1 00:00:00,001 --> 00:00:00,131 2 00:00:00,131 --> 00:00:07,646 We do not agree that the neutrality initiative should be generally disparaged as a “pro-Putin initiative.” 3 00:00:07,646 --> 00:00:17,600 The argument that Blocher launched this initiative solely to make money is also completely unfounded. That is not true. 4 00:00:17,600 --> 00:00:23,856 We all agree on one thing in Switzerland. Even the Social Democrats, The Center, the FDP, and the 5 00:00:23,856 --> 00:00:27,516 SVP. Actually, everyone agrees: We need neutrality. 6 00:00:27,516 --> 00:00:29,163 Neutrality is important to Switzerland. 7 00:00:29,163 --> 00:00:32,839 But how do you define the concept of neutrality? — That's important. 8 00:00:32,839 --> 00:00:40,746 And the fact that the Social Democrats—my party, with which I identify—aren’t actually having a genuine discussion about the 9 00:00:40,746 --> 00:00:48,486 issues and what we should really be debating—whether sanctions are effective or not—that this debate isn’t taking place… 10 00:00:48,486 --> 00:00:50,752 Half a million people died every year. 11 00:00:50,752 --> 00:00:56,399 Unilateral coercive measures—that is, sanctions—are a weapon of mass destruction. 12 00:00:56,399 --> 00:01:00,626 It's not just a matter of: "We're trying to pull one over on Vladimir Putin here." 13 00:01:00,626 --> 00:01:06,751 No, it's a weapon of mass destruction, and from a social democratic perspective, we really shouldn't go along with that. 14 00:01:06,751 --> 00:01:11,739 www.kla.tv/42414] 15 00:01:11,739 --> 00:01:13,845 We have Dr. Pascal Lottaz here today. 16 00:01:13,845 --> 00:01:20,160 He is a political scientist and a co-signatory of the open letter to the SP party leadership, as well 17 00:01:20,160 --> 00:01:24,310 as the operator of the website swissneutralitynow.ch. 18 00:01:24,310 --> 00:01:26,000 Hello. - Good afternoon. 19 00:01:26,000 --> 00:01:32,616 You are also a co-author of the open letter to the leadership of the Social Democratic Party in Switzerland. 20 00:01:32,616 --> 00:01:36,600 After all, this party leadership opposes the neutrality initiative. 21 00:01:36,600 --> 00:01:40,032 What led you to write an open letter to them? 22 00:01:40,032 --> 00:01:45,479 It wasn't really the party leadership's rejection that prompted or motivated us. 23 00:01:45,479 --> 00:01:50,080 Nor is it a general rejection of the neutrality initiative within the party. 24 00:01:50,080 --> 00:01:53,733 This rejection was decided, and that's just the way it is. 25 00:01:53,733 --> 00:01:58,300 I am a member of the Social Democratic Party. 26 00:01:58,300 --> 00:01:59,644 I don't agree with that. 27 00:01:59,644 --> 00:02:05,340 I have a distinctly different understanding of what this neutrality initiative is all about. 28 00:02:05,340 --> 00:02:17,073 But what ultimately prompted us to write this open letter is that the party leadership, in its … well, that the Social Democrats, 29 00:02:17,073 --> 00:02:27,850 in their internal and external communications, have put forward arguments that my co-authors and I find outrageous. 30 00:02:27,850 --> 00:02:35,376 We do not agree that the Neutrality Initiative should be generally disparaged as a “pro-Putin initiative.” 31 00:02:35,376 --> 00:02:44,188 The argument that Blocher launched this initiative solely to make money is also completely unfounded. 32 00:02:44,188 --> 00:02:46,390 That's not true. That isn't true. 33 00:02:46,390 --> 00:02:53,700 And to put something like that out there, to trumpet it, and to present it as if it were a fact—that's wrong. 34 00:02:53,700 --> 00:02:57,106 That's just polemics, but it doesn't reflect the facts. 35 00:02:57,106 --> 00:03:01,613 And we should focus on the debate itself in this discussion. 36 00:03:01,613 --> 00:03:03,286 This is an important moment for Switzerland. 