Upside down world

Fairy tale about neutrality law that violates the UN Charter

by Dr iur. Marianne Wüthrich

It is nothing new that some Swiss want to push for the abolition of Swiss neutrality and the NATO integration of our country – they started doing this long before 24 February 2022. Today they are using the Ukraine war to completely submit our country and its army to the “value west” and the “rules-based order” invented by some US strategists. To this end, they come up with a lot of ideas.

Participation in the wars of NATO and EU?

Recently, the relevant Swiss NATO and EU turbos spread a “manifesto” for neutrality in the 21st century, which propagates the military integration of Switzerland into NATO and the EU: “A powerful army serves a credible security policy for Switzerland, independently whether Switzerland is neutral or not. During times of peace Switzerland prepares itself with NATO and the EU so that in the event of aggression it can defend itself militarily together with the democratic constitutional states. It works closely with them in armament, training and leadership, so that the interoperability of the armed forces and the combat of combined arms is ensured.” According to the manifesto, this is one of the “cornerstones of Swiss neutrality” (sic!).1

Hague Conventions – “antiquated”?

European law expert Thomas Cottier, co-author of this paper, then tried to mislead the majority of the population, who adhere to Swiss neutrality, in a newspaper article in order to advance the goals of the “manifesto”. To this end, he first wants to do away with the neutrality law of the Hague Conventions of 1907 and thereby give Switzerland the “green light” to supply arms to the war in Ukraine. The Hague Conventions contradict the prohibition of force in the UN Charter and are “out of time” anyway.2 The long-time Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) director and ambassador Martin Dahinden debunked this bizarre claim a few days earlier, also in a NZZ commentary: “Among the Opponents of Swiss neutrality A strange argument came up: The Hague Convention of 1907, which regulates the law of neutrality, is no longer valid because there was no ban on the use of force between states under international law at that time.” In reality, however, the Hague Conventions would only define the rights and obligations of neutral states in the event of war: “But they in no way concern – neither explicitly nor implicitly – the question of whether the use of force is legitimate or not.” Cottier & Co’s intention is clear, says Dahinden: an open departure from neutrality is not politically acceptable in Switzerland today. “Hence the resort to retelling the international law foundations of neutrality and claiming that the law of neutrality is no longer valid and is outdated.”3
  It is noteworthy that Dahinden pointed out that in some wars it is controversial “whether it is legitimate self-defense or aggression that violates international law”. It takes some courage to make such a statement in times when freedom of expression has effectively been abolished.

Neutrality and the UN Charter prohibition of the use of force

The aim of the UN Charter is to maintain world peace through “friendly relations between nations based on respect for the principle of equality and self-determination of peoples” (Article 1, paragraphs 1 and 2). The prohibition of the use of force under international law according to Article 2, Paragraph 4 of the Charter is central to achieving this goal. Thomas Cottier’s claim that Switzerland is obliged to deliver war material to Ukraine in accordance with the prohibition of force in the UN Charter and Ukraine’s right to self-defence is untrue. Only in the event of a resolution by the UN Security Council under Chapter VII (“Measures in the event of a threat or breach of the peace and in the event of acts of aggression”) would Switzerland be obliged to possibly tolerate the overflight of foreign war aircraft or similar, but certainly not an active contribution to the war such as deliveries of weapons. However, due to the constellation of veto powers, such a Security Council decision is not to be expected in the Ukraine war.
  Wolf Linder, Swiss professor emeritus for political science, straightened things out in a key article from 16 July 2024. Regarding the relationship between Swiss neutrality and the UN Charter and, above all, its prohibition of violence, he stated that “the basic orientation of Swiss neutrality lies in universal international peace law, as laid down in the UN Charter.” The Charter’s prohibition of force is “the basis of neutrality that can be used to mediate, prevent and resolve conflicts worldwide. This does not mean doing nothing or remaining silent in conflicts. Neutrality earns its credibility when it raises its voice against all sides when it comes to violations of the law that endanger peace - including those committed by the ‘Western community of values’.”4

“Collective self-defense” with NATO – That’ll be the day!

A masterpiece of disinformation is Thomas Cottier’s association of Switzerland with the “right to collective self-defense” in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter: “Switzerland has been a member of the UN since 2002. It has decided to take part in collective self-defense in favor of Ukraine, which is largely supported by the NATO states and the EU.” As the author knows very well, Switzerland cannot take part in “collective self-defense” in the Ukraine war or elsewhere, because this is tied to a military alliance, i.e., primarily to NATO membership. The Foreign Office of the Federal Republic of Germany writes: “NATO is an alliance of collective defense.” An example of this is “the reinsurance measures in the eastern alliance area that were decided upon as a result of the annexation of Crimea in March 2014, which violated international law, and the continued destabilization of eastern Ukraine by Russia.”5
  Quite a distortion of the duty of mutual assistance in the event of an armed attack on the territory of a NATO state. As is well known, neither the Ukraine war nor the numerous previous NATO wars took place on the territory of NATO member states.
  But back to Switzerland. The untruthful claim that she is participating “of her own decision” in the collective self-defense of NATO and the EU6 in Ukraine is intended to pave the way for the neutrality-contrary plans of “Manifestation Neutrality 21”.

Blood on our hands?

It cannot be the case that a Swiss law professor suggests that Switzerland must defend the “international order” from the US test tube and the “security of Europe” by not only allowing the transfer of Swiss war material to third countries, but also “directly the export of war material to Ukraine for its defense and to protect the civilian population”. Switzerland is “entitled to do this under international law and also obliged under human rights”, Cottier claims (!).7 For this purpose, Cottier also uses Article 54, Paragraph 2 of the Federal Constitution. It says that Swiss foreign policy is committed to “preserving Switzerland’s independence” and “contributing to peaceful coexistence between peoples”. By marching in NATO’s wars? By aiding and abetting the slaughter of men, women and children using Swiss weapons? We‘ve come a long way!

Neutrality initiative: anchoring neutrality in the federal constitution

The successfully submitted neutrality initiative counters such deviations from the tried and tested Swiss path of neutrality by anchoring perpetual armed neutrality in the federal constitution as an indispensable principle of Swiss foreign policy for the good of one’s own country and the world. On the great importance of neutrality in a world of wars, Wolf Linder: “To play down neutrality today is short-sighted. The risks of war are increasing worldwide. Ukraine shows as an example that many conflicts could have been prevented or resolved peacefully if the ‘neutrality’ option had been seriously considered in a timely manner. In the multipolar world, the risk of war increases if all countries join one of the major power blocs. On the other hand, peace has greater chances worldwide if more countries remain or become independent and neutral. That’s why neutrality has a future and advantages not only for our country.”8  •

https://www.zeit-fragen.ch/en/archives/2024/nr-17-20-august-2024/verkehrte-welt

READ FROM TOP

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

Swiss voters rejected proposals to bolster biodiversity protections as well as a pensions reform in twin referendums on Sunday, according to projected results.

Switzerland may be associated with pristine natural landscapes, but environmentalists have sounded the alarm over its endangered ecosystems and were urging voters to back broader biodiversity protections.

The proposal failed, however, with only 37 percent of votes in favour and a turnout of 45.2 percent, according to provisional results reported by federal authorities around 1430 GMT on Sunday.

https://www.kpvi.com/news/national_news/swiss-voters-reject-environment-pensions-reforms-official-results/article_397f21c3-7e4b-5f74-9fea-6924886cc782.html

THE SWISS ARE GOING DOWN THE DRAIN...

READ FROM TOP

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

The European Organization for Nuclear Research (French acronym CERN) plans to bar close to 500 Russian scientists from its labs, including the Large Hadron Collider particle accelerator, effective December 1. Russian nuclear energy expert Alexei Anpilogov explains why the "politicized" move threatens to turn the West into a "scientific slum."

In 2008, to great fanfare and jubilation, CERN opened the 27 km-long Large Hadron Collider (LHC) – the world’s largest and most powerful particle accelerator, on the French-Swiss border.

Russian scientists, who had been working on their own massive particle accelerator project in the 1980s prior to the Soviet Union's dissolution, played an active and critical role in the LHC's creation. CERN signed a cooperation agreement with Russia's Institute of High Energy Physics in 1993, and up to 700 Russian specialists, plus many more from other post-Soviet republics, took part in the $4.75 billion European scientific megaproject's construction.

A decade-and-a-half after the LHC's launch, CERN intends to formally end cooperation with Russia, to ban Russian scientists from the organization's sites and demand that they hand in their Swiss and French residency permits, unless they start working for scientific institutions outside Russia.

CERN's "absolutely irresponsible" and "politicized" decision is nothing short of an attempt to "erase" Russia from international science, and a move that will inevitably backfire, nuclear energy expert and political scientist Alexei Anpilogov told Sputnik. 

The decision will result in a situation where “all countries will be extremely cautious about science megaprojects, and engaging in international scientific cooperation in general,” knowing that they could be booted at any time for “absolutely political reasons,” the observer pointed out.

A large portion of the infrastructure involved in the LHC’s construction was made possible thanks to ideas contributed by scientists from Russia, who have long played a leading role in elementary particle physics, quantum physics and astrophysics, Anpilogov said.

https://sputnikglobe.com/20240922/cerns-politicized-plan-to-ban-russian-scientists-threatens-west-with-scientific-slum-status-1120250876.html

BUILD YOUR OWN MEGA-CYCLOTRON, RUSSIA!!!!!!!

