Should Switzerland become a member of the UN Security Council? Why or why not?
Editorial note: the vote result is in, so we have now closed this debate. Join our debate on how Switzerland can contribute to global peace here. More topics are open for comments here.
Switzerland is a candidate for a non-permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council. The vote in June 2022 is seen as a formality.
From the article Will Switzerland be able to bring its ideals to the UN Security Council?
From the article What would Switzerland gain from a seat on the UN Security Council?
What do you think about Switzerland’s possible role on the UN Security Council? Join the discussion!
should not
It is precisely its neutrality that makes one think that it would always abstain. Today the world is divided between democracies and dictatorships (be it religious, autocratic, or whatever) and a neutral and lukewarm country like Switzerland has no sense to be in the UN council because it does not contribute anything.
no deberia
Justamente su neutralidad hace pensar que siempre se abstendria. Hoy en dia el mundo esta dividido entre democracias y dictaduras (llamese religiosas, autocraticas, o como sean) y un pais neutral y tibio como suiza no tiene sentido de estar en el consejo de la ONU porque no aporta nada
should not
It is precisely its neutrality that makes one think that it would always abstain. Today the world is divided between democracies and dictatorships (be it religious, autocratic, or whatever) and a neutral and lukewarm country like Switzerland has no sense to be in the UN council because it does not contribute anything.
no deberia
Justamente su neutralidad hace pensar que siempre se abstendria. Hoy en dia el mundo esta dividido entre democracias y dictaduras (llamese religiosas, autocraticas, o como sean) y un pais neutral y tibio como suiza no tiene sentido de estar en el consejo de la ONU porque no aporta nada
It should!
Switzerland has a history of a peaceful, democratic and civilized state.
Only peaceful countries can be trusted to solve global political issues.
Должна!
Швейцария имеет историю мирного, демократического и цивилизованного государства.
Решение вопросов глобальной политики можно доверить только мирным странам.
You can’t be neutral after joining in that council, right now is not a good time to join the mess - so can stay neutral
on the other hand one can be very well neutral and sell weapons to countries at war...
par contre on peut très bien être neutre et vendre des armes à des pays en guerre...
It’s a no, it’s about not getting into the mess
Right now is not a good time to join the UN mess
Appropriate to the topic:
https://www.swissinfo.ch/ger/baeriswyl--schweiz-im-sicherheitsrat-als-brueckenbauerin-gefragt/47648274
Mrs. Baeriswyl in honor. If you look at some incidents in Switzerland, then today's Switzerland unfortunately no longer manages to build bridges within its own country. Not to mention the recently awarded title of "unfriendly state" from an eastern state. How should it be possible to build bridges in the UN Security Council?
Passend zum Thema:
https://www.swissinfo.ch/ger/baeriswyl--schweiz-im-sicherheitsrat-als-brueckenbauerin-gefragt/47648274
Frau Baeriswyl in Ehren. Wenn man manche Vorkommnisse in der Schweiz anschaut, dann schafft es die heutige Schweiz leider nicht mehr innerhalb des eigenen Landes Brücken zu bauen. Vom neulich verliehenen Titel "unfreundlich gesinnter Staat" von einem östlich gelegenen Staat ganz zu schweigen. Wie sollte da ein Brückenbauen im UNO Sicherheitsrat gelingen?
As a neutral country, Switzerland could make useful contributions in sense to the UN Security Council: therefore I vote yes in favor of entry.
Come paese neutro la Svizzera potrebbe apportare utili contributi in senso al consiglio di sicurezza dell'ONU: perciò voto di sì a favore dell'entrata.
Switzerland has much to contribute to world peace through its culture and democratic values.
Suiza tiene mucho para aportar a la paz mundial por su cultura y valores democráticos
An uphill battle...
No, we do not have to go to the UN Security Council! The UN has not managed to prevent the brutal war in Ukraine. It would have had at least 8 years to do so. By the way, the UN's veto power has nothing to do with democracy!
Nein, wir müssen nicht in den UNO-Sicherheitsrat! Der UNO ist es nicht gelungen, den brutalen Krieg in der Ukraine zu verhindern. Dabei hätte sie mindestens 8 Jahre Zeit gehabt. Das Veto-Recht der UNO hat übrigens mit Demokratie nichts zu tun!
Having failed to prevent the war in Ukraine, do you think we should now throw everything away? In short, throw the baby out with the bathwater? We're not quite there.
Non essendo riusciti a prevenire la guerra in Ucraina, secondo te bisognerebbe ora buttare via tutto? Insomma gettare il bambino con l'acqua sporca? Non ci siamo proprio.
The CH delegation could then explain in this plenum what democracy really is. The direct, as well as the indirect ! The Germans do not know it apparently !
