Weck) to the claim that the desire for integral neutrality, which also does not support sanctions, represents implicit “support or explicit partisanship for aggressive states” (historian Jakob Tanner).
These disputes will intensify over the coming years, and sooner or later we will have to ask ourselves why Switzerland sanctions Russia after its attack on Ukraine, but not the USA after its attack on Iraq (2003) or the current bombing of Yemen, which violates international law, or Israel because of its bombing and occupation of Palestinian territories. Is it a good thing for a neutral state to take sides economically and morally in cases where it is easy to go with the flow, but to pursue a completely different foreign policy at other times? Or do we want to pursue foreign policy principles that are at least in principle compatible with equal treatment of all warring parties?
There is much to discuss. •

First published in Die Weltwoche of 17 April 2024.

https://www.zeit-fragen.ch/en/archives/2024/nr-10-14-mai-2024/wer-hat-angst-vor-der-neutralitaet

By Gus Leonisky at 31 May 2024 - 6:37am
Gus Leonisky's blog
Login or register to post comments

end the turmoil....

The paralysis of the United Nations Security Council in the face of the ongoing carnage worldwide is proof that we must rethink the existing structures of global governance.

AUSTIN TAM-GEORGE

May 30, 2024

Common Dreams

The world is in turmoil, and there is a stark absence of strategic and moral leadership on the global stage. Indeed, there are three types of wars going on simultaneously in the world today.

The first is the proxy war between Russia and the countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), with Ukraine as the battlefield. The second is the trade war between the United States of America and China—with punitive tariffs, unilateral trade restrictions, covert operations in the Taiwan Straits, and protectionist maneuvers used as the tools of war.

The third, of course, is the hot war in the Middle East between Israel, Palestine, Iran, and other regional actors.

In Africa, beneath the gloss of “liberal democracy,” we have seen the resurgence of totalitarian regimes and tribal demagogues, riding to political power on the coat tails of identity politics and electoral fraud.

In Sudan, to take one example, the tussle for illicit power between the country’s military and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) has displaced millions of people.

A world where “might is right,” and diplomacy is seen as a flag of surrender, results in a chaotic, barbarous, and an incredibly unhappy place to live in—for everyone.

The question asked around the world is: for how long will the United Nations—the global body formed to foster diplomacy between nations and prevent war—watch in helpless horror as cluster bombs and other deadly munitions rain down on innocent men, women, and children in these theaters of war?

The paralysis of the United Nations Security Council in the face of the ongoing carnage worldwide is proof that we must rethink the existing structures of global governance.

Everywhere in the world—in university classrooms, foreign policy think-tank sessions, media editorials and podcasts, even on the floor of the UN General Assembly—there are animated conversations about the need for a new paradigm in international relations, and what the features of the new epoch might be.

The ongoing protests in college campuses in the United States against the carnage in the Gaza Strip, in Palestine, are part of a growing global argument for a new global order. I joined this debate at Harvard Kennedy School in the fall of 2022, during our Senior Executive Fellows dinner sessions on the state of global governance in the 21st Century. The conversations were led by Secretary Ash Carter, former Defence Secretary of the United States, and Joseph Nye, a Distinguished Service Professor at Harvard Kennedy School. Joseph Nye is often rated as the most influential scholar in American foreign policy. My suggestions on the re-framing of international relations are along the lines of what I might call “Peaceful multilateralism.”

Simply put, peaceful multilateralism refers to the ability and willingness of sovereign nations to work together to solve the toughest challenges facing humanity, such as global hunger, pandemics, nuclear non-proliferation, global child trafficking and war.

Rather than the vicious zero-sum rivalry between nations, peaceful multilateralism challenges countries of the world to collaborate and work towards extending the frontiers of peace, security, and the creation of a more just world.

The notion of collaboration or cooperation between nations of the world is hardly new. After the first and second world wars, the nations of the world came together to form the United Nations Organization in 1945.

Article 1 of the Charter of the United Nations upholds the need for collaboration between nations. The Article states that one of the founding principles of the United Nations was “To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion…”

However, 79 years after its founding, the United Nations appears to be at a crossroads, with nuclear-armed countries locked in a proxy war in the heart of Europe.

Below are three ways to achieve peaceful multilateralism through structural reform of the United Nations and respect for international law by all nations of the world.

1. Democratize Decision-Making at the United Nations:

For decades, questions have been raised about the ‘tyranny’ of the United Nations Security Council, where five permanent members—namely, the United States, Russia, France, the United Kingdom, and China—wield veto powers that override the views of the rest of the 185 member states of the global body.

This arrangement is not only seen to be undemocratic, but it is believed to be a major impediment to multilateral consensus building for global problem solving by the United Nations.

The latest iteration of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the ongoing proxy war in Ukraine have shown how the conflicting interests of veto-wielding security council members in regional wars could paralyze the Security Council and impede the conflict resolution efforts by the members of the United Nations General Assembly.

Therefore, in reforming the decision-making mechanism of the United Nations, it may be critical to roll back the veto powers of the Security Council and vest the final decision-making authority on the United Nations General Assembly. The UN General Assembly should be the bastion of peaceful multilateralism and the center of decision-making on global affairs.

2. Respect for International Law: Relations between nations may be fraught with disagreements or a clash of interests. But a resort to war or unilateral actions may degrade relations further and create a climate of lawlessness and impunity on the global scene. Peaceful multilateralism can only thrive when nations engage in dialogue, diplomacy, and respect the adjudicatory supremacy of international law.

3. Commitment to Diplomacy: Finally, in an era dominated by the rhetoric of war and a “show of force” in international relations, it may seem naive to restate the importance of diplomacy in resolving conflicts between nations.

But it is the ability to disagree, engage, re-engage, and resolve conflicts diplomatically that sets us apart as humans.

A world where “might is right,” and diplomacy is seen as a flag of surrender, results in a chaotic, barbarous, and an incredibly unhappy place to live in—for everyone.

Nations that prioritize diplomacy in their relations with other nations are more likely to collaborate to solve the most pressing problems that confront humanity.

https://www.theinteldrop.org/2024/05/30/a-call-for-peaceful-multilateralism/

WE KINOW, AT LEAST THOSE WHO REALLY KNOW AND DO NOT TAKE THE CIA DISINFORMATION ONBOARD, THAT THE AMERICAN EMPIRE WANTS TO CONTROL THE WORLD. SAY FIVE (5) PERCENT OF THE WORLD POPULATION WANTS TO CONTROL THE WORLD... BUT REALLY, OF THE NEAR 400 MILLION AMERICANS ONLY A VERY FEW (SAY 10,000 FASCIST ULTRA-NEOCONS) ARE HELL-BENT ON THIS PROJECT (MANAGED FROM THE PENTAGON), WHILE THE REST OF THE AMERICAN POPULATION DOES NOT CARE, AS LONG AS IT CAN "HATE PUTIN AND XI"... THIS HATE HAS BEEN PROPAGANDA DRIVEN SINCE 1917....

THE MAIN OBSTACLES TO THIS ARE THE HEARTLAND OWNERS, RUSSIA AND CHINA — AND ONE AMERICAN MAN, DONALD TRUMP. DONALD TRUMP, DESPITE HIS STUPID UTTERING DOES NOT WANT "WARS FOREVER" AS DICTATED BY THE PENTAGON. THIS IS WHY THE SYSTEM HAS BEEN TRYING TO GET HIM OUT OF THE WAY WITHOUT HAVING TO SHOOT HIM... WHILE KEEPING A BRAINLESS SENILE DEVIOUS JOE BIDEN IN "CHARGE" (HE DOES NOTHING BUT FOLLOW — BADLY — WORDS ON A TELEPROMPTER.... AND SIGN WHATEVER STUPID DECREE IS BROUGHT TO HIM).

MEANWHILE NATO, THE AMERICAN AGGRESSION DIVISION, IS WORKING HARD (BY PROPAGANDA, ITS KIEV PUPPET AND SUPPLY OF ARMAMENT) TO PREVENT RUSSIA REGAINING THE DONBASS REGION. I SAY REGAINING BECAUSE THE DONBASS USED TO BE RUSSIAN. THE POPULATION OF THE DONBASS WANTS TO BE RUSSIAN, NOT BE ANSWERING TO THE KIEV NAZI REGIME...

MEANWHILE THE AMERICAN ONE CHINA POLICY IS BEING TORN APART (BY THE AMERICAN NAZI NEOCON FASCSISTS) IN ORDER TO ANTAGONISE CHINA....