37 00:03:03,286 --> 00:03:06,966 There's one thing we all agree on in Switzerland. 38 00:03:06,966 --> 00:03:13,184 The Social Democrats, The Center, the FDP, and the SVP as well. Actually, everyone agrees: We need neutrality. 39 00:03:13,184 --> 00:03:14,873 Neutrality is important to Switzerland. 40 00:03:14,873 --> 00:03:18,545 But how do you define the concept of neutrality? — That's important. 41 00:03:18,545 --> 00:03:26,249 And now the Social Democrats—my party, with which I identify—are actually having a genuine discussion about the 42 00:03:26,249 --> 00:03:30,160 issues and about what we should actually be discussing, 43 00:03:30,160 --> 00:03:32,918 - whether sanctions are effective or not, 44 00:03:32,918 --> 00:03:37,672 - whether arms sales, wherever they take place, are effective or not, 45 00:03:37,672 --> 00:03:42,203 - whether Swiss neutrality should be understood as solely military in nature or also economic, 46 00:03:42,203 --> 00:03:49,606 The fact that we aren't having this debate, but are instead pinning everything on one man—Vladimir Putin—and then on the 47 00:03:49,606 --> 00:03:56,207 second man, Christoph Blocher—means that we aren't conducting the discussion in the way we need to in order 48 00:03:56,207 --> 00:04:01,970 for us, as a country, to reach a new consensus or agreement on how we want to move forward. 49 00:04:01,970 --> 00:04:11,656 That is why it is important now that, as a nation, we engage in respectful and substantive discussions and debates in 2026. 50 00:04:11,656 --> 00:04:14,216 Yes, that was important to me. - Very good. 51 00:04:14,216 --> 00:04:22,380 As you've already said, it is precisely the initiative's opponents who refer to it as the "Blocher" or "Putin" initiative. 52 00:04:22,380 --> 00:04:27,136 And that's what actually triggers a bitter partisan battle. 53 00:04:27,136 --> 00:04:35,696 How would you explain to a Social Democrat that the Neutrality Initiative is a left-wing cause? 54 00:04:35,696 --> 00:04:42,144 First of all, I’d say take a quick look at who on the left is supporting the Neutrality Initiative. 55 00:04:42,144 --> 00:04:48,239 Both of the communist parties we have in Switzerland—the Ticino Communists and the Bern 56 00:04:48,239 --> 00:04:51,556 and Basel “Workers’ Party” (PdA)—support this. 57 00:04:51,556 --> 00:04:56,829 We have various left-wing groups that support them, including the “Zürcher Linksbündig.” 58 00:04:56,829 --> 00:05:06,242 And I'd like to explain that, even from a social democratic perspective, one can still support something like this and say: 59 00:05:06,242 --> 00:05:13,709 Yes, there are good reasons to say that we should not go along with this Western drive for expansion and imperialism. 60 00:05:13,709 --> 00:05:14,960 We can't let that happen. 61 00:05:14,960 --> 00:05:23,548 And that’s why U.S. imperialism—and, to some extent, that of the Europeans who go along with it—this constant pursuit of war, 62 00:05:23,548 --> 00:05:32,410 which is also a form of expansion—the Iraq War, the Iran War, and the colonialism of the Europeans from the 19th century into the 63 00:05:32,410 --> 00:05:37,210 20th—all of that is part of this fundamental capitalist system. 64 00:05:37,210 --> 00:05:43,030 And neutrality stands in opposition to that. Because neutrality explicitly states: We won't go along with it. 65 00:05:43,030 --> 00:05:45,083 War abroad? No. 66 00:05:45,083 --> 00:05:47,930 Defense, yes, at home, but defense at home. 67 00:05:47,930 --> 00:05:49,630 Not defense in the Hindu Kush. 68 00:05:49,630 --> 00:05:51,916 Not a defense in Tehran. 69 00:05:51,916 --> 00:05:53,810 Defense here at the border. 70 00:05:53,810 --> 00:05:56,814 Yes, unfortunately, today's social democracy lacks this analysis. 71 00:05:56,814 --> 00:05:58,136 Of course it's wrapped. 72 00:05:58,136 --> 00:06:02,016 It is presented as humanitarianism; it is presented as international law. 73 00:06:02,016 --> 00:06:07,170 The argument is: Yes, yes, we have to impose sanctions because we have to uphold international law. 74 00:06:07,170 --> 00:06:12,707 What's being left out here is that the UN—the United Nations—itself has a day dedicated 75 00:06:12,707 --> 00:06:15,723 to opposing unilateral coercive measures. Why? 76 00:06:15,723 --> 00:06:20,451 Because unilateral coercive measures by the U.S., the EU, and indeed Switzerland are always 77 00:06:20,451 --> 00:06:24,769 directed against countries in the Global South. Always. 78 00:06:24,769 --> 00:06:28,483 In the UN General Assembly, every country has one vote. 79 00:06:28,483 --> 00:06:32,816 It's just not as unfair as it is in the Security Council; in the General Assembly, it's one country, one vote. 80 00:06:32,816 --> 00:06:36,782 And they always said, "No, we don't want that; stop it." 81 00:06:36,782 --> 00:06:42,394 These sanctions are an outrage—a colonial outrage on the part of you in the Global North 82 00:06:42,394 --> 00:06:45,669 who want to destroy us in the Global South. 83 00:06:45,669 --> 00:06:49,641 And the fact that Switzerland and the Social Democrats here aren't addressing this argument 84 00:06:49,641 --> 00:06:51,940 and taking a closer look...—there are studies. 85 00:06:51,940 --> 00:06:57,501 A study published in *The Lancet*, specifically the *Public Health* section—a scientific 86 00:06:57,501 --> 00:07:01,600 journal—in December 2025; it was a large-scale study. 87 00:07:01,600 --> 00:07:05,366 Unilateral coercive measures kill half a million people every year. 88 00:07:05,366 --> 00:07:06,626 500,000 people. 89 00:07:06,626 --> 00:07:13,420 And they looked at the study period from 1971 to 2021 or from 1972 to 2022—50 years. 90 00:07:13,420 --> 00:07:15,840 Half a million people died every year. 91 00:07:15,840 --> 00:07:21,440 Unilateral coercive measures—that is, sanctions—are a weapon of mass destruction. 92 00:07:21,440 --> 00:07:25,246 It's not just a matter of: "We're trying to pull one over on Vladimir Putin here." 93 00:07:25,246 --> 00:07:32,026 No, it's a weapon of mass destruction, and from a social democratic perspective, we really shouldn't go along with that. 94 00:07:32,026 --> 00:07:36,843 Of course there are war criminals; of course there are atrocities committed in other countries. 95 00:07:36,843 --> 00:07:44,004 But if we in Switzerland say that we’re just going to go along with all the sanctions imposed by the U.S. and the EU, 96 00:07:44,004 --> 00:07:48,008 then we’re complicit in the deaths of 500,000 people every year. 97 00:07:48,008 --> 00:07:52,296 That's far more people than those who die directly as a result of war. 98 00:07:52,296 --> 00:07:56,980 And this argument, for example, is completely ignored and not discussed. 99 00:07:56,980 --> 00:08:00,414 And that's what we should talk about now. 100 00:08:00,414 --> 00:08:01,341 Very good, yes. - Thank you very much. 101 00:08:01,341 --> 00:08:03,782 And then—excuse me—could I perhaps add something else? - Yes, of course. 102 00:08:03,782 --> 00:08:07,474 Then there are the other arguments from a left-wing perspective: 103 00:08:07,474 --> 00:08:12,667 Well, in war, the high nobility never fight each other to the death. 104 00:08:12,667 --> 00:08:14,180 It's always the proletariat, isn't it? 105 00:08:14,180 --> 00:08:20,560 After all, it's poor Russians fighting against poor Ukrainians and having to slaughter each other. 106 00:08:20,560 --> 00:08:27,223 In other words, the proletariat, which is forced to kill one another for the sake of those in power. 107 00:08:27,223 --> 00:08:34,880 And to take part in that and be present for it—in my opinion, that's wrong. 