Former Swiss Ambassador Jean-Daniel Ruch on Europe’s «strategic autonomy», the role of Switzerland and his criticism of Switzerland’s following the EU sanctions against Russia.
Mr. Ruch, where in international politics do we find ourselves at the moment?
Surely Trump’s assuming power in America is a deciding factor which will influence the next four years. It is way too early to tell whether things will move in the direction of a different, but stable order or rather in the direction of chaos and confusion. We are at the beginning of an era, at a crossroads and you don’t know which direction the train will take. However, if there are rather positive signals from Trump it is his willingness to talk to the Russians about ending this war which the Ukrainians are about to lose, the Europeans pay more and more for, and which is senseless.
What is the challenge for Switzerland in this situation?
Switzerland is not in a bad place at all. During the first Trump presidency we had good relations. Trump is the first American president to formally receive a Swiss President of the Confederation, Ueli Maurer, who by the way had an extraordinary presidential year. He met Putin, Xi Jinping and Trump which shows that Switzerland was taken seriously, at least when Ueli Maurer was President of the Confederation. In his election campaign, Trump mentioned the Swiss educational system, therefore he knows Switzerland a bit and has a good impression. On the negative side he wants to go after countries with a positive balance of trade, this concerns Switzerland. And he has not included us in the list of countries which receive certain high-tech chips only the Americans can produce. Finally, Switzerland would run into problems if it really would come to a trade war with China, for Switzerland has very profitable a free-trade agreement with China. This is the aspect I am rather worried about.
What should Switzerland do?
In my opinion, the focus should be on our role as a bridge builder, our traditional neutrality to demonstrate the we can play a useful part. An important step in this direction would be to organize the summit between Trump and Putin.
Swiss presidency of OSCE
In 2026 Switzerland assumes the presidency of OSCE. What can she do? Are there cards to play?
Like all international organizations, OSCE depends on its member states. It is incapable to act, Because of the Ukrainian conflict and the enormous tension between Russia and the western countries. At the moment it is a phantom organization. If there is a détente between Washington and Moscow, OSCE could again become the place where different interests are discussed and one embarks on solutions, proposals, concrete deeds to advance peace and security in Europe. Obviously, the first thing is a general agreement between Russians and Americans. And such an agreement would have to reach beyond just a cessation of hostilities in Ukraine.
What is it that would reach beyond an end to the war in Ukraine?
For long-term stability on the continent, you need new agreements on arms control in Europe of the kind we had and by and by let go of in the past. I am thinking of the bilateral nuclear agreements between Washington and Moscow, and of course I also think of the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty. What would be necessary is a treaty defining the number of offensive arms for each country, tanks, fighter planes and so on. Finally, the agreements concluded within OSCE would have to be renewed, the ones on confidence-building measures between east and west which envisage military inspections, invitations to observers, the little gestures that build confidence.
And what does Mr. Cassis do as president of OSCE if those détentes between Russia and America remain chimera?
There are little things that can be done, support for this or that country, like Moldavia or Georgia. There are several countries torn between east and west, where the population is divided. I would put the focus on such countries and try to consolidate or stabilize them as much as possible. Also, there is much left to do at the level of human rights and democracy, in particular concerning liberty of expression. All that’s related to hate speech and everything related to artificial intelligence as the turbo engine of disinformation. It is about negotiating norms, and why not try to do this within OSCE?
Sanctions: “The people have a right to know”
You criticize the Swiss decision to follow the sanction of the European Union against Russia. Russia says that Switzerland has abandoned its neutrality. Do you agree?
What I resent is that one does not tell us why these sanctions are adopted. It might be that there are very good reasons. But it’s a fact that between 2014 and 2022 Switzerland was doing well with its partners by just taking measures against the circumvention of their sanctions without adopting them. In 2022 we were first told that this would remain the same. Then suddenly, over one weekend there was an about-face, and we adopted the European sanctions. This led to the impression that we made ourselves into a trailer behind the European Union without explaining why. Afterward, we were told that it was because of the grave violation of international law. But no! The violation did not come about over a weekend, as the Russian aggression was there since 22 February 2022. Behind the scenes you could hear “but if you knew that kind of pressure we were exposed to”. In a direct democracy like ours the people have the right to know why such an important decision was taken. The people are totally capable of understanding that the political interpretation of neutrality is changed if the Americans or the Europeans threaten punitive economic measures which would truly harm our economy.