IT'S TIME FOR SANITY TO PREVAIL, AND NO MATTER WHAT:

CHINA WILL BE REUNITED WITH TAIWAN WITHIN THE NEXT 30 YEARS AND THE DONBASS WILL REMAIN IN RUSSIAN HAND.

THE WORLD IS GOING TOWARDS A NECESSARY MULTIPOLARITY.

THIS IS WHY WE NEED A SIMPLE DIPLOMATIC AGREEMENT, NOT ANOTHER GROTESQUE ZELENSKIESQUE "PEACE SUMMIT IN SWITZERLAND"....

FIRST:

MAKE A DEAL PRONTO BEFORE THE SHIT HITS THE FAN:

NO NATO IN "UKRAINE" (WHAT'S LEFT OF IT)

THE DONBASS REPUBLICS ARE NOW BACK IN THE RUSSIAN FOLD — AS THEY USED TO BE PRIOR 1922. THE RUSSIANS WON'T ABANDON THESE AGAIN.

THESE WILL ALSO INCLUDE ODESSA, KHERSON AND KHARKIV.....

CRIMEA IS RUSSIAN — AS IT USED TO BE PRIOR 1954

TRANSNISTRIA WILL BE PART OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION.

A MEMORANDUM OF NON-AGGRESSION BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE USA.

EASY.

THE WEST KNOWS IT.

READ FROM TOP

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

By Gus Leonisky at 31 May 2024 - 9:07am
Login or register to post comments

escalating tension....

MOSCOW (Sputnik) - NATO countries and especially the United States have been deliberately escalating tension around the Ukrainian conflict in recent days, this is provoking a new round of tension, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Thursday.

"NATO member states, especially the United States, and other European capitals in recent days and weeks have entered a new round of escalating tension. They are doing this deliberately, we hear many belligerent statements. This is nothing more than provoking a new level of tension," Peskov told reporters.

NATO countries are provoking Ukraine to continue the senseless war with Russia, the official said, adding that they intend to continue the war with Russia and this will have consequences.

https://sputnikglobe.com/20240530/nato-states-deliberately-entering-new-round-of-creating-tensions-around-ukraine---kremlin-1118700602.html

READ FROM TOP

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

By Gus Leonisky at 31 May 2024 - 9:14am
Login or register to post comments

no china....

Beijing will not attend the Ukraine peace conference to be hosted by Switzerland in mid-June, Reuters has reported, citing anonymous sources close to the matter. China reportedly declined the invitation because conditions for it to take part, including the participation of both Russia and Ukraine, were not met.

The conference is scheduled for June 15-16 at the Burgenstock Resort near Lucerne. More than 160 countries have been invited, including members of the G7, G20, BRICS, and the EU, with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau among the leaders confirming their attendance.

Moscow has not been invited, although it has said it would not attend even if it were, arguing that the summit will revolve around Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky’s so-called ‘peace formula’. The ten-point initiative calls for Moscow to withdraw from all territory Kiev claims as its own and for a tribunal to be set up to prosecute Russian officials for alleged war crimes. Moscow has dismissed the initiative, calling it “detached from reality.”

On Thursday, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said Beijing encourages all efforts leading to the peaceful resolution of the Ukraine conflict. China will “support an international peace conference held at a proper time that is recognized by both Russia and Ukraine, with equal participation of all parties as well as fair discussion of all peace plans,” she said. Beijing is ready to maintain discourse with the international community on pushing for a diplomatic solution to the crisis, the spokesperson added.

Last week, Zelensky said Russia must not be present at the summit because it could gain the support of other countries and hijack Kiev’s agenda. The participants should develop a plan without Russia, and then hand it over to Moscow via intermediaries, Zelensky insisted.

Moscow says Switzerland is not fit to mediate in peace efforts, saying it switched “from neutral to openly hostile” after it took part in the sanctions on Russia in 2022.

“This conference is completely without prospects,”Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told RT earlier this week, adding that “getting together and seriously discussing the Ukraine conflict without our [Russia’s] participation is absurd.”

Among other states, the leaders of several BRICS states – including Brazil and South Africa – will reportedly skip the event. US President Joe Biden is not scheduled to attend, instead focusing on the upcoming presidential election in November.

https://www.rt.com/news/598530-china-ukraine-peace-summit/

MAKE A DEAL PRONTO BEFORE THE SHIT HITS THE FAN:

NO NATO IN "UKRAINE" (WHAT'S LEFT OF IT)

THE DONBASS REPUBLICS ARE NOW BACK IN THE RUSSIAN FOLD — AS THEY USED TO BE PRIOR 1922. THE RUSSIANS WON'T ABANDON THESE AGAIN.

THESE WILL ALSO INCLUDE ODESSA, KHERSON AND KHARKIV.....

CRIMEA IS RUSSIAN — AS IT USED TO BE PRIOR 1954

TRANSNISTRIA WILL BE PART OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION.

A MEMORANDUM OF NON-AGGRESSION BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE USA.

EASY.

THE WEST KNOWS IT.

READ FROM TOP

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

By Gus Leonisky at 31 May 2024 - 6:00pm
Login or register to post comments

media ban....

Media outlets from most former Soviet states will be barred from covering the upcoming Swiss-hosted Ukraine peace conference, the Russian media outlet Octagon reported on Friday, citing an official response from the Swiss authorities.

The conference is scheduled for June 15-16 at the Burgenstock Resort near Lucerne. The venue chosen to host the event supposedly has some “space limitations” that, together with the “security requirements,” prompted the organizers to limit media accreditations to 500, the report said. According to Octagon, both Swiss and American security services are responsible for the safety of the event and for checking all journalists planning to attend.

Not a single journalist from Russia or other post-Soviet states, including Belarus, Armenia, Moldova, Azerbaijan, or the five Central Asian nations was accredited, according to the Russian media outlet. Reporters from Southeast Asia have faced some restrictions as well, it added.

The Swiss authorities have not officially commented on the issue of media access to the conference. RT also could not independently verify the Octagon report.

Russian officials have not been invited to the conference. Last week, Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky said Russia must not be present at the summit because it could seek to sway other countries and hijack Kiev’s agenda.

Russian officials earlier said that they would not attend in any case, citing the fact that the summit would revolve around the so-called Zelensky ‘peace formula’. The ten-point plan demands that Russia withdraw its troops from all territories Kiev claims as its own, agree to pay reparations, and that a tribunal be established to try Russian officials for alleged war crimes. Moscow has dismissed the initiative as “absurd” and “detached from reality.”

More than 160 countries have been invited, including members of the G7, G20, BRICS, and EU. Earlier on Friday, however, the Chinese Foreign Ministry said that it would not be sending a delegation to the event. Beijing has argued that it is important that both Russia and Ukraine participate in any peace conference.

The leaders of several other BRICS nations – including Brazil and South Africa – will reportedly skip the event as well. US President Joe Biden is not scheduled to come to Switzerland, as he is expected to attend a fundraising event for the upcoming presidential election instead.

https://www.rt.com/news/598605-ukraine-peace-summit-media-ban/

REPEAT AFTER ME:

MAKE A DEAL PRONTO BEFORE THE SHIT HITS THE FAN:

NO NATO IN "UKRAINE" (WHAT'S LEFT OF IT)

THE DONBASS REPUBLICS ARE NOW BACK IN THE RUSSIAN FOLD — AS THEY USED TO BE PRIOR 1922. THE RUSSIANS WON'T ABANDON THESE AGAIN.

THESE WILL ALSO INCLUDE ODESSA, KHERSON AND KHARKIV.....

CRIMEA IS RUSSIAN — AS IT USED TO BE PRIOR 1954

TRANSNISTRIA WILL BE PART OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION.

A MEMORANDUM OF NON-AGGRESSION BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE USA.

EASY.

THE WEST KNOWS IT.

READ FROM TOP

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

By Gus Leonisky at 1 Jun 2024 - 8:16am
Login or register to post comments

falling apart.....

Here’s what’s going to happen at the Swiss ‘peace summit’ on Ukraine
The upcoming gathering has only one goal: to give Vladimir Zelensky yet another stage to shore up his legitimacy

BY Tarik Cyril Amar

Between 1985 and 1991, the last Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, tried to change everything only to, in the end, lose everything. Having set out to reform the Soviet Union beyond recognition, he ended up dismantling it. Whatever you think about the Soviet Union, a leader of a state whose policies rapidly induce its literal end is usually considered a failure.