Die CH-Delegation könnte dann in diesem Plenum mal erklären, was Demokratie wirklich ist. Die direkte, wie auch die indirekte ! Die Deutschen wissen es anscheinend nicht !
In the Security Council, it is mainly the large countries with veto power that decide; the smaller countries no longer have any influence, in my opinion. Why should they have the veto power only because they are bigger? It would be fairer the other way around. So I can't imagine that Switzerland can have any influence. Yes, you see it and you hear it.
Im Sicherheitsrat bestimmen hauptsächlich die großen Länder mit Vetorecht, die kleineren Länder haben heute keinen Einfluss mehr, meiner Meinung nach. Warum sollen sie das Vetorecht haben nur weil sie grösser sind? Gerechter wäre es umgekehrt. Deshalb kann ich mir nicht vorstellen, dass die Schweiz irgendeinen Einfluss ausüben kann. Ja, man sieht sie und hört sie.
Excellent news, that Switzerland is on this board.
Congratulations.
Excelente Noticia, que Suiza se encuentre en este consejo.
Felicitaciones.
I think the UN Security Council, along with UN, should be abolished. The UN may have made sense in 1940s, just on paper and based on an idea. It is now obsolete, and most countries have no faith in it, or in any of its many bureaucratic institutions.
UN has NOT prevented any wars. In fact, just look at the many wars we humans have fought since WW2, and how many humans we have killed, in the name of being - "I am right and you are wrong". The world is not foolish; it can see thru all the nonsense.
UN is not for the benefit of all people; it is used/abused to express "power"; even in that it has failed, as the world is now much more unsafe than it was right after WW2 (when people, who were still alive, were exhausted after killing each other in WW2).
Are we humans ever going to honest with ourselves? Are we ever going to think beyond greed for more power and influence? Are we ever going think - What kind of world we are leaving our children? Is it a good or toxic world that we are building?
The UN Security Council is just power-play. It matters no more; because most countries already know what it is all about.
The UN will only work if all are treated equal.
Gäbe es eine Alternative zur Uno?
Would there be an alternative to the UN? - You ask. In our history we can see that alliances/agreements are formed, then they change, mutate or are simply annulled. Then, new ones are created.
UN was created at a time when Europe was in a state of shock after WW2, countries were occupied with major post-war issues, but there was a strong desire to create an organization for -collaboration & peace.
This was also the time when colonial empires and control still existed, which meant that the colonies either had no say in the setup of UN, or simply did not have the experience to even ask/demand, what THEY may have wanted to see in UN.
Importantly, given the chaos of the time, some tribes cleverly gave themselves extra powers within UN. Small independent countries were too weak to question; and the large populations of the poor colonized world had other major issues on their minds - e.g. they were busy fighting for the freedom of their lands, were too poor, or ill-equipped to negotiate on the global stage.
BUT, UN has failed to deliver - It has NOT prevented wars, it has not prevented power-play, which continues to plague humanity.
As further conflicts arise, countries will likely form alliances/agreements/bodies OUTSIDE of UN; and these already exist. They may not have massive headquarters with lots of colourful flags outside, but they are gaining ground.
In time, UN will become dated and obsolete like an old nightclub, where only the old go, in an attempt to remind themselves of the past fun-filled days at the club.
In my opinion, with its experience hosting UN, Switzerland can play an important (unbiased) part in the setup/collaboration of new alliances (lets call it NUN - new UN).
I think, this time around more countries will want to be treated as equals; there will be resistance from the "old guys", but change will still happen, evolution will ensure that.
Die Idee einer "New UN" finde ich einen sehr interessanten Ansatz. Vielen Dank, dass Sie Ihre Überlegungen mit uns geteilt haben.
It might help if the UN is moved out of the US and, perhaps, brought to Switzerland. As long as the US is dominant factor I don't see much chance of improving.
When in any international assembly, but also in a simple condominium meeting, something is discussed, there is always something "ONE" that has a biased idea and to get it approved, it pulls behind many "zero" ideas and that 1 becomes 10, 100, 1000 (from Trilussa: dialogue between 1 and 0).
Neutrality is a strong and necessary position. To renounce to this position is not good.
I have witnessed hasty decisions (in simple condominium assemblies) that I have "blocked" by simply asking for a vote by roll call and not on the basis of background noise.
Being neutral while having precise ideas means that minorities are respected, and when they are freed from constraints "invented by various UNOs" they are no longer minorities. Even in international assemblies there are many absent ideas that vote as they are told and this can be good on trivial things but not on all decisions.
In many cases it is necessary that someone "neutral" reminds those who vote that they must vote with their head.
