WEBVTT 00:00.131 --> 00:07.646 We do not agree that the neutrality initiative should be generally disparaged as a “pro-Putin initiative.” 00:07.646 --> 00:17.600 The argument that Blocher launched this initiative solely to make money is also completely unfounded. That is not true. 00:17.600 --> 00:23.856 We all agree on one thing in Switzerland. Even the Social Democrats, The Center, the FDP, and the 00:23.856 --> 00:27.516 SVP. Actually, everyone agrees: We need neutrality. 00:27.516 --> 00:29.163 Neutrality is important to Switzerland. 00:29.163 --> 00:32.839 But how do you define the concept of neutrality? — That's important. 00:32.839 --> 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 00:40.746 --> 00:48.486 issues and what we should really be debating—whether sanctions are effective or not—that this debate isn’t taking place… 00:48.486 --> 00:50.752 Half a million people died every year. 00:50.752 --> 00:56.399 Unilateral coercive measures—that is, sanctions—are a weapon of mass destruction. 00:56.399 --> 01:00.626 It's not just a matter of: "We're trying to pull one over on Vladimir Putin here." 01:00.626 --> 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. 01:06.751 --> 01:11.739 www.kla.tv/42414] 01:11.739 --> 01:13.845 We have Dr. Pascal Lottaz here today. 01:13.845 --> 01:20.160 He is a political scientist and a co-signatory of the open letter to the SP party leadership, as well 01:20.160 --> 01:24.310 as the operator of the website swissneutralitynow.ch. 01:24.310 --> 01:26.000 Hello. - Good afternoon. 01:26.000 --> 01:32.616 You are also a co-author of the open letter to the leadership of the Social Democratic Party in Switzerland. 01:32.616 --> 01:36.600 After all, this party leadership opposes the neutrality initiative. 01:36.600 --> 01:40.032 What led you to write an open letter to them? 01:40.032 --> 01:45.479 It wasn't really the party leadership's rejection that prompted or motivated us. 01:45.479 --> 01:50.080 Nor is it a general rejection of the neutrality initiative within the party. 01:50.080 --> 01:53.733 This rejection was decided, and that's just the way it is. 01:53.733 --> 01:58.300 I am a member of the Social Democratic Party. 01:58.300 --> 01:59.644 I don't agree with that. 01:59.644 --> 02:05.340 I have a distinctly different understanding of what this neutrality initiative is all about. 02:05.340 --> 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, 02:17.073 --> 02:27.850 in their internal and external communications, have put forward arguments that my co-authors and I find outrageous. 02:27.850 --> 02:35.376 We do not agree that the Neutrality Initiative should be generally disparaged as a “pro-Putin initiative.” 02:35.376 --> 02:44.188 The argument that Blocher launched this initiative solely to make money is also completely unfounded. 02:44.188 --> 02:46.390 That's not true. That isn't true. 02:46.390 --> 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. 02:53.700 --> 02:57.106 That's just polemics, but it doesn't reflect the facts. 02:57.106 --> 03:01.613 And we should focus on the debate itself in this discussion. 03:01.613 --> 03:03.286 This is an important moment for Switzerland. 03:03.286 --> 03:06.966 There's one thing we all agree on in Switzerland. 03:06.966 --> 03:13.184 The Social Democrats, The Center, the FDP, and the SVP as well. Actually, everyone agrees: We need neutrality. 03:13.184 --> 03:14.873 Neutrality is important to Switzerland. 03:14.873 --> 03:18.545 But how do you define the concept of neutrality? — That's important. 03:18.545 --> 03:26.249 And now the Social Democrats—my party, with which I identify—are actually having a genuine discussion about the 03:26.249 --> 03:30.160 issues and about what we should actually be discussing, 03:30.160 --> 03:32.918 - whether sanctions are effective or not, 03:32.918 --> 03:37.672 - whether arms sales, wherever they take place, are effective or not, 03:37.672 --> 03:42.203 - whether Swiss neutrality should be understood as solely military in nature or also economic, 03:42.203 --> 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 03:49.606 --> 03:56.207 second man, Christoph Blocher—means that we aren't conducting the discussion in the way we need to in order 03:56.207 --> 04:01.970 for us, as a country, to reach a new consensus or agreement on how we want to move forward. 