READ FROM TOP

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

Swiss festival censors film amid Ukrainian threats
The Foreign Ministry in Kiev claimed that showing the documentary ‘Russians at War’ would “ruin” the event’s reputation

The Zurich Film Festival has dropped a scheduled screening of a documentary about Russian soldiers due to threats from Kiev, the newspaper Neue Zurcher Zeitung reported this week, citing a press statement. The decision was reportedly made over security concerns.

The documentary feature titled ‘Russians at War,’ filmed by director Anastasia Trofimova with Canadian government funding, was due to be screened at the festival next week. The feature recounts the seven months Trofimova spent with a Russian military unit at the front in the Ukraine conflict. In the film, she brought to the fore the personal stories of the soldiers she met.

The documentary premiered earlier this month at the Venice Film Festival, instantly drawing criticism from Kiev, which branded it “Russian propaganda.” A planned screening at the Toronto International Film Festival was subsequently canceled due to claims that staff had received threats.

The Zurich festival said it was forced to drop the screening amid worries over the “safety of our audience, guests, partners and employees.” The decision was made shortly after a spokesman for the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry, posted a message on X demanding the documentary be removed from the festival’s program.

“We urge [Zurich Film Festival] organizers not to ruin the festival’s reputation by screening ‘Russians at War.’ This is a propaganda film that whitewashes war crimes, not a documentary,” Georgy Tikhy wrote in his post. However sources have told the Neue Zurcher Zeitung that festival organizers were pressured by representatives of the Ukrainian government and pro-Kiev activists, as well as by threats expressed via social networks.

Despite caving in, the festival announced that the film would remain eligible for prizes in the competition and that the jury would view it behind closed doors.

Trofimova previously explained that her goal in making the documentary was to refute the notion promoted by the West that all Russian soldiers are war criminals. She also said her film is expressly “anti-war,” and shows the “absolutely ordinary people” fighting in the Russian army. However, after the feature’s premiere in Venice, the Ukrainian Ministry of Culture declared Trofimova a “threat to national security.”

https://www.rt.com/russia/604905-russian-documentary-banned-switzerland/

READ FROM TOP

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

The Geneva International Peace Research Institute (GIPRI) rejects the ‘’Security Policy Committee Report‘’ presented by Swiss President Viola Amherd on 29 August 2024.1
  This report is incompatible with Switzerland’s neutrality and must be rejected as contrary to the Swiss constitution and Swiss traditions of neutrality and mediation. Several organisations have already expressed similar views.
  GIPRI supports a neutral and peaceful Switzerland, a Switzerland that can play a mediating role between Russia and Ukraine, between Israel and Palestine. GIPRI advocates the values of peace and mediation in the spirit of St Nicholas of Flüe.2
  The United Nations Charter requires all States to work for peace and reconciliation between peoples.
  Of particular concern is the suggestion of a ‘revised policy of neutrality’, a euphemism for the gradual abandonment of true neutrality. More dangerous is the idea of a rapprochement with NATO, a warmongering organisation that runs contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
  Numerous scholars and law professors consider that since the end of the Cold War, NATO has undergone a harmful evolution, a metamorphosis from a defensive alliance to an aggressive and provocative one. They even consider that NATO, through its actions since 1997, in contravention of the fundamental principles of the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions, can be seen as a ‘criminal organisation’ within the meaning of articles 9 and 10 of the Statute of the International Military Tribunal of Nuremberg (London Agreement of 8 August 1945) and according to the Nuremberg judgment of 1946.
  Since the end of the Cold War and the dismantling of the Warsaw Pact in 1991, NATO has had no raison d’être. It attempts to usurp the functions of the United Nations, but Article 103 of the UN Charter (the supremacy clause) prohibits this. NATO is no longer a legitimate organisation under Article 52 of the Charter, and must be dismantled today rather than tomorrow.
  We must acknowledge that NATO member states have committed atrocious crimes in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria – with complete impunity. NATO members have used prohibited weapons that are contrary to the principles of international humanitarian law and the Geneva Conventions, such as cluster bombs, chemical and radioactive weapons including depleted uranium. We cannot associate ourselves with NATO without becoming accomplices in NATO’s crimes.
  NATO had no enemies after 1991, but it created enemies in order to justify its continued existence. It provoked Russia and Belarus. Today it is provoking China. These provocations are contrary to article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter and constitute a threat to international peace and security for purposes of article 39 of the Charter.
  Switzerland must choose between the United Nations Charter and NATO.
  For this reason, GIPRI supports the Swiss federal initiative entitled ‘Safeguarding Swiss neutrality’, due to be put to a vote before the Swiss people. This is an excellent opportunity to prevent the Swiss government from pursuing its irresponsible rapprochement with NATO.  •

https://www.zeit-fragen.ch/en/archives/2024/nr-18/19-17-september-2024/man-kann-sich-nicht-mit-der-nato-verbuenden-ohne-mittaeter-zu-werden

READ FROM TOP

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