Gorbachev, gifted with a certain charisma, was initially popular at home and in the West, but subsequently only in the West. Whereas Westerners kept liking him – his bizarrely naïve trust in their promises and benevolence played its part there – his own countrymen and women became disillusioned by his grating combination of grandiloquent rhetoric and abysmal economic failure.

Toward the end, when coup plotters were kind – or incompetent – enough to merely put him under house arrest, no one cared much either way. Gorbachev pulled off the remarkable feat of being defeated by a coup that failed.

Don’t get me wrong: I still believe that history will judge the last Soviet leader critically but, on the whole, kindly. With all his flaws – intellectual vanity paired with almost childish credulity perhaps the worst – and the severe errors he committed, he was fundamentally humane, reasonable, and sincere. For a politician especially, that’s a lot. And we owe him more than anyone else that the first Cold War ended peacefully. If only the current American elites were capable of producing someone as principally rational as Gorbachev! Such a leader could help them make the overdue adjustment to their country’s relative decline and the emerging multipolar order.

Also, Gorbachev was neither a natural born authoritarian – his terminal reforms were motivated by a genuine desire to make his country more, not less democratic – nor a self-obsessed egomaniac putting his personal narcissism and obstinacy above the common, national good. Which brings us to the current president of Ukraine, Vladimir Zelensky.

Zelensky is no Gorbachev, obviously. And yet, looking at Zelensky, I cannot help thinking of that peculiar trap that Gorbachev made for himself: a ruler who, toward the cataclysmic end, was popular in the West, while losing his own country’s backing. No historical analogy is perfect. But there are signs of a similar divergence emerging in the case of Zelensky.

Consider, for instance, his persistently intense schedule of traveling to the West. He may not be feted any longer like an infallible hybrid of Che Guevara, Winston Churchill, and Taylor Swift. But he still gets invited to the 80th anniversary of the 1944 D-Day landing in Normandy. He will also be at the upcoming G7 meeting, where he will sign a new bilateral security agreement with the US. In addition, the Biden administration has just escalated its brinkmanship from hell to a new level of awful by facilitating Ukrainian strikes with American weapons – and, of course, de facto assistance – on Russian territory.

And all of that despite – or because? – the fact that Washington and Kiev are, an anonymous Ukrainian official has told the Financial Times, “farther apart than ever since the war started.” With Ukraine’s most vital relationship now, according to the same source, “very, very tense,” Zelensky has taken to publicly rebuking US President Joe Biden for decisions that Kiev’s ruler considers insufficiently “strong.” Zelensky has even made use of a long New York Times interview to voice his suspicion that Ukraine’s Western sponsors may have been betraying Ukraine from the get-go.

It would be tedious to list all his recent and upcoming destinations. But one that stands out is Switzerland. He is expected there for a so-called peace summit in mid-June; a summit which, incidentally, he requested himself. The official purpose of this conference is “to establish a forum for a high-level dialogue on ways to achieve a comprehensive, just and lasting peace for Ukraine in accordance with international law and the UN Charter.” Russia has not been invited and has made clear that it does not wish to participate in any case. China, for its part, sees no sense in attending a meeting that excludes Russia. The conference seems bound to base its deliberations on Zelensky’s unrealistic ideas about how to end the war, which do not accommodate the fact that Ukraine is not winning. In sum, apart from a miracle, there is no possibility that this summit will actually help make peace.

Yet it will take place in grand style in a luxury hotel on a magic mountain overlooking Lake Lucerne, to be precise. What, then, is its real purpose? To offer Zelensky yet another international stage. Some critics surmise that this may be especially important for him now because the term for which he was elected in 2019 expired on May 20. While Western media misleadingly claim that the Ukrainian constitution does not allow for presidential elections in wartime, in reality, it only prohibits parliamentary elections. In any case, it offers no basis for simply extending the incumbent’s mandate. Zelensky, under a cloud of dubious legitimacy, will relish the opportunity to produce footage showing him hobnobbing with a maximum number of other leaders. And egocentric as he is, that is not just a matter of personal gratification: He and his spin doctors will also appreciate yet another opportunity to feed international VIP coverage back into the news cycle at home in Ukraine.

But here is the rub: At home, things are looking grim. In general, Ukraine’s leadership suffers from the simple fact that it is losing the war. But the single specific issue that undermines the regime the most is its draconian drive to feed ever more Ukrainians into that failing war. On May 18, a new, harsher mobilization came into effect. It was predictable that ordinary Ukrainians would not be happy about it, but even now it is obvious that their reaction is much worse than that.

Even Western outlets that used to be gung-ho about the war not long ago, are now reporting that “originating from all around the country, videos of men actively resisting press gangs with the help of women, often random passersby, pop up online on a daily basis.” And the mobilized have plenty to be afraid of on their own side of the frontline: Recruiting squads have a habit of getting violent and seem to be a law unto themselves; deaths are reported from within their premises. Since the start of the war, thousands of desperate draft dodgers have tried to escape from Ukraine by swimming through the Tysa River. At least 33 have drowned so far but, as the ultra-bellicist The Economist acknowledges, the real death toll is probably much worse.

Others freeze to death venturing across the Carpathian mountains. Many, though, make it, if often with the help of smugglers-turned-evasion-assistants. Or due to diligent and systematic preparation, as recently reported on the Ukrainian news site Strana.news, which has interviewed a group of “mountain proxy war refuseniks” who made it to Romania. Covering 80 kilometers in a six-day march over extremely difficult terrain guarded by aggressive and well-equipped border guards, these men, ironically, seem to be just the right stuff tough special forces are made of. The problem is not their skills but their motivation: They prefer risking their lives escaping from Zelensky’s proxy war to fighting in it.

The phenomenon of draft dodging is so widespread that the Ukrainian (and Russian: Ukraine very much remains a de facto bilingual country) terms for draft dodger – “Ukhyliant” and “Uklonist,”respectively – have acquired an at least ambiguous aura, carrying undertones of admiration. In English, maybe “proxy war refuseniks” comes close.

Ukraine under Zelensky is a deeply unfree country with an extremely regimented and manipulated media sphere. If the figure of the draft dodger has become an object of understanding, solidarity, and even a certain romanticization none the less, that tells us more than opinion polls distorted by fear of the regime’s police. Zelensky may still feel at home among strangers abroad. But at home, the ground is shifting.

https://www.rt.com/news/598627-zelensky-switzerland-summit-ukraine/

MAKE A DEAL PRONTO BEFORE THE SHIT HITS THE FAN:

NO NATO IN "UKRAINE" (WHAT'S LEFT OF IT)

THE DONBASS REPUBLICS ARE NOW BACK IN THE RUSSIAN FOLD — AS THEY USED TO BE PRIOR 1922. THE RUSSIANS WON'T ABANDON THESE AGAIN.

THESE WILL ALSO INCLUDE ODESSA, KHERSON AND KHARKIV.....

CRIMEA IS RUSSIAN — AS IT USED TO BE PRIOR 1954

TRANSNISTRIA WILL BE PART OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION.

A MEMORANDUM OF NON-AGGRESSION BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE USA.

EASY.

THE WEST KNOWS IT.

READ FROM TOP

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

absurd theatre.....

The upcoming Swiss-hosted Ukraine ‘peace summit’ will feature mandatory registration of smartphones and other digital gadgets for those in attendance, TASS reported on Saturday, citing several sources who had been invited to the event.

Those invited to the conference have already received a special form to list their gadgets, according to the report. The measure is presumably designed primarily to prevent potential leaks to the media.

Reached for comment by TASS, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said the measure was hardly surprising.

“Liberal democracies always result in a digital concentration camp – everything described by [George] Orwell,” Zakharova stated.

Earlier this week, a separate report by Russian media outlet Octagon suggested the organizers of the conference had opted to heavily restrict media presence at the summit, effectively banning journalists from post-Soviet states from attending. The number of accreditations was limited to 500, with the organizers reportedly citing “space limitations” and “security requirements” as the reason for their decision.

The conference is scheduled to be held from June 15-16 at the Burgenstock Resort near Lucerne, with more than 160 countries invited. The actual representation however still remains unclear, with multiple invitees reportedly opting to send only minor officials or to skip it altogether. This week, Beijing said that it would not be sending a delegation on the grounds that both Russia and Ukraine must be present at any peace talks.

