Switzerland, a country of rock-solid neutrality in the heart of Europe, seems to be facing a historical decision. Having preserved its tradition of neutrality for nearly 200 years, it has always managed to maintain stability and mediate international storms. However, the country broke its longstanding silence on March 13, when Swiss Federal Councilor Ignazio Cassis — who heads the Swiss Department of Foreign Affairs — issued a statement of concern over the escalation of tensions in the Taiwan Strait.
This statement was not without purpose. China’s sudden live-fire military drills in the Taiwan Strait last month not only sparked concern in the region, but even reached as far as Europe. Switzerland’s own definition of neutrality is no longer limited to non-participation in wars — it has expanded to include the moral responsibility and practical interest of safeguarding the international order.
Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Switzerland has joined other countries in imposing economic sanctions on Russia, breaking its policy of neutrality. The decision to speak out on the Taiwan Strait issue could be seen as a continuation and deepening of this new approach. Swiss Federal Assembly member Jean-Luc Addor said during a legislative session that the Taiwan Strait is crucial to Swiss economic interests. His words reveal the logic behind the action — economic security, geopolitical stability and humanitarian principles cannot be avoided.
This move is not a betrayal of Swiss neutrality, but a modernization. As the international community relies increasingly on the rules-based order and cooperative governance, neutrality should be more than just passive observation — it should take the form of active guardianship. Switzerland’s statement did not indicate that it is taking sides, but emphasized dialogue and peace. This reflects a new interpretation of neutrality.
Switzerland would inevitably have to achieve a delicate balance between sticking to its longstanding principles and adapting to reality. Swiss neutrality is evolving. It is no longer just about silence and concessions — it is about speaking out selectively in defense of principles. The key factor to observe in the future would be whether Switzerland could manage to uphold the core values of its neutral spirit and courageously face the challenges of the current international order without abandoning its beliefs.
Edwin Yang is an associate professor at National Taiwan Normal University and chairman of the Central Taiwan Association of University Professors.
Translated by Kyra Gustavsen
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS