The New Neutralism: US and EU Abandon Swiss In Conflict With Libya
From the desk of Paul Belien on Fri, 2010-04-09 04:52
The conflict between the Alpine republic and Libya began in July 2008,
when Hannibal Gaddafi, the then 31-year old son of the dictator Muammar
Gaddafi, savagely beat up two of his servants in the President Wilson Hotel in
Geneva. The Swiss police arrested Gaddafi jr.; he was released on bail after
two nights in a cell. In retaliation, Libya took two Swiss businessmen as
hostages, imprisoning them for “visa violations.”
Switzerland soon dropped the charges against Gaddafi’s son, but Libya
kept the businessmen under house arrest. One year later, in August 2009, Swiss
President Hans-Rudolf Merz traveled to Tripoli. To secure the release of the
hostages, he apologized to Gaddafi for the brief detention of his son. Gaddafi
released one of the hostages, the Muslim Swiss citizen Rachid Hamdani, but
refused to accept the Swiss apologies. Libya kept the other businessman, the
ethnic Swiss Max Göldi, in prison.
The November 2009 referendum, in which 57.5% of the Swiss voters
approved a ban on the construction of new minarets in Switzerland, made Libya
even angrier. Libya announced a boycott of Switzerland, and called for the
dissolution of the country. On February 24, 2010, Gaddafi declared jihad
against the “faithless” Swiss.
In an attempt to downplay the terrible implications of Gaddafi’s appeal
for unlimited violence against Switzerland, US State Department spokesman
Philip Crowley said that the call for jihad against Switzerland was “lots of
words … and not necessarily a lot of sense.” Instead of defusing the situation
with his “joke,” Crowley made matters even worse. Gaddafi took the comment as a
personal insult and threatened that there would be “negative repercussions” for
American oil companies in Libya. On March 10, both Crowley and the American
government offered their apologies to the Libyan dictator. He accepted them,
and said that Tripoli would resume relations with Washington “in a manner of
mutual respect.”
The unfortunate Max Göldi, meanwhile,
has been moved to a damp, smelly windowless cell in the wing of a Tripoli jail
where he is imprisoned with 90 of the most dangerous criminals of Libya.
Last November, following Gaddafi’s call for the dissolution of
Switzerland, Bern drew up a blacklist of 188 extremist Libyans, including
Gaddafi and his son, who would “for reasons of public and national security” no
longer be allowed to enter Switzerland. Since Switzerland is a member of the
so-called Schengen zone – the borderless travel zone grouping the EU countries
(minus Britain and Ireland), plus Switzerland, Norway and Iceland – a Swiss ban
also affects all the other Schengen zone countries. The terms of the Schengen
agreement oblige all members to refuse visas to citizens of third countries
blacklisted by fellow Schengen group nations.
In retaliation for the Swiss blacklist, Libya stopped issuing visa to
citizens of all Schengen member states. Instead of backing the Swiss, as they
are obliged to do under the Schengen treaty, the EU countries threatened to
expel Switzerland from the Schengen zone unless it drop the blacklist against
the 188 Libyans.
In late March, the Swiss gave in to EU pressure. Tripoli hailed the
decision as a victory over Switzerland. The Swiss feel snubbed by the EU.
Miguel Angel Moratinos, the Foreign Minister of Spain – which currently holds
the EU presidency – flew to Libya to apologize on behalf of the EU for the
imposition of the travel ban. “We regret and deplore the trouble and
inconvenience caused to those Libyan citizens. We hope that this move will not
be repeated in the future,” he told Gaddafi.
Mr. Moratinos was joined by Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. Of
all the EU countries Italy has the closest ties to Libya and had been pushing
hard for the expulsion of Switzerland from the Schengen group if Bern did not
repeal the blacklist.
The EU apology to Libya has reinforced anti-EU feelings in Switzerland,
even in traditionally pro-EU circles. Swiss parliamentarian Mario Fehr, a
Social-Democrat, called it “a regrettable collective gesture of boot licking.”
