Neutrality of Switzerland and Sweden

Neutrality of Switzerland and Sweden has garnered a great deal of attention over the years. The purpose of this discussion is to compare and contrast Switzerland's and Sweden's policies of neutrality in theory and in practice. In addition the research will focus on why neutrality is important to international affairs and the purpose it serves within the context of the global community. Let us begin the discussion by defining neutrality.

Neutrality

As it pertains to foreign policy, there are different types of neutrality including permanent, armed, strict or benevolent neutrality (Bengt, 1990). According to Malmborg (2002)

Vattel prescribed that a state that declared itself neutral could choose between strict and benevolent neutrality. Strict neutrality consisted in observing an attitude of impartiality between the belligerents. The neutral state could for instance authorise or prohibit the passage of troops over its territory, but all belligerents must enjoy the same treatment. Benevolent neutrality, on the other hand, allowed an unequal economic treatment of the belligerents. It even permitted the neutral to maintain an alliance with one of the belligerents, on the condition that it was purely defensive in nature, that it was concluded before the outbreak of war, and that the conditions were fixed in advance (Malmborg, 18)."

According to the author the establishment of neutrality as an aspect of foreign policy, reflects an aspiration to avoid the military, financial, economic and social consequences associated with war. This aspiration comes when a nation has experienced defeat. Neutrality presents a state with the opportunity to limit its military efforts defending its territory against aggressors which allows the neutral state to designate resources for other problems the state might face.

Indeed, neutrality has developed over time as an aspect of foreign policy that certain countries such as Switzerland have become famous or even infamous. The idea of neutrality is not new and dates back many centuries for both Switzerland and Sweden. Although Switzerland and Sweden have neutrality in common the reasons why neutrality exists in these nations are quite different.

In addition the manner in which these nations incorporate neutrality into their overall foreign policy schemata are quite different.. The following paragraphs of this discussion will provide a historic framework upon which neutrality in these two nations was designed.

Neutrality in Switzerland

According to Gsthl (2002) Switzerland has maintained a special type of neutrality and has been committed to this neutrality longer than any other nation. To gain a firm understanding of the history of neutrality in Switzerland it is important to understand the foundation of this neutrality. A book entitled Reluctant Europeans: Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland in the Process of Integration explains that neutrality is the primary component associated with Swiss identity. The author explains Switzerland's neutrality is deeply rooted in the nation's desire for independence. The author asserts

Switzerland has liberated itself from foreign rulers and has resisted subjugation by the European great powers. A profound mistrust of "foreign judges" provokes the same negative reactions in Switzerland as does the notion of a "union" in Norway. Switzerland's internal cohesion has been strengthened by the mobilization against a common enemy, starting with the Habsburg empire and continuing with Napoleon, Nazi Germany, and the communist threat during the Cold War. The national myth of Switzerland being a special case (Sonderfall) in Europe was further bolstered by the period of peace since the Napoleonic wars, an experience the Swiss share with the Swedes (Gsthl 2002, 38)."

Swiss neutrality came about during the 16th century and there were four main components that led to the country's neutral status. These four components are as follows

1. The Swiss cantons or states rejected the relinquishment of their local independence for a centralized leadership. Such centralized leadership would have been needed if they were to maintain their liberal foreign policies after they were defeated in Italy during the first part of the sixteenth century (Gsthl 2002).

2. Swiss involvement in the religious wars would have hurt the confederation, which was divided Catholics composing one part and Protestants composing the other (Gsthl 2002).

3. The balance of power in Europe was dependent upon the neutrality of the Swiss. Swiss neutrality has also assisted in maintaining the balance for many years (Gsthl 2002).

4. The absence of neutrality might lead to wars between the various European nations as they jockeyed for position. Switzerland would be a vulnerable position because of the location of the nation (Gsthl 2002).

These are some of the primary reasons why Switzerland's neutrality came about, but there are also other reasons for Swiss neutrality. The author points out that Switzerland is different from many other nations because it is not defined by a common culture, language or religion. It is instead defined by will. In other words it exists because the Swiss people and its government want it to exist and they have established a governmental structure that allows it to exist. The author contends that Swiss neutrality satisfies an internal function (Gsthl 2002).

According to Gsthl (2002) the domestic predecessor of neutrality in Switzerland was known as Stillesitzen (to sit still). This strategy had been utilized in various coalitions amongst the Swiss cantons since the fourteenth century. The guiding principal of Stillesitzen was to avoid interfering in the disagreements of other cantons. The parties were to remain neutral and allow those that had differences to resolve those differences amongst themselves. According to the author the Switzerland's neutrality was first recognized internationally in 1815. This recognition was given the Swiss by the European great powers at the peach conferences of Vienna and Paris. In addition, Switzerland's Federal Constitution drafted in 1848 establishes the philosophy of neutrality as the cornerstone of the nation's foreign policy.

The author also reports that although Switzerland has established itself as a neutral country it can abandon this status if it so chooses. It can do so because it has never established an agreement with the international community to remain neutral.