Russia has been excluded from the conference, with Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky arguing that Moscow must not be present because it could sway other countries and hijack Kiev’s agenda. The event is expected to revolve around Zelensky’s so-called peace plan, which effectively envisions Russia’s capitulation.

Moscow has long-rejected the plan, dismissing it as “absurd” and “detached from reality.” Last week, Russian President Vladimir Putin suggested that the summit, among other things, was designed to prop up Zelensky after his presidential term had expired.

“I think one of the goals of this conference for the Western community, the sponsors of today’s Kiev regime, is to confirm the legitimacy of the current – albeit no longer valid – head of state,” Putin stated.

https://www.rt.com/news/598634-peace-summit-gadget-registration/

NOTE THAT THE 15TH OF JUNE IS "BE KIND TO [OR ABUSE] JOE BIDEN DAY"

READ FROM TOP

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

By Gus Leonisky at 2 Jun 2024 - 5:59pm
Login or register to post comments

going to hollywood....

MOSCOW (Sputnik) - Saudi Arabia will not attend the Swiss-hosted peace conference on Ukraine in June because Russia will not be represented, German news agency DPA reported on Sunday, citing Saudi diplomatic sources.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's visit to Saudi Arabia, scheduled for past Saturday, may now take place after the "peace conference" in Switzerland, the report read. Riyadh has not yet officially announced its decision not to attend the conference.

Switzerland will host the summit on Ukraine not far off from the city of Lucerne from June 15-16. In April, the spokesman for the Russian Embassy in Bern, Vladimir Khokhlov, told Sputnik that Russia was not invitied to the summit, adding that Moscow had no plans to participate in the event even if invited.

China and Brazil have also refused to take part in the conference. Even Washington, despite being its main proponent, cannot say who will represent the US. President Joe Biden is due to attend a Hollywood fundraising gala for his re-election campaign instead.

https://sputnikglobe.com/20240602/saudi-arabia-will-not-attend-peace-conference-on-ukraine-as-russia-is-not-invited-1118748900.html

READ FROM TOP

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

By Gus Leonisky at 3 Jun 2024 - 6:43am
Login or register to post comments

mr zelensky......

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has accused Russia and China of attempting to undermine his upcoming global peace summit in Switzerland.

He said Russia was trying to dissuade other states from attending the event, and that China was working to do this as well.

Speaking at an Asian security forum, he also said there were “elements of Russia’s weaponry” that come from China.

China says it does not side with either side of the Ukraine war, a position that has been increasingly questioned particularly by the US.

Beijing is accused of aiding Moscow by sending components for weapons. It is also seen as propping up the Russian economy by purchasing vast quantities of oil and gas, softening the impact of Western sanctions.

Mr Zelensky made a surprise appearance at the Shangri-la Dialogue in Singapore attended by defence chiefs from around the world, including US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and Chinese defence minister Dong Jun.

The visit was aimed at drumming up support from Asian countries. Besides meeting regional leaders, he also urged delegates to attend his summit due to be held later in June.

Mr Zelensky said it would focus on achieving nuclear security, food security, and the release of prisoners of war and Ukrainian children held in Russia.

So far 106 countries said they would send high-level representatives or their leaders to the summit, he said.

Russia has not been invited and China is not attending.

A formal invitation was not issued to Russia as Moscow had told Switzerland early on that it did not want to participate, the BBC understands.

Mr Zelensky claimed that Russia was attempting to disrupt the summit by pressuring countries not to attend, through threats of a blockade of agricultural goods, chemical goods, and energy.

Certain countries were assisting this “diplomatic disruption”, he added.

He named China later on, and said it was “working for countries to not come to the peace summit”, unlike the US which has promised to send a high-level representative and is encouraging others to attend.

Russia was doing "everything to disrupt the peace summit" by using "Chinese influence on the region" and diplomats to do so, he said.

"It is unfortunate that such a big, independent, powerful country as China is an instrument in the hands of Putin."

China's foreign ministry had said that the conference "should have the recognition of Russia and Ukraine" and equal participation. "Otherwise, it is difficult for the conference to play a substantive role in restoring peace," a spokeswoman said on Friday.

Mr Zelensky also said China's leader Xi Jinping had earlier promised him they would “stand aside in this war and would not support Russia with weapons”.

But, he added, there are now “elements that are part of Russia’s weaponry” that come from China, according to various intelligence agencies. He called for China to maintain a “consistent” position.

The US has said that China is helping Russia make more munitions, armoured vehicles and missiles. It estimates about 70% of the machine tools and 90% of the microelectronics Russia imports come from China.

Earlier on Sunday, Chinese defence minister Dong Jun said they do not supply weapons to either party of the Ukraine conflict.

He also said they have put "strict controls" on the exports of dual-use technology, which are items that can be used for civilian and military purposes.

"We have never done anything to fan the flames. We stand firmly on the side of peace and dialogue," he said in his speech.

How is China supporting Russia after it was sanctioned for Ukraine war?

Mr Zelensky said he did not meet Mr Dong at the dialogue, but he did meet Mr Austin. The two discussed the US’ decision to let Ukraine use American weapons on Russian territory, according to Mr Zelensky.

That decision comes with certain restrictions. Asked by the BBC if he requested the removal of limitations, he said he was grateful to the US for allowing Ukraine to use the HIMARS artillery rocket system by the border of the Kharkiv region which has seen intense fighting.

“Is that sufficient? No,” he said, adding that there were airfields from which Russia was permanently firing “knowing that Ukraine will not fire back”.

The US joins other Western states such as France in allowing Ukraine more leeway in using Western-supplied weapons. Russia has warned of “serious consequences” of this move.

This weekend marked the second time Mr Zelensky has visited Asia since the war began. He made a surprise appearance at the G7 leaders’ summit a year ago in Hiroshima, Japan.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c722q4dn7e1o

IT IS MR ZELENSKY — HE'S NO LONGER PRESIDENT, BUT HE'S STILL AN UNINTELLIGENT WHINING DUMMY.....

READ FROM TOP

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

By Gus Leonisky at 3 Jun 2024 - 8:03am
Login or register to post comments

waste of time....

Senior cabinet minister Bill Shorten will represent Australia at Ukraine’s peace summit in Switzerland later this month, which President Volodymyr Zelensky billed as crucial to his country’s future in an appeal to Asia-Pacific leaders at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore on Sunday.

In a last-minute surprise attendance at Asia’s top security talks, Zelensky said he was ready to hear “various proposals and thoughts” on how his country could secure sustainable peace and end Russia’s invasion, as he implored the leaders to attend the Bürgenstock conference on June 15-16.

https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/china-says-it-is-prepared-to-use-force-to-prevent-taiwanese-independence-20240602-p5jikm.html

READ FROM TOP

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

By Gus Leonisky at 3 Jun 2024 - 10:31am
Login or register to post comments

aham....

One analyst portrayed the event as an act of desperation on the part of the embattled leader as Ukraine suffers the consequences of the West’s failed foreign policy.

“The security of a country should not be pursued at the expense of others,” read a Chinese government statement last year on the ongoing conflict between Ukraine and Russia. “The security of a region should not be achieved by strengthening or expanding military blocs. The legitimate security interests and concerns of all countries must be taken seriously and addressed properly.”

The document, which urged global powers to abandon a “Cold War mentality,” did not mention NATO by name, but its critique of the Western alliance’s steady march eastward was unmistakable.

Now as the ultimate failure of the United States’ proxy war against Russia is made clear, the West is suffering the consequences of its decades-long disregard for Russian security and interests, according to former US Defense Department senior security policy analyst Michael Maloof. The expert discussed the issue and Zelensky’s so-called "peace summit" scheduled for later this month on Sputnik’s The Final Countdown program Monday.

“China certainly has announced that it's not even coming,” said the author about the event. “Russia wasn't even invited… All that this is to me is a pep rally, a PR stunt by Zelensky to garner support. This is not diplomacy.”

“Diplomacy occurs when you get two opposite sides sitting down at the same table and working something out, working out a compromise,” he claimed. “They had that. This is all being ignored.”

Zelensky released a slickly-produced video last week urging the US and Chinese President Xi Jinping to participate in the purported peace talks, set to be held at a luxury resort in Switzerland. Zelensky now accuses China of supporting Russia and attempting to “undermine” the meeting, echoing recent attacks by US Secretary of State Antony Blinken.