The Tribune de Genève newspaper wrote
that “the EU caved in shamefully.” The Zurich-based Tages-Anzeiger wrote that the
EU bears a huge responsibility. “This conflict is more than a row over the fate
of a Swiss hostage.”
Meanwhile, Gaddafi’s son continues to cause mayhem wherever he goes. Two
weeks ago, a photographer waiting for Gaddafi at a nightclub in Istanbul was
attacked by the Libyan’s bodyguards. Last December, British police had to
intervene at Claridge’s, one of London’s top hotels, when Hannibal Gaddafi hit
his 29-year old wife, a former model, in the face and broke her nose. The
British police did not arrest him, however, but allowed him to go to the Libyan
embassy. In 2005, Hannibal Gaddafi had been arrested in France after beating
his pregnant girlfriend at a Paris hotel. He was later given a four-month
suspended prison sentence for the assault.
'Yodel Warning'
Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Fri, 2010-04-23 09:44.
As a 'yodel warning' alarmist, as I'm pretty certain you are, you probably believe 40+C temperatures in Switzerland in the not too distant future is a distinct possibility, so that argument doesn't wash either, does it?
Btw, Many of your Arab sisters 'yodel' too.
No, definitely, you prefer Swiss CULTURE and all the attendant freedoms that cuture brings, THAT'S the reality.
Thank you.
Goodbye.
Getting there
Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Thu, 2010-04-22 21:55.
@ kappert
Imagine a situation in which Switzerland retained its topography but adopted - hook, line and sinker - Saudi cultural values, and Saudi Arabia retained its topography but chose to adopt Swiss cultural values. Would you still choose to live in Switzerland, or would Riyadh suddenly prove much more appealing?
yodeling
Submitted by kappert on Fri, 2010-04-23 09:08.
Imaging the breathing effort to yodel with 40ºC? No, definitely, I prefer mountains.
Fools too?
Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Thu, 2010-04-22 09:37.
Well hello there to you, too. The Swiss, along with ALL other western sovereign nations, allow some (i.e. MANY) mosques, temples etc., while the Saudis allow NONE, so my question to you is simple. Who are the bigger 'fools' here, and if YOU had to live, not visit, LIVE in, either Switzerland or Saudi Arabia (or ANY other Arab/Muslim nation on earth you care to mention) which country would YOU choose to live in and WHY?
Thank you.
foolest
Submitted by kappert on Thu, 2010-04-22 12:08.
For two years the Vatican and Saudi-Arabia are discussing to build catholic churches for the 1Mio. Filippinos in the country. Not so much progress achieved, so far. So we may use the superlativ of fools. Living in Arabia is too hot for me and I like to climb mountains.
Blind fools (2) AKA : B.O.H.I.C.A.
Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Wed, 2010-04-21 21:41.
@ kappert
I realise that I've probably got more chance of plaiting fog than I have of eliciting a sane and coherent response from you but what the hell...
Q: Why, in your opinion, are the majority of Swiss voters "blind fools" to oppose the building of more mosques on their sovereign territory?
Q: Are you suggesting that it is in the interest of the non- Muslim Swiss to do so and if you believe it is, what IS that supposed benefit exactly?
Q: Does this decision on the part of a majority of Swiss citizens to refuse to allow further mosque bulding on THEIR sovereign territory make the Saudis, for example, even bigger fools for not allowing even ONE church (or synagogue etc.,) to be built on THEIR sovereign territory? AND IF NOT, WHY NOT?
fools
Submitted by kappert on Thu, 2010-04-22 07:29.
Hello there! Yes, they are fools not to allow an adequate number of characteristic temples for the believers. It should be in their interest to have such architectonical landmarks and not fear 'exotic' patterns. The Saudis should allow religious freedom (and subsequent temples buildings), they are fools in not doing so.
Zealous folly # 4
Submitted by marcfrans on Tue, 2010-04-20 17:30.