The neutrality of Switzerland was tested the most during World War II when the nation found itself surrounded by the Axis Powers. During this time in history the country had to assert a balance between resisting invasions and the threats posed by the Axis Powers and conformity to the reality of the war. In an effort to strike a balance between these two factions the Swiss allowed the transmission of certain goods to the less desirable political factions, however the Swiss would not allow weapons or troops to travel through Swiss territory. The Swiss were able to maintain neutrality by continuing to trade with all sides engaged in the conflict, the country also exported war equipment to both sides engaged in the conflict. In addition, Switzerland supplied Germany and Italy with financial credits. The author further explains the status of Switzerland's neutrality during this time saying,

According to the traditional Swiss conception, a permanently neutral state must aim at a policy that avoids any obligations in peacetime that might, in the case of war, prevent it from following the rules of neutrality law. Since World War II (and until recently), these so-called antecedent effects (Vorwirkungen) of neutrality have been interpreted as comprising not only abstention from military alliances but also an economic policy that prevents the country from being drawn into an international conflict. The decisive criterion has been whether a commitment entered into during peace could be canceled during war to regain the independence necessary to sustain neutrality (Gsthl, 2002)."

Indeed, there are many issues that arise as it pertains to the maintaining of neutral status. Among these issues is the difficulty that nation's often face in maintaining neutrality during war. This is particularly true when the war is close to the location of the neutral county or when a war is controversial in the eyes of the international community such as the Iraq war. On such occasions neutral nations must be firm in their stances and not compromise their established beliefs concerning neutrality and the role they play in the international community as it pertains to neutrality.

Another aspect of maintaining independence is membership into various alliances. As it pertains to Switzerland admittance into the European Union (EU) has posed a bit of the dilemma. On the one hand Switzerland has desired to maintain it autonomy, but on the other hand the economic, socials and military protection afforded nations who are part of the EU are also desirable.

Because this dilemma exists, Switzerland has for many years cultivated and negotiated a relationship with the European Union through a series of bilateral agreements. These agreements include the following: - the Free Trade Agreement of 1972, the Insurance Agreement of 1989 and the Bilateral Agreements I & II of 1999 and 2004. The Free Trade Agreement of 1972 established a free trade zone. The insurance agreement established in 1989 "guarantees insurance companies of both parties the freedom to establish operations in the territory of the other contracting party ("Bilateral agreements Switzerland-EU")."

Overall Switzerland has established and maintained permanent neutrality in a way that no other nation has. Although there have been times in the country's history when this neutral stance has made it vulnerable to accept and participate in actions that were deplorable (most notably cooperating with Nazi Germany to steal/hide the money of Jews sent to concentration camps), in many instances Switzerland has served as a place of refuge from political, social and religious conflict. It is a place that dignitaries go when they want to communicate and find solutions to problems in a manner that is non-violent.

Geneva, Switzerland has been the sight of the signing of many treaties and the place where issues of international importance have been discussed and resolved. When the establishment of Switzerland as a neutral country first occurred the Swiss could not have imagined the importance of such neutrality as it would have been difficult for them to anticipate the impact of technology on globalization and how interdependent nations would become. However, the Swiss must have understood to a degree the importance of allowing parties to resolve conflicts without interference from nations or states not involved in the conflict. If there were ever an example of a nation that has been able to remain neutral during critical times in World History that country would be Switzerland. Now that we have garnered a greater understanding of neutrality in Switzerland, let us focus on Swedish neutrality and how it was established.

Swedish Neutrality

In order to understand Swedish neutrality, the domestic structure and foreign policy legacy of Sweden must be understood. According to a book entitled Reluctant Europeans: Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland in the Process of Integration there are two main issues that have controlled to postwar politics in Sweden. The first of these issues is the "development of a democratic, full-employment welfare state on the basis of a modernized, export-oriented industry (Gsthl & Rienner, 2002, 25)."

The second issue is associated with the search for a foreign policy scema that allowed Sweden to avoid international confrontations by steering clear of all compulsory commitments to great-power politics. "

With this understood the author further explains the Neutrality and folkhemmet [the people's home] were thus the pillars of Sweden's projection of itself into the world. " for a long time, supranational European integration threatened the successful record of the Swedish (or Nordic) model as well as Sweden's long-standing freedom from alliances (alliansfrihet) since the Catholic, conservative, and capitalist European Community (EC) countries pursued very different welfare policies and were members of NATO. (Gsthl & Rienner, 2002, 25)"

As was the case with Switzerland, Sweden also has a long history of neutrality. A book entitled Neutrality and State-building in Sweden explains that the policy of neutrality in Sweden was defined primarily by the Policy of 1812. The Policy of 1812 came about following the Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars in which Sweden suffered great losses; most noticeably the loss of Finland to Russia. The French revolution was characterized by a time of warfare lasting nearly 25 years. According to the author during the first 10 years of the Revolution Sweden remained neutral. however, that neutrality ended when Sweden joined the Coalition. It was also during this time in history that the philosophy of enlightenment became popular. This philosophy promoted the idea of neutrality as a way to resolve conflict.