Various observers have criticized the event for failing to include representatives from Russia. Ukrainian officials are legally prevented from engaging in talks with the country per a late 2022 edict by Zelensky that outlaws negotiations with Russia.

https://sputnikglobe.com/20240604/zelenskys-sham-summit-in-switzerland-slammed-as-pep-rally-pr-stunt-1118760368.html

READ FROM TOP

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

By Gus Leonisky at 4 Jun 2024 - 12:22pm
Login or register to post comments

a snake and a jackass.....

US President Joe Biden has chosen not to cancel a scheduled Hollywood fundraiser and will be sending Vice President Kamala Harris and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan to the Ukraine “peace summit” in Switzerland instead.

The international conference proposed by Vladimir Zelensky is intended to drum up support for Kiev’s demands regarding the conflict with Russia. Moscow has not been invited, however, while Beijing has declined to participate.

“Vice President Kamala Harris will travel to Lucerne, Switzerland on June 15 to participate in the Summit on Peace in Ukraine,” her spokesperson Kirsten Allen said on Monday, adding that this “will underscore the Biden-Harris Administration’s commitment to supporting Ukraine’s effort to secure a just and lasting peace.”

Allen also confirmed that Sullivan will be joining Harris at the conference, scheduled to take place at the Burgenstock resort.

https://www.rt.com/news/598705-biden-harris-zelensky-swiss-summit/

READ FROM TOP

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

By Gus Leonisky at 4 Jun 2024 - 1:52pm
Login or register to post comments

wise.....

Swiss parliament votes against aid for Kiev – Reuters Lawmakers argued that the proposed $5 billion package would breach the country’s debt restrictions, the outlet said...

Switzerland’s upper house of parliament on Monday rejected a 5 billion Swiss franc ($5.58 billion) aid package to help finance reconstruction work in Ukraine. Lawmakers cited concerns that such a move would violate borrowing restrictions in the neutral country, Reuters has reported.

The proposed aid was part of a wider package that also included additional funding for the Swiss military, the outlet said.

The Federal Council, Switzerland’s executive body, announced plans to set up a special 15-billion-franc ($16.7 billion) fund in April, proposing to allocate 10.1 billion francs to the Swiss Army and send the rest to Ukraine to support its economic development and reconstruction.

The fund, despite initially being backed by a Swiss parliamentary committee, had faced opposition from right-wing lawmakers and was widely expected to be defeated, the report noted.

With 28 votes against and 15 in favor, the House rejected both the additional funding for the Swiss Army and the reconstruction aid for Ukraine.

Opposition came from the conservative Swiss People’s Party (SVP) and the liberals from the Free Democratic Party (FDP), as well as from left-wing parties.

According to the report, lawmakers argued that the package would breach a so-called “debt brake” provision in Switzerland, and would result in budget restrictions.

In May, the Federal Council indicated that neither the funding for the Swiss military nor the aid for Ukraine met the “statutory requirements for extraordinary expenditure.”

“The contribution amount can be controlled, which is why this expenditure cannot be recognized as extraordinary,” the government said.

The Council noted that the creation of such a fund under special legislation would have to be properly financed, whether through savings or additional revenue.

The latest funding was rejected two weeks before the Swiss government is due to host a summit on the Ukraine crisis. The so-called ‘peace conference’ is scheduled to take place on June 15 and 16 at the Burgenstock Resort near Lucerne. Russia has not been invited to the summit.

While refusing to supply Ukraine with military aid, citing its long-term neutrality policy, Bern has provided economic and humanitarian funding worth over $3 billion since the start of the Ukraine conflict in 2022, according to Swiss government data.

In April, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov argued that Switzerland was no longer a neutral party and had “turned from neutral to openly hostile.”

https://www.rt.com/news/598726-switzerland-rejects-aid-ukraine/

READ FROM TOP

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

By Gus Leonisky at 4 Jun 2024 - 8:32pm
Login or register to post comments

neutralité....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2E5oeCGPUOs

That Time The Swiss P*SSED Off NATO | Army Officer Ralph Bosshard

Ralph Bosshard is a career officer with general staff training in the Swiss Army. In 2013, he was sent to Russia for language training and to attend the general staff course of the Russian army—back then cooperation was still possible.

From 2014 to 2020, he was a military special advisor to the OSCE Secretary-General, working in Austria and Ukraine.

Mr. Bosshard is a critic of Switzerland's rapprochement with NATO and an advocate of a functioning neutrality policy. This is what we want to discuss today.

READ FROM TOP.....

By Gus Leonisky at 12 Jul 2024 - 6:44pm
Login or register to post comments

sold out swiss.....

RIA Novosti

Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov during a meeting with his Swiss counterpart Iñazio Cassis emphasized Bern's departure from the principle of neutrality, Moscow will take this into account in its policy, he said in a message on the website of the Office.

«On the Russian side, there was a gradual departure of the Confederation from the principles of “neutrality” in the context of its support for the anti-Russian actions of Western capitals, which relied on the unwavering support of the Kiev regime.“, indicated the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Lavrov during the meeting «presented principled assessments of the development of the situation in Ukraine, starting from the 2014 coup d'état, emphasized the condemnation of the attempts of the “collective West” to present Russia with different types of ultimatums».

As the ministry noted during the meeting, “it is emphasized that such actions of the official Berne cannot be recorded and taken into account during the construction of the Russian line on the Swiss direction».

The meeting was held in New York on the sidelines of the public debate of the UN Security Council. The negotiations lasted almost an hour. At their conclusion, Lavrov declared that they were “interesting».

On Tuesday, Lavrov spoke at a meeting of the United Nations Security Council on multilateral cooperation in the interests of the formation of a more just, democratic and sustainable world order. Among other things, he commented on Germany's decision to host American long-range missiles, calling it a humiliation for Berlin. The minister also addressed the topic of the Ukrainian conflict, emphasizing that the resolution of this crisis should be accompanied by concrete measures aimed at eliminating threats to Russia, which come from the West.

source: RIA Novosti via News Pravda

https://en.reseauinternational.net/lavrov-la-russie-tiendra-compte-du-depart-de-la-suisse-du-principe-de-neutralite/

READ FROM TOP....

By Gus Leonisky at 18 Jul 2024 - 1:38pm
Login or register to post comments

russian disinfo....

Disinformation must come from Russia – or does it?

Unauthorised influence from the Federal Parliament

by Dr iur. Marianne Wüthrich

In response to a postulate from the National Council on 9 March 2022, the Federal Council published a report on 19 June 2024 outlining “the extent to which Switzerland is affected by influencing activities and disinformation campaigns” and what measures are required to combat them.1
The report is not a prime example of neutral and factual information, as it is permeated by the tubular thinking that disinformation threatening Switzerland comes primarily from Russia or China: “From a Swiss perspective, actors that aggressively represent other values, norms and political systems and seek to undermine democratic institutions are particularly relevant in terms of state and security policy. The activities of Russia, but also China, are likely to remain the most relevant for Switzerland’s security in the medium and long term.” Although “Western states and alliances […] are also active in the information space”, according to the report these are generally “not to be categorised as a threat to Switzerland in terms of security policy […]”. (Report, p. 3/4)
Information from Russian media on the war in Ukraine is discredited as disinformation as a matter of principle: “Russian social and online media channels offer a global audience an alternative interpretation, disinformation and deliberate falsification of reality in Ukraine.” (p. 4) In contrast, the report tries to persuade us that our mainstream media provide us with true and carefully researched information: “Quality media with high journalistic standards and an interested, critical audience, as is generally the case in Switzerland, help to curb the impact of influencing activities.” (p. 21) The real media world looks different: If it weren’t for other, independent media outlets, it would often be downright exasperating to see the disinformation and negative influence coming at us from our “quality media”.