It would be too much to expect that "blind fools" could see. They cannot. Not because they are blind, but because they are fools. Hence, any 'fig leaf' will do, so that he/she can keep his/her head a bit longer in the (comfortable) sand.
"Visa violations"? Both the timing and the treatment of such purported violation tell a different story. Why does the "violation" suddenly appear AFTER the start of a bilateral conflict between a one-man regime and a democratic state that must internally enforce its law always? And how does a purported violation by a private individual become a bargaining chip in a diplomatic negotiation among states?
The proper (and civilized) response to a visa violation is expulsion, not hostage-grabbing to get something from someone else.
At bottom, this conflict is about the Swiss trying to enforce a civilized/democratic legal process on everybody on their territory, including the spoiled/monstrous offspring of a foreign tyrant. Respect for the individual requires that the law is applied to all in the same way. By contrast, 'official' hostage-grabbing is the ultimate proof of disregard for individual human rights and for state "violence" against individual human beings, which is of course the hallmark of all tyrannical regimes.
Blind fools
Submitted by kappert on Wed, 2010-04-21 09:54.
That expression would very well fit for Switzerland - with a population of 400,000 Muslims, mainly of Balkan and Turkish origin – and its around 200 mosques, with just four minarets among them. And 57,5% of Swiss voters do not want one more! But that's another story. The tit-for-tat bans, Schengen blocking and 188 Libyan blacklist, does not seem to be a enforcement of 'civilized/democratic legal processes'. The EU apology to Libya could fortunately calm down the tensions. Max Göldi was convicted of overstaying his visa and of engaging in illegal business activities. After hiding through month in the Swiss embassy, he finally surrendered to authorities and is now serving a reduced jail term of four months.
Zealous folly 3
Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Mon, 2010-04-19 21:27.
Kappert,
From your comments, I presume that you are both a pacifist and supporter of free speech. I disagree that "most people must know better". Freedom of speech only guarantees that truth can compete with lies. However, most societies do not have this freedom. Soviet citizens were mainly ignorant of Stalin's crimes (e.g. the Holodomor, Katyn) or his incompetent leadership (e.g. before and during Operation Barbarossa). Most Turks are ignorant of the Armenian Genocide and regard it as an anti-Turkish myth; however, they will gladly "discuss" the suffering of Turkish Cypriots at the hands of Greeks.
Marc Huybrechts,
Indeed, pacifists such as Kappert should be glad of Swiss neutrality. After all, Kappert needs to flee if violence comes to Germany again. And if Kappert "knew better" about all of these subjects, then why has it taken several comments to correct her? Why am I even bothering?...
As regards Libyan-Swiss relations, only Max Goeldi remains in Libya. Libya violated diplomatic immunity, however, the imprisonment and torture of the Bulgarian nurses is what really concerns me. It is telling that Kappert is criticizing the Swiss rather than the Libyans, and the Swiss rather than all of the major arms exporters.
Thanks for the follies
Submitted by kappert on Tue, 2010-04-20 09:05.
Marcfrans: Your response on my pathetic assertion that "most people must know better" under the title "through history" shows clearly that you do not. If Visa violation arrest is considered as taking 'hostage' you must enjoy your demagogy. One Swiss citizen is still in Libya held and accused of Visa violations. If Switzerland is the non-violent party in this conflict, where is the violence of the other?
Kapitein Andre: You are right that many countries do not enjoy free speech and your examples of Soviet Union and Ottoman Empire are right. Though one might discuss the Greek military putsch which lead to the Cyprus crisis. Fleeing from violence is surely an interesting item, again history shows that non-violent refugees suffer as much as the violent protagonists, and I doubt that Switzerland would sympathize with German refugees. On Max Göldi: he was one week in prison and several month in the Swiss embassy, than from February 2010 again in prison, probably until June, when he will be send home. That makes 13 weeks of prison. The one Palestinian and five Bulgarians spend 8 years in prison after being condemned twice to death, in a country which has death penalty and uses torture. They were lucky.
Zealous folly # 2
Submitted by marcfrans on Mon, 2010-04-19 15:05.