The Policy of 1812

The Policy of 1812 was critical to the development of Sweden as a neutral state. According to Neutrality and State-building in Sweden There was nothing predictable concerning Sweden's loss of Finland. In fact if there had been greater compromise with Russia and France the loss of Finland may not have occurred. Following the 1807 occupation of Pomerania by the French, "the alliance with Sweden lost much of its strategic value, and there was no longer any need for Sweden to ingratiate herself with the British by being stubborn against Napoleon (Malmborg 2001, pg 70)."

Indeed this policy served as a defining moment in Sweden's history occurred in January 1812. At that time the French troops marched into Pomerania and held the Swedish forces as prisoners of war. The French troops also seized all state property.

Sweden was indeed humiliated by the treatment they received at the hands of Napoleon. The humiliation led Sweden to abandon the French system and adopt the Anglo-Russian alliance (Malmborg 2001). In addition a meeting that took place in August 1812 ended with Alexander I agreeing that Sweden would not seek retribution (Malmborg 2001). The author explains that the policy of 1812 gave Alexander the opportunity battle Napoleon and as reimbursement Russia supported Sweden in the attainment of Norway (Malmborg 2001).

This policy was important because even though Sweden had lost Finland, this policy guaranteed that Sweden would gain Norway. Ultimately Sweden was engaged in some armed activities during the Napoleonic Wars. However, the policy of 1812 acted as a catalyst and the country of Sweden has not engaged in war since this time. However, the nation has participated in many peace keeping missions throughout the world as a condition of its neutrality.

The implementation of Neutrality in Sweden

An article entitled "Sweden: A Case Study in Neutrality" explains that Sweden's policy of neutrality has been facilitated in different ways throughout the nations's history. For instance the article explains that during the first World War, Sweden's neutral stance had as a foundation the balance of power. The German army was engaged on various fronts and the Swedish army was strong and prepared. During the Second World War, the size of Sweden's army had been diminished tremendously. The article explains that neutrality in Sweden during the aforementioned wars were somewhat different than the neutrality associated with Switzerland during the same time period.

Now that we have garnered a greater understanding of Swedish neutrality during the World War I and World War II, let's explore the nation's neutrality following the Cold War. An article entitled "Swedish Military Neutrality in the Post-Cold War:'Old Habits Die Hard' following the Cold War the balance of power in Europe and the neutrality of Sweden were subject to tremendous changes. The changes that occurred within the context of neutrality were associated with the desertion of concern with the credibility aspect of the Swedens neutrality stance. The article further explains that This dictated the end regarding the pursuit of a policy of neutrality and the Exercise of political neutrality in the ambit of national foreign and securitypolicies. Commitment to neutrality was narrowed down to its military core and came to be solely understood as non-involvement in wars and non- participation in military pacts. More specifically, under the so-called '1992 Formula',as promoted by Carl Bildt's government, the adoption of a neutral posture in the case of war ceased to be considered an inevitability only to become a security policy option among others (Ferreira-Pereira, 2005)."

This aspect of the research demonstrates that neutrality can evolve and change over time to meet the needs of the neutral country. As the international climate changes, there are instances when neutrality policies also have to adjust to meet current needs.

Major Differences and Similarities between the two countries and neutrality

In the past one of the primary differences between Switzerland and Sweden in terms of neutrality was membership in the United Nations. Until 2002 Switzerland was not a part of the United Nations while Sweden joined the United Nations in 1946. Prior to 2002 Switzerland had avoided becoming a member of the United Nations for several reasons. According Karsh unlike Sweden

Switzerland preferred to remain outside the UN. Switzerland's line of thought on the issue ran approximately as follows: If the organization cannot guarantee its members the necessary degree of security by means of the system of collective security it has set up, and if membership may lead to a confrontation, however formal, between the obligations of active political participation and the duties of neutrality, there is not much sense in belonging to the UN, especially since it is possible to take part in the activities of its specialised agencies without being a full member. And indeed, the Swiss refusal to join the United Nations has not prevented it from participating in the organisation's a-political activities in those spheres which concern Switzerland's immediate economic and humanitarian interests. Moreover, Geneva has even become the second head- quarters of the World Organisation after New York. (Karsh, 60)"

Although Switzerland did not become a member of the United nations until 2002, it has long been well respected in the international community as a country with a strong commitment to neutrality. In fact, Geneva, Switzerland is often the place where dignitaries from feuding countries come to meet in hopes of settling differences. As such Switzerland's neutrality has played an important role in international affairs.

Another difference between neutrality in Sweden and neutrality in Switzerland is the length of time the countries have been neutral. The research asserts that Switzerland has been neutral for far longer than Sweden, with Swiss neutrality dating back to the fifteenth century. On the other hand Swedish neutrality only dates back to the early 19th century.