Two examples of Russian “influencing activities”

Example 1: “Since Russia placed Switzerland on its list of ‘unfriendly states’ following the imposition of sanctions in connection with the war against Ukraine, Russian disinformation activities tailored to Switzerland have increased, most recently in the context of the high-level conference on peace in Ukraine organised by Switzerland in summer 2024.” (p. 14) This is outrageous! Our ‘representatives of the people’ have been shouting along with the chorus of ‘Western values’ against Russia for years, imposing sanctions, freezing Russian assets without following the legal process, considering arms deliveries via NATO states to the warring party Ukraine and organising a show of united warmongers in a luxury resort near the Rütli – and if the Russian government doesn’t find this particularly funny, they are outraged. Incidentally, numerous Western authors in Switzerland and abroad have also spoken out with harsh criticism of the squandering of Swiss neutrality and taxpayers’ money. The Federal Council would be well advised to take these voices in East and West seriously and change its course.
  Example 2: Do you remember the uproar caused by the authorities and the media in autumn 2022? Because the Federal Council, in tow with the EU, stopped buying Russian gas and thus jeopardised the supply for its own population, we were pressured by the authorities to shower and heat less. According to a report by the Federal Council, a Swiss daily newspaper published proposed legislation according to which residents who heated their homes to over 19 degrees were to be fined or imprisoned. In the midst of this situation, a fake federal advertising poster circulated on X/Twitter and Telegram, claiming that anyone who denounced their neighbours who heated their homes too much would receive a reward of CHF 200 (Report, p. 15). No Russian inventions, just domestically produced reports.
  Now the Federal Council is actually accusing the Russian media of disseminating these Swiss media products: “International media, including the German-language RT, replicated this report on the same day.” The photomontage was distributed “via various social media and online platforms, including via non-authentic accounts attributed to the Russian influence network”. “The narrative it conveyed implied that the democratic system and the rule of law in Switzerland were dysfunctional and that autocratic conditions prevailed in this country. The aim was to unsettle and divide the population.” (Report, p. 15, emphasis mw).
  If that isn’t a concentrated load of disinformation, and one written by the Federal Council! Firstly, it regards it as disinformation when Russian media pass on the embarrassments that appear in the Swiss media. Secondly, according to the report, they are not even allowed to publish what other international media also publish. Thirdly, it is apparently not clear whether the fake poster was even passed on Russian platforms, and fourthly, the narrative criticised by the Federal Council is unfortunately not so wrong: the proposal from Swiss sources to prosecute citizens for their behaviour behind their own front door, i. e., in their private sphere, is of course contrary to human rights and undemocratic. Fifthly, the population was indeed unsettled in autumn 2022, but not because of the Russian media, but because the Federal Council failed to fulfil its obligation to provide sufficient gas.

At least …

No ban on RT and Sputnik: Despite its adoption of almost all EU sanctions against Russia, the Federal Council has at least not adopted the ban on Russia Today and Sputnik, nor does it intend to do so, as it considers it “more effective […] to counter untrue and harmful statements with facts instead of banning them”. (Report, p. 21/22) In principle, we can agree with this. But who should decide what the facts are, if not us citizens?

Freedom of opinion in accordance with the Federal Constitution and the Federal Supreme Court: Even if it threatens to be lost in the confusion and legal breaches of the “turnaround”, the Federal Constitution protects freedom of opinion and information and thus the free formation of opinion (see box).

The Federal Council also has to admit that “[t]he dissemination of false information is in principle protected by the freedom of expression as defined [by the articles of the Federal Constitution cited in the box].” The Federal Supreme Court firmly stands on constitutional ground: “In its case law, the Federal Supreme Court represents the basic assumption that individuals should be able to hear every opinion and information in order to form their own opinion in the free exchange of all statements.” (Report, p. 18)

So who’s pursuing disinformation policy in this case?

‘Tages-Anzeiger’ headline 22 June 2024: “Fake news on Russia Today: ‘Switzerland wants to attack Russia’”. According to the newspaper, Priska Seiler Graf, SP National Councillor and President of the National Council’s Security Policy Committee (SPC-N), is the ‘victim of a propaganda story’ on RT DE.
These are the facts:

SPC-N aims at transferring Swiss weapons to Ukraine war

On June 18, 2024, the SPC-N proposed an amendment to the War Material Act(KMG). According to this amendment, the transfer of war material purchased in Switzerland by mainly Western countries2 to a third country should be permitted if the third country “exercises its right of self-defence under international law”. The non-re-export declaration signed by the buyer state five or more years ago should be ‘considered lifted’ under certain conditions.3 The vote in the committee was 10 to 10 with 4 abstentions in favour of weakening the export ban to a war-torn state, currently Ukraine, with a casting vote by the committee’s President, Priska Seiler Graf (SP).
It’s hard to believe: The same parliamentarians, mainly from the SP, who a few years ago successfully campaigned for a de facto ban on the transfer of Swiss-made weapons to war zones, now want to open the gates for arms deliveries into a hot war.

Quote Priska Seiler Graf after the commission’s session

“We amended the War Material Act to the effect that re-exports of war material, i.e., indirect arms deliveries, are possible in very particular cases. And of course, it’s about Ukraine, that arms deliveries to Ukraine, arms that countries like Germany, France or Denmark bought from Switzerland, should be possible in future.” Question from the journalist: “And what about neutrality? Is it in danger?” Seiler Graf: “We had international law experts involved in the commission, we consulted them. They didn’t say it would be impossible under any circumstances or at all. There wasn’t quite a consensus on how far the law of neutrality actually goes. The Commission concluded that a political decision was needed if it was not really clear under international law. We have now made this decision. And neutrality is not in danger with this solution”.4
A veritable rollercoaster ride: “There wasn’t quite a consensus” of the international law experts and the parliamentarians present on whether the planned regulation violated neutrality or not, but ‘ghaue or gschtoche’ (whatever the cost) half of the Commission members plus the President pushed the matter through. And in the end, they reassure themselves and the deceived citizens by saying that neutrality is not in danger.

Draft law contrary to neutrality and international law: consultation process underway

By the way, on 18 June the Commission didn’t ‘amend the War Material Act’, as Priska Seiler Graf claims, as it is not authorised to do so. Rather, the SPC-N sent its draft ‘for consultation’5 , which isn’t in line with Swiss legislative procedure, neither. This is because the National Council and the Council of States and, in the final instance, the people decide on parliamentary initiatives by means of an optional referendum – this also applies in the present case, regardless of the extraordinary consultation procedure.
As already mentioned, the draft is contrary to neutrality. The statement in the media release: “The draft is within the framework of neutrality law” deliberately misleads citizens. Moreover, the draft is contrary to international law, as it explicitly bypasses the UN Security Council: “In the eyes of the SPC-N, the proposed amendment would allow Switzerland to support Ukraine in a situation in which the UN Security Council is unable to determine a massive violation of international law”. This is a violation of the UN Charter.
Here, action is needed: The consultation of the SPC-N on its draft will last until 21 October 2024. Citizens and citizens’ groups opposing the abandonment of the unique Swiss model can send their comments as a PDF or Word document to [email protected] and also disseminate them among the population.

Comment by RT DE

After these outrageous events in the Swiss parliament, the frank commentary by Russia Today entitled “Switzerland wants to bomb Russian cities” from 19 June 20246 is unfortunately well deserved and largely correct in terms of content. The fact that Swiss politics, after the ‘Bürgenflop’ (the flop of Bürgenstock), is once again giving cause to expose our once highly esteemed country to ridicule hurts our souls. The Russians cannot be blamed for this either. It’s just that the over-focus on the President of the Security Commission and the comments about her make-up or her childhood dreams are tasteless and contribute nothing to an objective discussion. As for the so-called fake pictures, everyone can easily recognise them as montages: Portrait of Priska Seiler Graf, destroyed houses in the background or the launch of a missile. Legend about the destroyed house: “Neither the fact that she is a mother of three children nor Switzerland’s traditional neutrality seem to influence her. She uncompromisingly calls for more arms deliveries to Ukraine. More death for the Russians”. Legend about the flying missile: “SP National Councillor Priska Seiler Graf: ‘Neutrality is not in danger at all’”.
RT DE’s concluding remark must have been a real shock to us Swiss: “Should a war between Switzerland and Russia actually break out, as was instigated by Seiler Graf, an ICBM missile would take a cosy 13 minutes to travel from Russia to Zurich-Kloten [the National Councillor’s place of residence]”. Yes, it is hard to be confronted with the unpleasant reality. By supplying weapons to a war zone, Switzerland would not be contributing to peace, but to the deaths of men, women and children, while at the same time jeopardising our own security. We should thank any journalist for pointing this out to us. Do we carry on recklessly wasting our neutrality – or do we take strong countermeasures? •

https://www.zeit-fragen.ch/en/archives/2024/nr-14-9-juli-2024/desinformation-muss-ja-aus-russland-stammen-oder-etwa-nicht

READ FROM TOP..........

By Gus Leonisky at 22 Jul 2024 - 7:21am
Login or register to post comments

suisse folly.....