@ Kapitein Andre
You made three good points in response to Kappert's absurd criticism of the Swiss. Presumably, you made them for the benefit of others, because Kappert is incapable of focusing on - nor responding to - specific arguments.
You can not expect rational answers to your specific questions either. The only reponse you got was the pathetic assertion that "most people must know better" under the ironic title "through history", when history clearly shows that they do not. Note that Kappert does not want to address the underlying facts in this case, i.e. the behavior of the Gadaffi clan, the taking of hostages etc... All he wants to do is put his head in the sand to realities, assert his infantile belief of being "against all violence", and then conveniently pick on the Swiss who are the ones who have been the nonviolent party in this bilateral conflict. The poor sods taken hostage by tyrants like Gadaffi cannot count on the blind fools of this world who can only recite otherworldly mantras.
Zealous folly
Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Mon, 2010-04-19 09:09.
Looking at the global arms industry, neutrality is not an advantage for defense companies. In fact, the market is dominated by NATO and CIS/SCO countries. So I can't understand how Switzerland "zealously" takes advantage of its neutrality to export arms...
Almost all weapons are dual-use. However, Switzerland certainly does not sell strategic offensive arms. Georgia's offensive capacity is limited to its light infantry, which has insufficient armor and artillery, and non-existent close air support. Georgian forces were incapable of defeating Abhkaz or South Ossetian rebels, and even without Russian intervention, stalemate would have resulted again.
I assume you also agree that Germany authorities have been more active in pursuing Holocaust-deniers than former NSDAP or SS criminals? Why was Zundel jailed and not Sandberger? Do you agree with criminalizing Holocaust-denial? If so, what should be done to those who deny Katyn or the Holodomor or the GULags?
through history
Submitted by kappert on Mon, 2010-04-19 13:26.
When we speak about military intervention, I regard it as rather difficult to define and justify 'offensive' or 'defensive' actions - but that's because I'm against any violence. When mass murder states in the history books, people's opinion may differ about the impact. From inquisition over Civil War to all forms of segregation and concentration camps, there are people who defend the deeds and deny the crime. It would be an endless discussion about discrimination, genocide, atom bomb, zyklon-B and agent orange, secret service and warlords, vicious murder and doomsday ideology. Let the deniers and hate-mongers speak as they always spoke through history - sometimes they even dominated policy. But most people must know better.
To Kappert: Where were you?
Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Fri, 2010-04-16 22:20.
As with anything, you take the good with the bad.
You're a fool if you reduce the Swiss nation and people to arms exports. Given that many people reduce Germany and the Germans to 12 years of national socialism, or if they are less ignorant, to its two bids for mastery in Europe, I would have thought you wary of this trap. How can Switzerland or Israel compare to Russia, which was the worlds second largest arms exporter in 2007 or Germany, which was third? Both France and the Ukraine, ranked fourth and fifth respectively, have been rapidly expanding their exports since 2000. Moreover, both the Georgian and Kazakh militaries are posture defensively, and need to be able to defend themselves given that a renewed Great Game is afoot...
Instead of "educating" yourself as to the details of Israeli and Swiss arms exports, perhaps your efforts would have been more constructive at home. Where were you when Martin Sandberger was enjoying his retirement from Einsatzgruppe A? Germans were more dedicated to cleansing Germany (and Greater Germany) of Jews, Sinti, homosexuals, dissidents and the disabled than they have ever been committed to prosecuting the bosses and foot soldiers of the Third Reich and the GDR...
neutral defensive weapons
Submitted by kappert on Mon, 2010-04-19 07:27.
I do not reduce Swiss to weapon producers, they are better in cheese, chocolate and many more things. Yet, it is a fact that Switzerland thanks to its 'neutrality' gains access to any military market and zealously takes advantage of this. I would understand it as foolish to think that Swiss arms are 'defensive', that seem to be absurd. Neither do I see Pres Sakhashvili as a 'defender'. Nevertheless, I agree completely on the Sandberger shame and the general juridical inactivity towards the nazi crimes.