108 00:08:34,880 --> 00:08:38,430 And this is where we should—we should just say, “I’m not going along with this.” 109 00:08:38,430 --> 00:08:45,024 Just as a doctor must first take an oath: “First, do no harm.” 110 00:08:45,024 --> 00:08:54,360 Maybe we can't help, but we should at least refrain from adding fuel to the fire or supplying weapons to a war. 111 00:08:54,360 --> 00:09:01,399 We should put a stop to all of this as much as we can, but we shouldn't presume to say at this point: "Yes, I 112 00:09:01,399 --> 00:09:05,470 already know who the good guy is and who the bad guy is." 113 00:09:05,470 --> 00:09:08,823 I'm now joining the good guys in killing the bad guys, and by doing that, I've done something good. 114 00:09:08,823 --> 00:09:13,811 That is not what neutrality means, and we should uphold that principle not only in a 115 00:09:13,811 --> 00:09:16,810 military sense but also in an economic sense. 116 00:09:16,810 --> 00:09:24,736 Swiss politicians are increasingly stating that Switzerland cannot defend itself militarily on its own. 117 00:09:24,736 --> 00:09:31,696 And that is why these politicians say the Swiss Army should move closer to NATO or join it. 118 00:09:31,696 --> 00:09:35,040 Why are you opposed to closer ties with NATO? 119 00:09:35,040 --> 00:09:38,980 There is this idea of absolute defense. 120 00:09:38,980 --> 00:09:40,726 That's a crazy idea. It doesn't exist. 121 00:09:40,726 --> 00:09:42,186 There is no such thing as absolute defense. 122 00:09:42,186 --> 00:09:48,100 There has never been a moment when even a military alliance could say, “We will definitely not be attacked.” 123 00:09:48,100 --> 00:09:52,066 World War I—they tried it, and we ended up in World War I. 124 00:09:52,066 --> 00:09:56,100 NATO is not a guarantee; NATO is a strategy. 125 00:09:56,100 --> 00:10:02,616 Just as neutrality is a strategy for avoiding being drawn into a war. 126 00:10:02,616 --> 00:10:09,917 Unfortunately, we have now seen that NATO has, since the 1990s—and certainly since 1999—begun to 127 00:10:09,917 --> 00:10:14,589 occasionally bomb areas that are not within NATO territory. 128 00:10:14,589 --> 00:10:20,103 So, actually, the original idea—as it is also stated in the NATO Charter—was the defense of the NATO territory. 129 00:10:20,103 --> 00:10:22,069 Serbia was bombed in 1999. 130 00:10:22,069 --> 00:10:23,829 Serbia was not a member of NATO. 131 00:10:23,829 --> 00:10:26,200 NATO soldiers were sent to Afghanistan. 132 00:10:26,200 --> 00:10:28,176 Afghanistan is not a member of NATO. 133 00:10:28,176 --> 00:10:34,809 NATO is being used to project power outward—toward Russia and, increasingly, toward China. 134 00:10:34,809 --> 00:10:41,254 Donald Trump is angry that NATO has been somewhat hesitant regarding Iran, even though, of course, British bases were 135 00:10:41,254 --> 00:10:45,130 made available there as well, and NATO resources were provided. 136 00:10:45,130 --> 00:10:49,670 NATO is an instrument of great power politics and also an offensive instrument. 137 00:10:49,670 --> 00:10:53,750 And that's what NATO says, too. "We have to deter them, after all." — Deterrence. 138 00:10:53,750 --> 00:11:00,055 And deterrence is the idea of telling the other side: “I can bomb you back to the Stone Age; I can kill you and wipe 139 00:11:00,055 --> 00:11:03,670 you out, so don’t even think about getting any funny ideas.” 140 00:11:03,670 --> 00:11:09,003 And this line of reasoning is diametrically opposed to the concept of neutrality. 141 00:11:09,003 --> 00:11:15,648 Because the neutral strategy is to say: You're my friend, and you're my friend. 142 00:11:15,648 --> 00:11:18,403 I have a good relationship with you and a good relationship with you. 143 00:11:18,403 --> 00:11:20,696 None of you really want to attack me, do you? 144 00:11:20,696 --> 00:11:25,036 And if you two are fighting, I'll try to help both of you. 145 00:11:25,036 --> 00:11:30,160 I'm sending people from the Red Cross to try to care for your two soldiers. 