‘Re-establish credibility as a peace mediator’ Open letter to the President of Switzerland, Ms Viola Amherd

Dear Madame President of the Swiss Confederation, Ms Viola Amherd

Dear Federal Councillor and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr Ignazio Cassis
The proposal to house a liaison office of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation in Geneva is ill-advised. Switzerland is a neutral country since the Congress of Vienna of 1815. Its well-earned reputation as a responsible State and honest broker is at stake. The idea of installing this liaison office at the Maison de la Paix (House of Peace) constitutes an insult to all Swiss citizens and to all UN officials who truly labour for world peace2.
Such a proposal must be seen as Orwellian, an oxymoron, a parody of the concept of peace. The Swiss population have never voted in favour of such a rapprochement with NATO. Personally, as a “new Swiss” since 2017, I am distressed. My concern and that of many other new Swiss citizens is that Switzerland is gravely compromising its neutral status, as already happened during the unwise “Summit for Peace in Ukraine”3 held at the Bürgenstock on 15-16 June 2024, which was not a serious attempt at a peace negotiation that would craft viable solutions to real problems, but sadly a propaganda spectacle on behalf of NATO and its vassals4. It was less than useless – it was counterproductive.
Since the dismantlement of the Warsaw Pact in 19915, NATO can no longer pretend to be a legitimate defensive alliance. It is an organisation for war and war-mongering. The fact is that NATO has been trying to usurp the functions of the United Nations in the field of the maintenance of international peace and security, which remains the exclusive domain of the UN pursuant to Chapter VII of the UN Charter.
As a regional organisation, NATO does not qualify under article 52 of the UN Charter, because far from pursuing the Purposes and Principles of the UN as laid down in articles 1 and 2 of the Charter, it acts in a manner that contravenes the objectives of the UN. Since 1997, it has been an organisation that systematically provokes other states and thus blatantly violates Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits not only the “use of force” but also the threat of the use of force. Without any doubt, every NATO expansion constitutes a threat to the security of other states. Over the past 30 years we have observed with growing concern the implementation of NATO’s strategy to encircle other states. This constitutes a deliberate provocation and a menace to international peace and security for purposes of article 39 of the UN Charter. More recently, the megalomanic idea of expanding NATO into the Asia-Pacific region exacerbates the already tense situation in that region.
In a very real sense, since 1999 NATO has morphed into a “criminal organisation” within the meaning of Articles 9 and 10 of the Statute of the Nuremberg Military Tribunal (London Agreement of 8 August 1945)6 and the Nuremberg Judgement of 1946. There are solid reports and scholarly studies that reliably document the sad fact that NATO forces have committed crimes against peace (Art. 6a, Nuremberg Statute), war crimes (Art. 6b) and crimes against humanity (Art. 6c). NATO has committed these crimes inter alia in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc. – hitherto with complete impunity. For this reason, the International Criminal Court should initiate investigations against the responsible NATO politicians and military in accordance with Articles 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Rome Statute.
As a former senior official of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Secretary of the Human Rights Committee and Head of the Petitions Division, and as a former independent expert of the Human Rights Council on the international order, I am astonished by the slippery slope that Switzerland has chosen in “cuddling up” with NATO. This is nothing less than an ethical and legal aberration.
Dear President Viola Amherd, please do your utmost to defend Swiss neutrality and to re-establish Swiss authority and credibility as a peace mediator.
For more information on the legal and historical issues, please consult my trilogy on human rights: https://www.claritypress.com/book-author/alfred-de-zayas/ https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/ie-international-order/mr-alfred-maurice-de-zayas-former-independent-expert-2012-2018.

Respectfully,
Prof Dr iur. et phil. Alfred de Zayas,
Geneva School of Diplomacy
Member of the advisory board of the
Geneva International Peace Research Institute

https://www.zeit-fragen.ch/en/archives/2024/nr-15-23-juli-2024/glaubwuerdigkeit-als-friedensvermittler-wiederherstellen

READ FROM TOP

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

By Gus Leonisky at 8 Aug 2024 - 5:05pm
Login or register to post comments

peace has a price....

Swiss neutrality – Commitment to peace has a price by René Roca*

The German philosopher Peter Sloterdijk recently argued that Switzerland disproves the widespread assertion that direct democracy is impossible. He went on to say: “That is why there is an attempt to level Switzerland. Both the attempt from outside and the self-levelling tendencies within the country must be opposed and countered with dissent.” The same can also be said of Swiss neutrality. This has been levelled for some time now, as well from the outside with pressure from the USA and the EU and owing to adjustment to the NATO level, but also internally, as there has been an unprecedented levelling of neutrality since the end of the Cold War. In the face of the war in Ukraine, this has now reached a low point, with the help of media and party-political barrages. Swiss neutrality has been practically pulverised. The outcome of the Bürgenstock Conference and the behaviour of the Federal Council make this fact abundantly clear. Switzerland is fully integrated into the ‘Western camp’ and is anything but neutral. In support of this gesture of submission, the argument is repeatedly put forward that Switzerland should finally comply with international law and the UN Charter rather than adhere to outdated treaties such as the Hague Convention. This argument is untenable and seeks to cement Switzerland’s current position in the international arena. It is opposed by the recently submitted neutrality initiative, which aims to re-establish Swiss neutrality in the constitution and in the consciousness of the Swiss population.

The UN Charter and the ban on the use of force

Switzerland has been a member of the UN since 2002 and is basically obliged to abide by the UN Charter. The UN Charter is applicable international law and contains a ban on the use of force. The preamble to the UN Charter states: “We, the peoples of the United Nations, determined to save future generations from the scourge of war […]”. This Charter is undoubtedly a major step forward after the Second World War and represents an important milestone on the road to the concretisation of international law. However, the prohibition of the use of force is immediately shaken again due to two restrictions. The first restriction refers to the “inherent right of individual or collective self-defence” (Art. 51). The second restriction describes the right of the UN Security Council to use force with a corresponding mandate (Art. 42ff.). Political practice since the founding of the UN demonstrates the problematic nature of these exceptions. Since the end of the Second World War, the major powers have used the restrictions on the prohibition of the use of force to stage wars directly or indirectly on a practically permanent basis. As the ‘only’ world power, the USA has continued this practice of war since the end of the Cold War, whether with or without a UN mandate.

The First Gulf War of 1990/91 as a ‘war in accordance with international law’ and the positioning of Switzerland

In compliance with a Security Council resolution, the First Gulf War of 1990/91 was “in conformity with international law”. After the occupation and annexation of Kuwait by Iraq, the Security Council had initially decided on economic sanctions. However, in view of Saddam Hussein’s intransigence, the USA was soon unwilling to wait any longer for the UN economic sanctions to take effect or to respond to the mediation efforts of Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev. The USA was pursuing its own geopolitical and power-political goals. Immediately after the expiry of an ultimatum and based on a Security Council decision, the Allied air force, led by the USA, unleashed a brutal air war against Iraq. Of the almost 90,000 tonnes of bombs dropped by the allies over Iraq, around two thirds failed to hit their intended targets. The number of mainly civilian victims of these bombings is estimated at 150,000. And this is supposed to be “in accordance with international law”? The air war lasted over a month, the subsequent attack by ground troops only a few days, until the complete surrender of the Iraqi army. But even after that, Iraq continued to be subject to a strict economic embargo, which was in turn secured by a Security Council mandate.
Although Switzerland was not yet a member of the UN at the time, the Federal Council declared its autonomous implementation of economic sanctions against Iraq. According to the Federal Council, this was compatible with neutrality. A booklet on ‘Swiss Neutrality’ from 2004, which is however no longer available, states on page 21: “Switzerland is moving away from integral neutrality. It participates in economic sanctions against Iraq.” The new FDFA and DDPS brochure (of March 2022) does not even mention this any longer! This change in strategy, which also means an erosion of Swiss neutrality, was never discussed publicly. Economic sanctions against Libya, Haiti and Yugoslavia followed in the 1990s. The Federal Council’s 1993 neutrality report confirmed and emphasised this reorientation.
Economic sanctions demonstrably achieve nothing, as eminently shown by the sanctions against Iraq, which continued for years after the war. Sanctions of this kind primarily affect the innocent civilian population and violate international law (especially international humanitarian law) and human rights. Destruction of the infrastructure and especially of the health system in Iraq had devastating consequences: according to UN organisations such as UNICEF or WHO, more than one million people died in Iraq between 1991 and 2001, including more than 500,000 children under the age of five, owing to the economic sanctions, i.e. the lack of food and medical aid these generated. Such facts are also confirmed by a dramatic report by Hans-Christof von Sponeck who, in protest against the sanctions, announced his resignation after around 16 months as coordinator of the UN humanitarian aid programme for Iraq. Switzerland is jointly responsible for these consequences suffered by the Iraqi civilian population, since it uncritically supported the economic sanctions and thus severely damaged its own neutrality.
Sanctions of this kind would no longer be possible if the neutrality initiative were accepted, and Switzerland would have greater potential to promote peace. The Federal Council, rejects this initiative without a counter-proposal, and writes in response that sanctions serve “the maintenance of a peaceful and just international order”. As the above example shows, such a statement is completely out of touch with reality. Sanctions always mean intensified mutual alienation between the parties to the conflict; the actual war is prolonged and subsequent international understanding is made much more difficult.