To Kappert RE: Swiss Neutrality
Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Thu, 2010-04-15 09:36.
I must generally agree with Marc Huybrechts here, and disagree with Paul Belien.
Although I sympathize with Switzerland from a bilateral perspective, Swiss neutrality and isolation means that it can seek no remedy from the EU or NATO. Neutrality carries both risks and rewards, and given Switzerland's geogstrategic advantages, thus far the risks are more than worth it for Switzerland. Israel, on the other hand, is at a geostrategic disadvantage irrespective of the IDF's current strength, and therefore it cannot afford neutrality.
I don't understand your attacks on Switzerland, especially money laundering, dealing with undemocratic regimes or weapons sales. If these are "crimes", then Switzerland's pale in comparison to those of the current great powers, especially China and Russia. Nor are the democratic great powers "innocent" either...
Swiss neutrality
Submitted by kappert on Fri, 2010-04-16 09:53.
Right, Swiss crimes are pale compared with big business of other countries. But why do we recognize it as clean, neat and neutral country? On weapon sales, your comparison with Israel matches. I remember the UAV and Lynx exports to Georgia and Kazakhstan ...
ps
Submitted by kappert on Thu, 2010-04-15 09:12.
I forgot to inform you that Mowag is part of General Dynamics. Practiced neutralism??
boost the war
Submitted by kappert on Thu, 2010-04-15 09:09.
A post-scriptum for this article: Swiss weapon producer Mowag is happy to announce the delivery of 60 (+90 option) 'Eagle IV' tanks for the German Bundeswehr to boost the Afghanistan War. Congratulations.
poor Swiss # 4
Submitted by marcfrans on Sun, 2010-04-11 22:40.
@ Reconciler
No, moral relativism is not an "ideology". It is an attitude which reflects either (a) a refusal (or a tendency to refuse) to make moral judgements in concrete situations, or (b) a tendency to posit absurd moral equivalencies in concrete situations. It certainly has nothing to do with "putting tolerance of the intolerant in its place". Generally, I abhor "neutrality". It is an example of a refusal to make moral judgement between 'good and evil' or - if you will - between a 'lesser evil' and a 'greater evil'. Morality generally demands that you choose and not 'hide'.
As a moral person (as opposed to a morally-relativistic person), you must make moral judgements about the nature of various political systems. In itself this has nothing to do with "multiculturalism" nor with possible distinctions as to which countries uphold "the precedence of their own moral system" and which do not. There can only be one human morality, not many, and various countries will get closer to it than others. Hence, your need to judge morally.
The issue is not "power", nor "hegemony". Both terms can mean many different things. The issue is what is the PURPOSE behind whatever 'power' anybody has or achieves. What is power used for?
I did not say that the Swiss are "begging" for help. They are not. But, in the context of this article, it is appropriate to point out that "neutrality cuts both ways".
In order "to uphold a tolerant society" one must uphold (actively defend, or implement) tolerant values. A society that does that will see the intolerant leave or 'change'.
poor swiss # 3
Submitted by marcfrans on Sat, 2010-04-10 17:30.
@ Reconciler
Your comments reveal a major difference between the bulk of the European and the American publics.
First, what you call "healthy power games" suggests an extreme moral-relativistic mind, i.e. to you the various "powers" are all the same or in the same category. You refuse to make necessary moral distinctions among different 'sides'. That is very 'European' indeed. It would certainly be most instructive for readers if you could expound a bit on your admonition for the US to "get the hell off of Russia's and China's back". Such an explanation would open a great can of worms, but it would reveal the hollow moral core of your worldview, or what you see as the purpose of politics and governance.
Also, nobody is claiming that Switzerland could be a major power in those "games". But it could take clear 'sides' in any real-life struggle among major geopolitical and even regional powers. If the Swiss historically stuck to a doctrine of "neutrality", as opposed to taking a 'fair' share of a common burden in a common Western alliance, then they can not be surprised that others do not treat them as an alliance member. You seem to 'reason' already like many muslims do. You think that it is normal for someone, in this case Switserland, to both (a) not wanting to "lose" anything on behalf of others, but yet (b) expect to receive some kind of backing (or non-"backstabbing") from others in a conflict with a "lunatic-clown dictator".