04:01.970 --> 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. 04:11.656 --> 04:14.216 Yes, that was important to me. - Very good. 04:14.216 --> 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. 04:22.380 --> 04:27.136 And that's what actually triggers a bitter partisan battle. 04:27.136 --> 04:35.696 How would you explain to a Social Democrat that the Neutrality Initiative is a left-wing cause? 04:35.696 --> 04:42.144 First of all, I’d say take a quick look at who on the left is supporting the Neutrality Initiative. 04:42.144 --> 04:48.239 Both of the communist parties we have in Switzerland—the Ticino Communists and the Bern 04:48.239 --> 04:51.556 and Basel “Workers’ Party” (PdA)—support this. 04:51.556 --> 04:56.829 We have various left-wing groups that support them, including the “Zürcher Linksbündig.” 04:56.829 --> 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: 05:06.242 --> 05:13.709 Yes, there are good reasons to say that we should not go along with this Western drive for expansion and imperialism. 05:13.709 --> 05:14.960 We can't let that happen. 05:14.960 --> 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, 05:23.548 --> 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 05:32.410 --> 05:37.210 20th—all of that is part of this fundamental capitalist system. 05:37.210 --> 05:43.030 And neutrality stands in opposition to that. Because neutrality explicitly states: We won't go along with it. 05:43.030 --> 05:45.083 War abroad? No. 05:45.083 --> 05:47.930 Defense, yes, at home, but defense at home. 05:47.930 --> 05:49.630 Not defense in the Hindu Kush. 05:49.630 --> 05:51.916 Not a defense in Tehran. 05:51.916 --> 05:53.810 Defense here at the border. 05:53.810 --> 05:56.814 Yes, unfortunately, today's social democracy lacks this analysis. 05:56.814 --> 05:58.136 Of course it's wrapped. 05:58.136 --> 06:02.016 It is presented as humanitarianism; it is presented as international law. 06:02.016 --> 06:07.170 The argument is: Yes, yes, we have to impose sanctions because we have to uphold international law. 06:07.170 --> 06:12.707 What's being left out here is that the UN—the United Nations—itself has a day dedicated 06:12.707 --> 06:15.723 to opposing unilateral coercive measures. Why? 06:15.723 --> 06:20.451 Because unilateral coercive measures by the U.S., the EU, and indeed Switzerland are always 06:20.451 --> 06:24.769 directed against countries in the Global South. Always. 06:24.769 --> 06:28.483 In the UN General Assembly, every country has one vote. 06:28.483 --> 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. 06:32.816 --> 06:36.782 And they always said, "No, we don't want that; stop it." 06:36.782 --> 06:42.394 These sanctions are an outrage—a colonial outrage on the part of you in the Global North 06:42.394 --> 06:45.669 who want to destroy us in the Global South. 06:45.669 --> 06:49.641 And the fact that Switzerland and the Social Democrats here aren't addressing this argument 06:49.641 --> 06:51.940 and taking a closer look...—there are studies. 06:51.940 --> 06:57.501 A study published in *The Lancet*, specifically the *Public Health* section—a scientific 06:57.501 --> 07:01.600 journal—in December 2025; it was a large-scale study. 07:01.600 --> 07:05.366 Unilateral coercive measures kill half a million people every year. 07:05.366 --> 07:06.626 500,000 people. 07:06.626 --> 07:13.420 And they looked at the study period from 1971 to 2021 or from 1972 to 2022—50 years. 07:13.420 --> 07:15.840 Half a million people died every year. 07:15.840 --> 07:21.440 Unilateral coercive measures—that is, sanctions—are a weapon of mass destruction. 