Why William Tell would instinctively defend neutrality

OPINION. For Uli Windisch, honorary professor at the University of Geneva and editor-in-chief of "Les Observateurs", neutrality was not born in chancelleries but in the experience of a small nation among great powers. As the vote on 27 September approaches, he re-reads the legend of Tell — and finds in it a reason to vote yes The immediate objection will be that Tell is a legend. That is correct, and it is precisely why he must be taken seriously: a legend does not recount what a people did — it distils what a people is. And what ours tells us is strikingly relevant, just weeks before the vote on 27 September on the "Safeguard Swiss neutrality" initiative, for which I argue here. Let us recall the scene. In the square at Altdorf, the bailiff Gessler has a hat set on a pole and orders everyone to bow to it. An empty hat: a pure symbol of allegiance to a distant power, demanding nothing more than submission for its own sake. Tell walks past and does not bow. That is the whole point. Swiss neutrality is nothing other than that gesture elevated to state policy: bow to no hat, swear fealty to no empire, no alliance, no "camp". Not out of cowardice or indifference, but because a small country at the crossroads of Europe preserves its freedom only on that condition. Le Temps publie des chroniques, rédigées par des membres de la rédaction ou des personnes extérieures, ainsi que des opinions et tribunes, proposées à des personnalités ou sollicitées par elles. Ces textes reflètent le point de vue de leurs autrices et auteurs. Elles ne représentent nullement la position du média.