The USA cannot "expel" part of its own population. That would violate its own Constitution and principles. It can only - and will - continue to try to integrate all its people through fostering adherence to a common civic 'religion' of "liberty and justice for all". It is, no doubt, a difficult endeavor, but no other country has a better record in that respect.
Re: @Marc Frans
Submitted by Reconciler on Sun, 2010-04-11 05:18.
Your reasoning is a bit messy, let's clear some things up. Moral relativism refers to an ideology, which abandoned moral judgment and put tolerance of the intolerant in its place. Morally relativist societies invite intolerant cultures and abolish themselves in the process, because they have no means to defend their values system. He who claims nothing, gains nothing and loses what he has.
Now what about my refusal to make distinctions? Is that what you call moral relativism?
I clearly distinguish between countries that uphold the precedence of their own moral system and those that give up precedence in favor of multiculturalism. Some countries fail in the first category, like Germany, France and also the US and slowly develop to become members of the latter category. Germany is already a bit further down the alley. Other states like China and Japan, Saudi-Arabia and Iran succeed in defending the precedence of their moral system. Don't try to see any moral judgment of my own. It's pure reasoning.
You seem to think I look unkindly on the US for playing Power Games. That is why I said "healthy". Or do you have any qualms admitting, that the US does strive for power? There would be something seriously wrong, if they didn't. The Swiss do not seek regional hegemony, because it is not in line with their foreign policy doctrine. So why would they take sides on issues that are at odds with a policy of neutrality? Furthermore, you make it sound like they are begging the EU and the US for help. This is a very unrealistic assessment. So far they have tried to deal with Gaddafi bilaterally. They have given in to EU demands for dropping the blacklist. If anyone was begging, it was the EU.
If you equate expectancy of help with expectancy of neutrality, then our discussion should revolve around semantics before we can touch on the subject of politics. Anyway, the EU now seems to side with Libya on an issue were neutrality for the EU is out of the question. The Schengen agreement automatically extends travel bans from one member to all the others. What seemed to be a security measure on paper now proved to be a choke-hold on Switzerland, as the EU is not willing to follow its own regulations. That is the situation and it results from moral relativism! After all, Libya is ruled by a criminal government, wouldn't you agree?
Now to the US. You may be right when it comes to defending their domestic political system. If they manage to infuse their Muslims with the spirit of American liberty and justice, this would be a great success for western democracy and probably an example to the world (Frankly I do not see that kind of success yet, CAIR and all that). But can the same be said for the defense of "western democracy"? To uphold a tolerant society, one has to expel the intolerant.
Neutrality
Submitted by dimitrik on Sat, 2010-04-10 02:18.
EU is not a defense alliance. Rather, they will wait who wins, and join the winner.
Neutrality cuts both ways, indeed
Submitted by Frank Lee on Sat, 2010-04-10 00:26.
Marcfrans makes a solid point, as usual. What do the Swiss imagine the United States is risking by alienating the Swiss? The Swiss never have participated in the defense of Western democracy.
@Frank Lee
Submitted by Reconciler on Sat, 2010-04-10 07:26.
Well what you call defense of Western democracy, I call healthy power-games. Ones that little dwarf states like Switzerland could never afford to play. Why would they want to defend other countries' political systems, when they would only lose in the process. Is it not cowardly backstabbing on the part of the EU and the US now, who regularly fail to defend their own values in the face of lunatic clown-dictators?
Switzerland's doctrine is neutrality. They don't offer any help and they don't expect any. It served them well so far. More power to them I say. One irrational nutcase is the exception to the rule and the Swiss would do well to put him on their ignore-list, write off Mr. Goeldi and dealing with Libya. Plenty of business to do with other Muslim dictatorships, who are willing to trade places with Libya.