Can one not accept a change in that interpretation of neutrality – what is called “Neutralitätspolitik”, the “policy of neutrality” – in the sense that Switzerland won’t be neutral any longer in cases of grave violations of international law and international humanitarian law? From this perspective one would have to criticize the government for being too neutral in other cases.
There are several other equally grave situations in the world where no sanctions are taken. Neutrality is like a three-stage missile. The first stage is the law of neutrality, purely legal. It means that a neutral country must not favor a party in a conflict. On this score we are good. Then there is the second stage. That is “Neutralitätspolitik”, decided essentially by the Federal Council. Here, you must know how to play and to maneuver. The decisions taken here shape the third stage, which is the view from outside, the outside perception of neutrality.
At which of the three stages do you localize a problem?
In the case of Ukraine, but also of Israel or Gaza, the perception of our neutrality has suffered from the positions of the government and also the parliament. Our reputation, our image, our soft power as a neutral country have suffered since 2022.
The sanctions against Russia aside, which decisions of parliament have damaged the perception of Swiss neutrality?
I first think of the decision about UNRWA…
…the UN agency for supporting Palestinian refugees…
…to cut their funding. We were the first country in the world to do it. This has an influence on the perception of our neutrality. There is cocktail of decisions in Bern which created the impression that we put ourselves clearly into the camp of Israel. Among them the decision of parliament to declare Hamas a terrorist organization. For years, we only considered organizations listed by the United Nations as terrorist. With Hamas, we opened a Pandora’s box. Moreover, we let go of a role we were able to play in the past.
.
Peace in Sight in March 2022
In the case of Ukraine there are many who say that we cannot be neutral any longer because we are subject to a continental threat by Russia which must be met by all Europeans – including Switzerland which is part of the European continent.
As the Russians are not able to reach the Dnjepr, I am at pains to imagine them arriving in Berlin or St. Gallen. This argument is totally absurd. This narrative does not stand any analysis, simply because the Russians neither have the military means nor the will to invade the whole continent.
How do you know that Russia does not threaten the whole continent?
If you go to war, you have to have clear and realistic military objectives. The Russians seem to have them, grosso modo they are about taking over the four eastern oblasts. The west said that it wanted to “beat” or weaken Russia. These are neither clear nor realistic objectives of war. And what is the result? A massacre of hundreds of thousands of young Ukrainians and Russians. It could have been ended within six weeks after the outbreak of the fighting, with Turkish mediation.
In the spring of 2022, we read that there were talks in Istanbul. Die you play a role, as Swiss Ambassador in Turkey?
At one moment in March, when Ignazio Cassis called the Turkish Foreign Minister. There had been a first meeting between Lavrov and the Ukrainian Foreign Minister in Antalya, during a forum which the Turks organize every year. The Turkish Minister asked Cassis to send his ambassador…
…You…
… to try to work together, as things went really well. So, I met the Turkish chief negotiator. We had a long talk; he explained to me what was on the table. The Turks were interested in Swiss support with a definition of Ukrainian neutrality. At the end of the conversation, he said to me: «You know, Jean-Daniel, I am not optimistic because big powers with a large agenda have no interest in peace.» Soon afterward Boris Johnson went to Kiev and the discussions were terminated. And a few days later the American Defense Secretary said publicly that Russia needed to be weakened further.
Switzerland and “strategic autonomy” in Europe
If there is no continental threat, there is no urgency to react by changing strategy and building up the military, would you agree?
I think it is a good thing that Switzerland and Europe are reviewing and strengthening their defense systems and finally create a credible military force. Because history shows that peace and stability depend on the balance of military powers, particularly at times when international law does not or practically not exist anymore, as is the case today.
A European army?
Yes. That’s what Macron says. Way too long Europa was dependent from American protection. Now there truly is a necessity to create strategic autonomy in Europa. The Americans have their own interests, they are at 6000 kilometers away from us. It is a strategic error to let European security depend on actors at the other end of the world whose interests are totally different from ours. I think the long-term interest of Europa is in restoring stable relations with Russia, which obviously is not in the American interest. After all, there is a territorial link between Russia and Europe, and to decouple from Russia and its enormous resources is tantamount to shoot oneself in the foot.
Should Switzerland engage with this “strategic autonomy” of Europe?