07:21.440 --> 07:25.246 It's not just a matter of: "We're trying to pull one over on Vladimir Putin here." 07:25.246 --> 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. 07:32.026 --> 07:36.843 Of course there are war criminals; of course there are atrocities committed in other countries. 07:36.843 --> 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, 07:44.004 --> 07:48.008 then we’re complicit in the deaths of 500,000 people every year. 07:48.008 --> 07:52.296 That's far more people than those who die directly as a result of war. 07:52.296 --> 07:56.980 And this argument, for example, is completely ignored and not discussed. 07:56.980 --> 08:00.414 And that's what we should talk about now. 08:00.414 --> 08:01.341 Very good, yes. - Thank you very much. 08:01.341 --> 08:03.782 And then—excuse me—could I perhaps add something else? - Yes, of course. 08:03.782 --> 08:07.474 Then there are the other arguments from a left-wing perspective: 08:07.474 --> 08:12.667 Well, in war, the high nobility never fight each other to the death. 08:12.667 --> 08:14.180 It's always the proletariat, isn't it? 08:14.180 --> 08:20.560 After all, it's poor Russians fighting against poor Ukrainians and having to slaughter each other. 08:20.560 --> 08:27.223 In other words, the proletariat, which is forced to kill one another for the sake of those in power. 08:27.223 --> 08:34.880 And to take part in that and be present for it—in my opinion, that's wrong. 08:34.880 --> 08:38.430 And this is where we should—we should just say, “I’m not going along with this.” 08:38.430 --> 08:45.024 Just as a doctor must first take an oath: “First, do no harm.” 08:45.024 --> 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. 08:54.360 --> 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 09:01.399 --> 09:05.470 already know who the good guy is and who the bad guy is." 09:05.470 --> 09:08.823 I'm now joining the good guys in killing the bad guys, and by doing that, I've done something good. 09:08.823 --> 09:13.811 That is not what neutrality means, and we should uphold that principle not only in a 09:13.811 --> 09:16.810 military sense but also in an economic sense. 09:16.810 --> 09:24.736 Swiss politicians are increasingly stating that Switzerland cannot defend itself militarily on its own. 09:24.736 --> 09:31.696 And that is why these politicians say the Swiss Army should move closer to NATO or join it. 09:31.696 --> 09:35.040 Why are you opposed to closer ties with NATO? 09:35.040 --> 09:38.980 There is this idea of absolute defense. 09:38.980 --> 09:40.726 That's a crazy idea. It doesn't exist. 09:40.726 --> 09:42.186 There is no such thing as absolute defense. 09:42.186 --> 09:48.100 There has never been a moment when even a military alliance could say, “We will definitely not be attacked.” 09:48.100 --> 09:52.066 World War I—they tried it, and we ended up in World War I. 09:52.066 --> 09:56.100 NATO is not a guarantee; NATO is a strategy. 09:56.100 --> 10:02.616 Just as neutrality is a strategy for avoiding being drawn into a war. 10:02.616 --> 10:09.917 Unfortunately, we have now seen that NATO has, since the 1990s—and certainly since 1999—begun to 10:09.917 --> 10:14.589 occasionally bomb areas that are not within NATO territory. 10:14.589 --> 10:20.103 So, actually, the original idea—as it is also stated in the NATO Charter—was the defense of the NATO territory. 10:20.103 --> 10:22.069 Serbia was bombed in 1999. 10:22.069 --> 10:23.829 Serbia was not a member of NATO. 10:23.829 --> 10:26.200 NATO soldiers were sent to Afghanistan. 10:26.200 --> 10:28.176 Afghanistan is not a member of NATO. 10:28.176 --> 10:34.809 NATO is being used to project power outward—toward Russia and, increasingly, toward China. 10:34.809 --> 10:41.254 Donald Trump is angry that NATO has been somewhat hesitant regarding Iran, even though, of course, British bases were 10:41.254 --> 10:45.130 made available there as well, and NATO resources were provided. 