If the USA truly had any interest in defending western democracy, it would expel its Muslim population, stop supporting various sharia states and get the hell off of Russia's and China's back. But that is another topic altogether. Don't nail me down to that paragraph ;-).
what's neutral
Submitted by kappert on Fri, 2010-04-09 18:07.
When it comes to neutality, Switzerland is the first country you think of. But what is neutrality when it comes to weapon exports? Oerlikon-Bührle, Pilatus, Ruag – Swiss weapons manufacturers have often made the headlines. The most famous of many arms scandals to rock Switzerland occurred in 1968, when during the Nigerian Civil War it turned out that planes belonging to the International Committee of the Red Cross had been hit by rockets made by Zurich's Oerlikon-Bührlein. Oerlikon-Bührle had been illegally exporting arms to apartheid South Africa as early as 1963. Between the two world wars the Swiss authorities worked hard to attract German arms manufacturers who were prevented by the 1919 Treaty of Versailles from manufacturing, importing or exporting weapons. Switzerland contributed significantly less to Germany's secret rearmament than Sweden and the Netherlands, or even the Soviet Union. Arms manufacturers in Switzerland had repeatedly violated the country's law on neutrality while at the same time making exorbitant profits.Nicknamed the "poor man's bombers" because of their relatively modest cost, Pilatus PC-7 aircraft are said to have been used by the CIA in Laos in 1962, in Myanmar, Guatemala, Mexico, Chile, Bolivia and Nigeria. More recently Pilatus products have been spotted in Iraq, South Africa and Darfur. For example in 2000, hand grenades made by state-owned arms manufacturer Ruag were sold to Britain and used in Iraq. And then there were the tanks exported by Swiss firm Mowag to the United Arab Emirates in 2004 and Romania in 2007 and used in Morocco, Iraq and Afghanistan. The business of war proves lucrative for Swiss exporters despite the global recession, with overall sales to 74 countries rising modestly to a new record of 728 million francs in 2009. Germany remains Switzerland’s biggest customer for arms (138.2 million francs), followed by Saudia Arabia (131.6 million francs), Denmark (77.3 million francs), Great Britain (69.3 million francs), Belgium (59.7 million francs) and the United States (36.4 million francs). No wonder that big lauderies are needed in the Alps Republic.
poor Swiss # 2
Submitted by marcfrans on Fri, 2010-04-09 15:55.
While I fully sympathise with the Swiss in their conflict with Libya - after all, the 'facts' at the root of this conflict speak for themselves - they should not be surprised that others choose self-serving 'neutrality', just like the Swiss have done for generations. To expect 'solidarity' from fellow Schengen-countries, or more generally from Kappert-like European moral-relativists, has always been a grand illusion. And to expect it from an Obama-led America would be folly.
Let's face reality. After the implosion of the Soviet Union, and hence the end of European security through Pax Americana, Western unity has been shattered. Increasing real isolationism (noninterventionism, or 'neutrality', call it what you will)- hidden behind a facade of woolly verbal internationalism - lies in the foreseeable future for Western nations. And let's hope the Swiss are learning a lesson, which is that 'neutrality' cuts both ways.
poor swiss
Submitted by kappert on Fri, 2010-04-09 09:50.
It is heart-rending how deeply BJ worships Switzerland, the auto-proclaimed neutral country, safe haven for Nazi-Gold and Mafia-Money, meeting place for lobbyists, terrorists and secret services, rest-home for tax-dodgers. Its 'tradition of neutrality' enables Switzerland to enjoy all benefits of 'developed' countries, that means laundering money in a bogus and dishonest form, and dismiss any discomforts in dealing with Nazis and Mafiosi, shelter Mossad or buy oil from Libya or Iran. (Un)fortunately the Swiss politicians are not the brightest, to draw a blacklist of 'extremists' as an answer to visa violations of Swiss citizens is not so smart, therefore the European Union's reaction to this false claim of superiority is plainly justified.