It should, but at a technical level, not as joining a military alliance. The Europeans are about to develop military innovation programs, and they intensify their cooperation in arms production. Here, Switzerland has something to offer. This way we would contribute to the reinforcement of a European military and security pillar which could create a continental balance of power. This would pave the way to a reparation of the economic and trade relations with Russia which in my view is in the interest of Europe.
Switzerland will increase the military budget, and there is a discussion on repositioning the army. Are the right issues debated?
Bevor you allocate defense resources to arms procurement and armament development programs; you should make sure what strategy and defense policy to pursue. I am not convinced that this job has been done well. For our entire security strategy, all documents issued by our army depart from the principle that we must get closer to NATO. We are integrating into NATO without being formal members.
What is the alternative?
We have technological capacities and some armament capacities which I think should be strengthened with the goal of being what we were during the entire cold war. This means to assume our role in the middle of Europa and signal to our partner: We have a credible army, we may cooperate in times of war, but we are neutral. Such a national debate has not taken place. There are small circles of experts discussing. The army does its thing in its corner, in a rather opaque way, and by the way they have proven their incompetency by selecting arms systems which are very expensive and do not work. The Federal Control of Finances has identified 5 or 6 programs who have apparently been decided on ideological reasons and not based on a true analysis and a fair invitation to tender.
That happened under the leadership of Ueli Maurer and his colleagues from the SVP party at the helm of the department of defense.
I’m not sure that Federal Councilors have the technical know-how to make such decisions. They perhaps have a vague military experience as battalion or regiment commanders, but then they have the experts who tell them why the F-35 is the best. I observe a pro-Israel and pro-American bias throughout the defense system. When I was Ambassador in Israel, I saw every week the military delegation arriving, sometimes with a mission to buy weapons. I know that there are very tight relations that in my view are not the result of an objective analysis of Switzerland’s needs or of the market. I sometimes feel that the Geneva Center for Security Sector Governance should take a look at whether our elected officials really control our armed forces.
Statements like this don’t add to your popularity. Neue Zürcher Zeitung out you in the corner of the « Putinversteher », the pals of Putin, because you appeared at an event of “Aufrecht Schweiz”.
These were anti-vaxers, I had no idea when I accepted. In French speaking Switzerland they are totally unknown. What I was interested in was the dialogue with the Russian Ambassador. The chance to have a discussion on that level in front of 500 people is not offered every day. I said what I thought is right, I defended the Swiss position. My first sentence was that Russia committed an aggression. Then we had a cordial debate. I speak to all who want to hear what I have to say. I don’t have any limitations. I see that there is a kind of “cancel culture” in German-speaking Switzerland which is unknown in the Suisse Romande. The attitude of Neue Zürcher Zeitung and the Ringier group has become extremely ideological. They cancel you if you don’t say what they want to hear. I don’t care, there are other media I can work with to reach the public.
Popular initiative on neutrality: Pro and con
We will vote on a popular initiative that aims to write neutrality into the Swiss constitution. What is your position?
Neutrality already is mentioned in the constitution, in the sense that the Federal Council is mandated to safeguard it. The initiative wants to limit the adoption of sanctions to those mandated by the UN security council. This initiative is welcome as it opens the possibility of a real national dialogue on an issue that many view as part of our identity. By the way, I opened a Geneva Center for Neutrality last December to create a space for all who care. We should not leave the monopoly on neutrality to one political party.
And what is your position on the initiative?
I have not decided yet. There are arguments for and against. The main argument for it – which is barely mentioned – is that it would provide the Federal Council with a weapon against the pressure that could be exerted. In the case of Russia for example, the Federal Council could have said that an adoption of the European sanctions would violated our constitution. This would strengthen the spine of the Federal Council. On the other hand, such a constitutional mandate would leave the Federal Council without any leeway to define its policy according to our interests.
That Geneva Center – what is it?
We launched it in the house of General Dufour with a small group, on 12 December, the International Day of Neutrality. We met with enormous interest. Now we are organizing ourselves on three axes. The first is the Swiss debate. The second is making connections to comparable institutions abroad, trying to create a web which is not aligned with one block or the other. The third axis is linked to digital or numeric neutrality. There are a whole lot of threats there. There is a need for a neutral space where norms on the application of artificial intelligence can be developed, be it in the realm of information or in questions of armament. Imagine a world where machines decide on the use of nuclear weapons without the involvement of humans. The arrival of AI makes such a world probable.