International law is ‘precarious’

The example of the First Gulf War is a good illustration of the precarious nature of the international law valid today. The well-known Swiss international law expert Oliver Diggelmann also emphasises this fact in his basic work “Völkerrecht. Geschichte und Grundlagen mit Seitenblicken auf die Schweiz” (International Law. History and basics with sideways glances at Switzerland). With regard to, among other things, the UN Charter, he writes: “International law is not only created differently from domestic law. It is also enforced in a different way, is altogether more uncertain, more diffuse, less reliable in terms of expectations. The juxtaposition of the highly developed and the precarious, which is so irritating, is something we are not familiar with in the domestic sphere. This irritation is not temporary. It is not an anomaly of international law that will disappear any time soon”.
The First Gulf War was just the beginning of the USA’s claim to power after the end of the Cold War. Before most of the subsequent wars, the USA did not even wait for a Security Council decision, but deployed its military machinery, supported by other ‘willing parties’ including mercenaries. The Serbia/Kosovo war of 1999, launched without a UN mandate, can be cited as an example. In this war, too, the most serious war crimes were committed. The use of DU ammunition (Depleted Uranium) had devastating consequences for the fighting soldiers on both sides as well as for the civilian population (‘Balkan syndrome’), and this was demonstrably due to the ammunition used. In Iraq and Serbia/Kosovo, the cancer rate has reached unimagined heights to this day. The USA and its allies blatantly violated the basic principles of international humanitarian law, but have practically never since been prosecuted on that account.

The ‘values-based order’ of the West

The Western narrative of a ‘values-based order’ is repeatedly being invoked in connection with the war in Ukraine. The question remains: what ‘order’ is meant here in our chaotic world, and, in particular, what ‘values’ are the Western states relying on? The value of ‘democracy’, for example, is undergoing dramatic erosion in some European countries and also in the USA, as we are currently witnessing. It is, however, interesting to observe how differently countries in Latin America, Africa and Asia view the current conflicts and wars. They counter with their own assessment the flat historiography that Putin violated international law with his attack on Ukraine and thus destroyed the ‘rules-based security order’ that had existed since the end of the Cold War. They emphasise the background and long history of conflicts and that the “right of self-defence under international law” has been part of Western war logic in most wars since the Second World War. This was – and is – merely intended to justify the wars themselves and the continuation of wars. Notably International humanitarian law is thereby being trampled underfoot.
The countries of the South in particular are urging that the necessary reforms of the UN institutions, and especially of the Security Council, be tackled now so that these can finally take account of the newly emerging multipolarity of the world and so that international law can continue to evolve in a just manner.

Neutral Switzerland as guarantor of international humanitarian law

Switzerland is the depositary state of the Geneva Conventions. It is precisely from this responsible position that Switzerland should defend international humanitarian law and take a credible neutral stance. International humanitarian law is less precarious than the UN Charter, the foundation of which in international law is unstable, as has been shown. The UN Charter is repeatedly slammed over Swiss neutrality, which has grown historically and is based on older treaties, such as the Vienna Congress Act of 1815 and a Hague Conventionof 1907. In principle, the age of a document says nothing about its significance for the present. The preamble to the UN Charter puts it this way: “We, the peoples of the United Nations, determined [...] to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained [...]”. However, the essence of Swiss neutrality does not only consist of treaties and documents; neutrality is the head, heart and soul of Switzerland and is condensed in a certain attitude and in certain actions.
The Swiss history of neutrality shows numerous positive examples of mediation and peace services. Unfortunately, these have not been analysed seriously enough, especially during the Cold War. This should now be made up for with concrete studies.

The significance of the neutrality initiative

According to the Federal Chancellery, the neutrality initiative will come to the vote. It provides the necessary clarity and gives guidance to parliament and the Federal Council. This is crucial in an increasingly belligerent era. Swiss neutrality should be clearly defined in the Federal Constitution. In a paper worked out to summarise its arguments against the neutrality initiative, the Federal Council says: “Affording a certain degree of flexibility, it (Switzerland’s current practice of neutrality) is an ideal instrument for safeguarding national interests.” Such a “cherry-picker mentality” will make Switzerland look like a profiteer. This “flexibility”, this neutrality à la carte should be a thing of the past, it must change.
Swiss neutrality has a price. This price, high as it is, must be paid by Switzerland in favour of peace, even against great powers’ ill will. Because, as the Swiss historian Wolfgang von Wartburg writes: “There must be a place in the world that exclusively serves peace”. By accepting and implementing the neutrality initiative, we can ensure that there is no further rapprochement with NATO and that Switzerland can consistently serve peace. What the liberal thought leader Robert Nef says about the permanence of neutrality will then apply: “It is part of the nature of principles that they are built to last and must prove resistant to the changing spirit of the times”.
Switzerland can redevelop this resilience and steadfastness by accepting this initiative. At the same time, it can initiate thought processes on how general international law (including the UN Charter) can serve peace even better if based on an image of humanity founded on natural law. •

* René Roca holds a doctorate in history and is a member of the initiative committee ‘Safeguarding Swiss Neutrality (neutrality initiative)’.

https://www.zeit-fragen.ch/en/archives/2024/nr-15-23-juli-2024/schweizer-neutralitaet-der-einsatz-fuer-den-frieden-hat-einen-preis

MEANWHILE NATO IS PRESSURING SWITZERLAND:

The Swiss government could revise its security policy by intensifying military cooperation with NATO, representing a significant adjustment to its longstanding policy of neutrality, the Blick news outlet reported on Sunday, citing a draft of a document it reviewed.

According to Blick, on August 29, the Federal Department of Defense led by Swiss President Viola Amherd will present a report from a study commission which is intended to provide “impulses for security policy in the coming years.”

One of the recommendations is to increase cooperation with NATO, which, the commission argues, would “strengthen Switzerland’s defense capabilities.”

“NATO will remain the security guarantor for Europe for the foreseeable future. It is the benchmark for modern Western armies and defines the standards for Western military technology,” the report stated.

Switzerland maintains “permanent neutrality” in accordance with its constitution. Its obligations include refraining “from engaging in wars,” prohibiting shipments of weapons to war zones from or through its territory and providing mercenary troops to countries involved in armed conflicts, as well as ensuring its own defense.

While the commission did not recommend membership in the bloc, it suggested signing “secret agreements” to cover “threats from long-range missiles, extensive cyber warfare against European states, or airspace violations.”

The report also says Switzerland should “seriously”prepare for collective defense, including taking part in NATO exercises. The daily noted that this contradicts Swiss neutrality.

The experts also called on Switzerland to revisit the Federal Act on War Materiel, which prohibits the direct delivery of Swiss tanks to Ukraine. The document noted that this policy “causes confusion and frustration among the EU and NATO.”

In conclusion, the experts recommended that the policy of neutrality should be revised to allow the country to “formulate its stance on possible conflicts (China-Taiwan, Russia-NATO) in a timely manner and anticipate possible demands.”

Blick noted that both the Left and the Swiss People’s Party are likely to object to the newly devised strategy and will do everything to prevent “more NATO, more EU, and less neutrality.”

Swiss neutrality has been called into question by Russia; Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has accused Bern of becoming “openly hostile” to Moscow, as it has supported Western sanctions on Russia and has frozen billions in Russian assets.

According to a poll published in March, around 91% of the Swiss population say the country should remain neutral.

https://www.rt.com/news/602466-switzerland-could-sign-secret-agreements/

READ FROM TOP

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

By Gus Leonisky at 12 Aug 2024 - 9:02pm
Login or register to post comments

Primary links

Search

Recent comments

Democracy Links

Member's Off-site Blogs