Here I think that on important positions a "voice", a nation universally recognized as neutral "must" express itself .... obviously it could also take a less neutral position ... almost certainly able to result in a valid mediation.
Even in an important international assembly a few years ago a very questionable law that had been dragging on for so long was voted.
I wrote to all parliamentarians that it would be better not to vote on it hastily in the last days of the legislature and leave the decision to the newly elected.
I received a reply from "one MP" saying: I fully agree ... but I must vote as I was told.
(It's a bad law ....).
Quando in una assemblea internazionale qualsiasi ma anche in una semplice riunione condominiale si discute di qualcosa vi e' sempre qualc"UNO" che ha una idea di parte e per farla approvare si tira dietro tante "zero" idee e quell' 1 diventa 10, 100, 1000 (da Trilussa: dialogo tra 1 e 0).
La neutralità e' una posizione forte e necessaria. Rinunziare a questa posizione non va' bene.
Mi e' capitato di assistere a decisioni affrettate (in semplici assemblee condominiali) che ho "bloccato" semplicemente chiedendo la votazione per appello e non sulla base del rumore di fondo.
Essere neutrali pur avendo delle idee precise fa' si che vengano rispettate le minoranze che sciolte da vincoli "inventati da vari UNO" non sono piu' minoranze. Anche nelle assemblee internazionali ci sono molte idee assenti che votano come gli viene detto e questo puo' andare bene su cose banali ma non su tutte le decisioni.
In molti casi bisogna che qualcuno "neutrale" ricordi a chi vota che deve votare con la sua testa.
Ecco io penso che su posizioni importanti una "voce", una nazione riconosciuta universalmente come neutrale "debba" esprimersi .... ovviamente potrebbe anche assumere una posizione meno neutrale ... quasi certamente in grado di risultare una mediazione valida.
Anche in una importante assemblea internazionale qualche anno fa e' stata votata una legge molto discutibile che si trascinava da tanto tempo.
Ho scritto a tutti i parlamentari che sarebbe stato meglio non votarla frettolosamente negli ultimi giorni della legislatura e lasciare la decisione ai nuovi eletti.
Mi ha risposto "un solo parlamentare" dicendo: sono pienamente d'accordo ... ma devo votare come mi hanno detto.
(E' una pessima legge ....).
Quite simply because we have no business being there. Already the shouting of neutrality says already that we want to decide in any case nothing common. We actually don't want to be anywhere, if it means to take a stand later! So a clear no to it, as long as Switzerland wants to bet on this neutrality.
Ganz einfach weil wir dort nichts zu suchen haben. Schon das Geschrei von Neutralität sagt bereits dass wir so oder so nichts gemeinsames beschließen wollen. Wir wollen eigentlich nirgends dabei sein, wenn es später bedeutet Stellung zu nehmen! Also ein klares Nein dazu, solange die Schweiz auf diese Neutralität setzen will.
I understand what you mean. A similar thing can be seen in other partnerships or in multilateral bodies. It is not easy to find a balance. But not participating at all is obviously not an option for many in Switzerland either, as the recent parliamentary decision shows.
Ich verstehe, was Sie meinen. Ähnliches zeigt sich auch bei anderen Partnerschaften oder in multilateralen Gremien. Es ist nicht einfach, eine Balance zu finden. Aber gar nicht mitmachen ist für viele in der Schweiz offensichtlich auch keine Option, wie der jüngste Parlamentsentscheid zeigt.
Quite simply because we have no business being there. Already the shouting of neutrality says already that we want to decide in any case nothing common. We actually don't want to be anywhere, if it means to take a stand later! So a clear no to it, as long as Switzerland wants to bet on this neutrality.
Ganz einfach weil wir dort nichts zu suchen haben. Schon das Geschrei von Neutralität sagt bereits dass wir so oder so nichts gemeinsames beschließen wollen. Wir wollen eigentlich nirgends dabei sein, wenn es später bedeutet Stellung zu nehmen! Also ein klares Nein dazu, solange die Schweiz auf diese Neutralität setzen will.
Do you have two profiles? Or did Seppilein copy your comment? If so, here again my answer:
I understand what you mean. Similar things can be seen in other partnerships or in multilateral bodies. It is not easy to find a balance. But not participating at all is obviously not an option for many in Switzerland either, as the recent parliamentary decision shows.
Haben Sie zwei Profile? Oder hat Seppilein Ihren Kommentar kopiert? Falls dem so ist, hier nochmals meine Antwort:
Ich verstehe, was Sie meinen. Ähnliches zeigt sich auch bei anderen Partnerschaften oder in multilateralen Gremien. Es ist nicht einfach, eine Balance zu finden. Aber gar nicht mitmachen ist für viele in der Schweiz offensichtlich auch keine Option, wie der jüngste Parlamentsentscheid zeigt.