146 00:11:30,160 --> 00:11:35,100 I'm sending people who will try to be effective diplomats on your behalf. 147 00:11:35,100 --> 00:11:40,229 Don't come here, don't attack me, and then you'll have access to these services. 148 00:11:40,229 --> 00:11:44,615 If you attack me, I'll defend myself, and then you won't get anything out of it. 149 00:11:44,615 --> 00:11:51,350 So NATO and collective security are a strategy that boils down to: a big stick and a big carrot. 150 00:11:51,350 --> 00:11:55,276 Big Stick—I can destroy you anytime I want to. 151 00:11:55,276 --> 00:12:00,643 And, big carrot—if you do what I say, you'll get something from us. 152 00:12:00,643 --> 00:12:03,969 Neutrality: Working with a small stick and a small carrot. 153 00:12:03,969 --> 00:12:12,420 The little stick is, so to speak: If you come, I can still defend myself—by the way, so it won't be easy for you to take us down. 154 00:12:12,420 --> 00:12:15,036 And the little carrot: "But if you don't do it, well, then I'll help you." 155 00:12:15,036 --> 00:12:17,250 And then I'll help the other person, too, and you have to accept that. 156 00:12:17,250 --> 00:12:20,890 It's a completely different security strategy. 157 00:12:20,890 --> 00:12:25,130 And this idea that you're only safe if you scare others away is a crazy idea. 158 00:12:25,130 --> 00:12:26,416 It's just not right. 159 00:12:26,416 --> 00:12:30,343 Why doesn't Germany need to deter France? Or France, Germany? 160 00:12:30,343 --> 00:12:31,903 Those two were always at each other's throats. 161 00:12:31,903 --> 00:12:36,936 These days, no one scares the others off because they cooperate, because they trust each other, because they're friends. 162 00:12:36,936 --> 00:12:41,683 And neutral countries actually follow the same strategy with everyone else. 163 00:12:41,683 --> 00:12:47,710 Neutrality is, after all, more of a principle—a principle of international law—that requires friendship, 164 00:12:47,710 --> 00:12:50,749 even with states that are not necessarily friendly. 165 00:12:50,749 --> 00:12:56,708 And that's the hard part. And that's also the balancing act—explaining to both sides 166 00:12:56,708 --> 00:13:00,096 why you're now helping the other side, too. 167 00:13:00,096 --> 00:13:03,278 He is, after all, the enemy. — But your enemy, not mine. 168 00:13:03,278 --> 00:13:10,058 And that is a strategy that has worked well for Switzerland for at least 200 years, since 1815. 169 00:13:10,058 --> 00:13:13,260 In a war—especially a major war—all countries are dangerous. 170 00:13:13,260 --> 00:13:23,103 And the neutral state must then repeatedly try to explain to both sides why it is useful and how they can move 171 00:13:23,103 --> 00:13:28,740 forward together without being drawn into the conflict itself. 172 00:13:28,740 --> 00:13:36,203 And unfortunately, Switzerland is currently lacking this line of thinking, because we now view defense solely as a deterrent. 173 00:13:36,203 --> 00:13:45,836 Deterrence is not the defense strategy of a neutral state; rather, the strategy is to offer to be of use. 174 00:13:45,836 --> 00:13:50,851 We have strayed far from that now, and I hope that, through the neutrality initiative, we can 175 00:13:50,851 --> 00:13:53,943 at least reignite the discussion on this topic. 176 00:13:53,943 --> 00:13:58,030 With a little luck, maybe we can even head in that direction again. 177 00:13:58,030 --> 00:14:03,279 That's wonderful, Dr. Lottaz. Thank you very much for the interview, and we wish you all the best with the initiative. 178 00:14:03,279 --> 00:14:05,706 Let's give it a try. Thank you. - Thank you very much.