China Visit Exposes Cracks in Swiss Neutrality

Imprimer

Swiss President Ueli Maurer’s recent visit to China shows the complexity of Switzerland’s neutrality in the face of current geopolitical realities. The Swiss President and Finance Minister spent seven days in China, part of the time attending the second Belt and Road Forum on international cooperation. He also signed a memorandum of understanding with China focusing on finance and trade and even had a bilateral official meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

A prominent Swedish diplomat once described neutrality to me as simply “the foreign policy of a small country surrounded by large neighbors.” But being neutral is not that simple. With rapid changes in global geopolitics, such as American “Firstism” and China’s impressive growth, Swiss neutrality is no longer similar to what it was in the immediate post-World War II era when it served as a reliable intermediary between the Soviet bloc and the West, highlighted by the Geneva Reagan/Gorbachev summit of 1985.
Maurer’s attendance at a Forum celebrating the Belt and Road Initiative (B.R.I.) can be understood in two ways. As a perceptive article in the NY Times observed, the B.R.I., “a vast worldwide web of infrastructure-development projects mostly funded or sponsored by the Chinese government – has generated both tremendous enthusiasm and tremendous anxiety.” In Europe, there has been enthusiasm in Italy for the Chinese investment in the ports of Trieste and Genoa and enthusiasm in Greece over Chinese investment in the port of Piraeus. 
The Swiss President has joined in this enthusiasm. To justify his attendance at the meeting that was shunned by the United States and India, Maurer said his attendance would be “supporting the contribution made by the Belt and Road Initiative to developing relations between Asia and Europe.” He also said that the Initiative “when implemented smoothly, will bring many benefits to both the economic development and the wellbeing of people worldwide.”
But there is also tremendous global anxiety about growing Chinese influence. As the Times article asks: “Is China the World’s Loan Shark?” According to the story, more than 1,000 Chinese loans in Africa totalled more than $143 billion between 2000 and 2017; there have been more than $143 billion Chinese loans to Latin America and the Caribbean since 2005. This policy has been derided as “debt-trap diplomacy,” with the negative example of China taking over the Sri Lankan port of Hambantota when the government failed to repay its loan.
Swiss criticisms of Maurer’s visit are on several fronts. Financially, there is obvious worry that China may acquire important Swiss enterprises. China controls more than 80 Swiss companies with a total value of CHF 46 billion. And there are evident concerns about the human rights situation in China. Many remember when the then Chinese President Jang Zemin said “Switzerland has lost a friend” in 1999 when pro-Tibetan protestors disrupted his visit to the Parliament in Bern. Geneva journalists certainly will not forget how during the January 2017 visit of President Xi Jinping to Geneva they were barred from covering his final speech, and that 1,600 UN staff were asked to vacate the Palais des Nations to prepare for the arrival of 200 members of a Chinese delegation and 800 invited guests. 
U.S. President Donald Trump did not join the 37 heads of state at the B.R.I. summit. Nor were there any American representatives. “We will continue to raise concerns about opaque financing practices, poor governance, and disregard for internationally accepted norms and standards, which undermine many of the standards and principles that we rely upon to promote sustainable, inclusive development, and to maintain stability and a rules-based order," said State Dept. spokesman Robert Palladino in explaining the U.S. absence.
Does Ueli Maurer’s attendance at the Forum risk alienating the United States? (There is still no U.S. Ambassador to the International Organizations in Geneva.) Does it raise questions about Swiss neutrality? An eminent Swiss jurist described his entire career in the Swiss Government to me as being devoted to analysing the nuances of one word - neutrality. In this case, the expanding role of China and the “Firstism” of the United States require a serious analysis of Switzerland’s position towards China and what it means for neutrality. Neutrality is an evolving concept.
During President Xi Jinping’s first overseas trip in 2017 he visited the United Nations Office in Geneva and addressed the World Economic Forum in Davos. In his speeches, he praised multilateralism and re-asserted China’s interest in actively participating in global governance. Ueli Maurer’s trip can be seen as a pragmatic recognition of China’s growing importance. But it does raise questions about Swiss neutrality and its role in promoting traditional liberal values.
 
Lien permanent 3 commentaires

Commentaires

  • Swiss neutrality is the product of reasonable cooperation between the "big states" around that have understood they needed a neutral area between them to ensure Europe's stability. Without the intervention of Kapodistrias, for instance, through Russian diplomacy during the Restauration, we would have been split apart after the humanitarian nightmare of Napoleon wars.

    Since then it has been defined as the ability to be in contact with everyone, and everyone to get along with it or face the loss of our platform's willful cooperation. It is a relative definition of neutrality. That is generally the contrary of the definition the French have of neutrality, which is absolute, which means contacts with no-one.

    We can see this contrast also in the parliamentary conception of neutrality: the French say "no lobbies inside the parliament" - and deputies go for dinner with them outside; while here lobbies are accepted in a "safe space" to ensure the equity between economic and associative causes among the choice of our deputies. That's how I got it.

  • U. Maurer répondrait a cela que la neutralité n`empeche pas la diplomacie et c`est vrai. Le probleme est qu`il n`est pas allé faire de la diplomacie mais apporter le soutien explicite de la Suisse a "la route de la soie". Or, celle-ci non-seulement représente un sérieux danger pour les économies européennes mais donne également l`occasion a la Chine d`endetter des pays (aux gouvernements en général corrompus) qui seront incapables de rembourser leur dette autrement qu`en servant sans condition les intérets politiques et économiques de la Chine. On ne peut pas en vouloir a la Chine de tout mettre en oeuvre pour se développer (surtout apres ce que lui ont fait subir les grandes puissances industrialisées dans le passé), c`est aux autres de ne pas se laisser étrangler avec le cordon de soie de la route du meme nom.

  • Au vu de sa minuscule influence sur les choses du monde, la Suisse n'a d'autre opportunité que de s'appuyer sur sa neutralité pour continuer à exister.
    Mais à jouer comme elle le fait avec des puissances antagonistes, elle risque effectivement de remettre en question ce précieux passeport.
    C'est le prix à payer pour notre opportunisme et notre servilité envers l'économie au détriment d'une véritable neutralité qui implique un minimum de retenue de nos autorités dans les questions économiques qui sont directement liées et qui impactent la politique du pays.
    Maintenant, il s'agit aussi de relativiser notre mauvaise conscience dans un monde impitoyable et saluer le travail d'artiste qui incombe au Conseil fédéral pour tenter de maintenir les acquis sans mettre en péril la prospérité du pays.
    Car nous ne sommes rien dans le concert des nations et c'est important de le savoir. Mais comme l'homme est un loup pour l'homme, la lutte est impitoyable et nous ne pouvons que faire preuve de pragmatisme pour limiter les dégâts.

Écrire un commentaire

NB : Les commentaires de ce blog sont modérés.

Optionnel