I recommend the book by Tom Burgis: Kleptopia, as well as the historical analysis of the "neutrality" of Switzerland during the Second World War, among others. If the prosperity of neutral Switzerland is based on the "dirty" money of the VIPs of this world...money that our banks launder with great efficiency... Proscht Nägeli!
Je recommande le livre de Tom Burgis: Kleptopia, ainsi que l‘analyse historique de la „neutralité „ de la Suisse pendant la Seconde Guerre Mondiale, entre autres. Si la prospérité de la Suisse neutre repose sur l‘argent „sale“ des VIP de ce monde…un argent que nos banques blanchissent avec beaucoup d’efficacité … Proscht Nägeli!
Thanks for the tip! This book I do not know yet, but sounds very interesting.
Danke für den Tipp! Dieses Buch kenne ich noch nicht, klingt aber sehr interessant.
To be truly neutral, a country should keep out of other country's affairs and just look after itself, within its own borders. But is that possible nowadays? Just keep looking after all other country's money. That's probably what keeps us safe.
Guter Hinweis! Ist es heute überhaupt noch möglich, sich aus allem rauszuhalten? Eine wirklich gute Frage.
Mt Blick auf die Inselstaaten im Pazifik und Island zu Beginn des 2. Weltkrieges sowie Belgien vor dem 1. Weltkrieg kann sich ein Staat sehr wohl neutral verhalten und sich aus allem raus halten. Der Staat muss einfach autark sein, des heisst seine Bürgerinnen und Bürger selbständig ernähren können. Sobald die Bürger den selben Luxus haben wollen wie in anderen Länder und somit z.B. ein Smartphone aus China haben wollen gibt es wirtschaftliche Verflechtungen. Und wenn man als Beispiel schaut wie die EU mit den bilateralen Verträgen und dem Rahmenabkommen über die Wirtschaft Einfluss nimmt auf die Politik anderer Länder, siehe Personenfreizügigkeit, Unionsbürgerrechtsrichtlinien, Entwaffnungsrichtlinie usw., dann führen heute wirtschaftliche Verflechtungen leider zu politischen Verflechtungen und somit leider zum Ende der Neutralität. Des weiteren leben wir heute im Zeitalter des Narzissmus. Und da ist es normal dass Narzissten anderen Staaten vorschreiben wollen welche Gesetze und Gebräuche sie haben und so nebenbei die Neutralität kippen. Ein Staat der neutral sein will muss daher heute immer bereit sein eine Einflussnahme von Aussen in verschiedenster Form abzuwehren.
Ein weiter Punkt liegt darin, dass die Neutralität auch militärisch beschützt werden muss damit man nicht wie Island rasch besetzt oder gar wie Belgien nicht zum Schlachtfeld und Experimentierfeld für neue Waffen der Grossmächte wird, die sinniger Weise möglichst keine Verwüstung des eigenen Territorium haben wollen. Schwache Staaten und neutrale Staaten bieten sich da gerade zu als Schlachtfeld an. Und dies umso mehr wenn sie Transitachsen haben.
Die (150 Jahre ?) alte Prophezeiung über die Verwüstung der Schweiz ist so gesehen leider äusserst plausibel, erst recht bei der heutigen Politik.
Die Damen von von SRF Investigativ würden wohl besser ihre Zeit nutzen und Recherchieren welches Land auf der Welt bereit wäre Schweizerinnen und Schweizer als Flüchtlinge auf zu nehmen. Viele dürften es nicht sein.
Yes, I also think that this issue could be the subject of a vote to settle the matter. But given the direction Switzerland is taking in the Ukrainian crisis, perhaps neutrality should be reinvented. I don't think we should align ourselves completely with other Western and NATO states, but that a rethinking of the current expression of Swiss neutrality is necessary today. The candidacy for a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council is a challenge for our country, which perhaps has to be taken up in order to maintain a major role in modern international relations.
Oui, je pense aussi que cette question pourrait faire l'objet d'une votation pour régler la question. Mais au vu de la direction que prend la Suisse dans la crise ukrainienne, la neutralité devrait peut-être être réinventée. Je ne pense pas que nous devrions nous aligner totalement avec les autres états de l'ouest et de l'OTAN, mais qu'une remise en question de l'expression actuelle de la neutralité suisse s'impose aujourd'hui. La candidature pour un siège non permanent au conseil de sécurité de l'ONU est un défit pour notre pays, qui doit peut-être être relevé pour conserver un rôle majeur dans les relations internationales modernes.
You can find an overview of ongoing debates with our journalists here. Please join us!
If you want to start a conversation about a topic raised in this article or want to report factual errors, email us at english@swissinfo.ch.