Restricting flexibility in the name of neutrality is far from wise

OPINION. Switzerland and International Geneva need not fear a loss of diplomatic credibility without a more restrictive neutrality, the introduction of which would not guarantee an improved security situation for our country, writes former ambassador Philippe Nell The Swiss population will vote on 27 September on a popular initiative touching on an essential part of its identity: neutrality. Is it wise to limit the powers of parliament and the Federal Council? In their view, clearly not. Recognised by the European powers at the Congress of Vienna in 1815, perpetual neutrality and the inviolability of its territory have allowed Switzerland to remain on the sidelines of the successive conflicts that followed. During the Second World War, however, its selective cooperation with the Allies and the Axis powers did not go unnoticed. At the beginning of 1945, under Allied pressure, Switzerland had to freeze German assets, restrict transit between Germany and Italy, and limit gold purchases from Germany. In 1946, it signed an agreement in Washington accepting, among other things, to pay 250 million francs towards the reconstruction of Europe. Heavily criticised for its commercial, financial and arms links with Germany, Switzerland found itself sidelined from the victorious powers. Neutrality or not, vulnerable and isolated, Switzerland had no choice. It had to pay substantial reparations to the Allies. 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.