10:45.130 --> 10:49.670 NATO is an instrument of great power politics and also an offensive instrument. 10:49.670 --> 10:53.750 And that's what NATO says, too. "We have to deter them, after all." — Deterrence. 10:53.750 --> 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 11:00.055 --> 11:03.670 you out, so don’t even think about getting any funny ideas.” 11:03.670 --> 11:09.003 And this line of reasoning is diametrically opposed to the concept of neutrality. 11:09.003 --> 11:15.648 Because the neutral strategy is to say: You're my friend, and you're my friend. 11:15.648 --> 11:18.403 I have a good relationship with you and a good relationship with you. 11:18.403 --> 11:20.696 None of you really want to attack me, do you? 11:20.696 --> 11:25.036 And if you two are fighting, I'll try to help both of you. 11:25.036 --> 11:30.160 I'm sending people from the Red Cross to try to care for your two soldiers. 11:30.160 --> 11:35.100 I'm sending people who will try to be effective diplomats on your behalf. 11:35.100 --> 11:40.229 Don't come here, don't attack me, and then you'll have access to these services. 11:40.229 --> 11:44.615 If you attack me, I'll defend myself, and then you won't get anything out of it. 11:44.615 --> 11:51.350 So NATO and collective security are a strategy that boils down to: a big stick and a big carrot. 11:51.350 --> 11:55.276 Big Stick—I can destroy you anytime I want to. 11:55.276 --> 12:00.643 And, big carrot—if you do what I say, you'll get something from us. 12:00.643 --> 12:03.969 Neutrality: Working with a small stick and a small carrot. 12:03.969 --> 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. 12:12.420 --> 12:15.036 And the little carrot: "But if you don't do it, well, then I'll help you." 12:15.036 --> 12:17.250 And then I'll help the other person, too, and you have to accept that. 12:17.250 --> 12:20.890 It's a completely different security strategy. 12:20.890 --> 12:25.130 And this idea that you're only safe if you scare others away is a crazy idea. 12:25.130 --> 12:26.416 It's just not right. 12:26.416 --> 12:30.343 Why doesn't Germany need to deter France? Or France, Germany? 12:30.343 --> 12:31.903 Those two were always at each other's throats. 12:31.903 --> 12:36.936 These days, no one scares the others off because they cooperate, because they trust each other, because they're friends. 12:36.936 --> 12:41.683 And neutral countries actually follow the same strategy with everyone else. 12:41.683 --> 12:47.710 Neutrality is, after all, more of a principle—a principle of international law—that requires friendship, 12:47.710 --> 12:50.749 even with states that are not necessarily friendly. 12:50.749 --> 12:56.708 And that's the hard part. And that's also the balancing act—explaining to both sides 12:56.708 --> 13:00.096 why you're now helping the other side, too. 13:00.096 --> 13:03.278 He is, after all, the enemy. — But your enemy, not mine. 13:03.278 --> 13:10.058 And that is a strategy that has worked well for Switzerland for at least 200 years, since 1815. 13:10.058 --> 13:13.260 In a war—especially a major war—all countries are dangerous. 13:13.260 --> 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 13:23.103 --> 13:28.740 forward together without being drawn into the conflict itself. 13:28.740 --> 13:36.203 And unfortunately, Switzerland is currently lacking this line of thinking, because we now view defense solely as a deterrent. 13:36.203 --> 13:45.836 Deterrence is not the defense strategy of a neutral state; rather, the strategy is to offer to be of use. 13:45.836 --> 13:50.851 We have strayed far from that now, and I hope that, through the neutrality initiative, we can 13:50.851 --> 13:53.943 at least reignite the discussion on this topic. 13:53.943 --> 13:58.030 With a little luck, maybe we can even head in that direction again. 13:58.030 --> 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. 14:03.279 --> 14:05.706 Let's give it a try. Thank you. - Thank you very much.