If they take a side, they lose the fortunes of more than just Russians. Anyone who is controversial and has money in Switzerland will realize it’s no longer safe in the event the world exposes their bad deeds.
How did you get to this conclusion?
* Switzerland has neutrality since the Vienna Congress 1814/1815, more than 200 years
* they weren't really rich back then
* instead, big powers of Europe feared that Switzerland will join one of their opponents, so it was dictated to Switzerland originally
* later, when Switzerland saw how the countries surrounding them got demolished again and again in each war, they actually adopted it. It is now in their constitution, article 185.
* the consitution can only be changed by the electorate of Switzerland (about 6 mio people), not the government or the parliament
So why would these 6 million people add / keep neutrality "to appease the rich" ? Not all swiss people are rich. In the southern french parts the risk to sink into poverty is even higher than in some parts of Germany!
Maybe a not-so-swiss centric view can shed more light on your (wrong) hypothesis:
In Europe Switzerland isn't the only (current) neutral country. We have Austria, Ireland and some smaller ones, like Liechtenstein. We used to have also Portugal, Sweden or Belgium in the neutral camp. Are they all known to "appease the rich" ? I doubt. Except if your idea of not appeasing rich people is having a government form like Soviet Russia, GDR, or Yugoslavia.
I’m not implying that is where Swiss neutrality comes from, more making a counter point that IF they are staying neutral (currently) to protect fortunes then it’s not just to protect Russians.
I wasn’t making a statement about its history. Banking in Switzerland I realize is fairly recent. I am not even saying that’s definitely what they are currently doing.
It's been some correlation between "neutrality" and "money" for centuries. They go hand in hand.
Sometimes it's really hard to tell the effect from the cause.
Also, it's easy to imagine "Neutrality brings us moneys! Let's stick with it.". Not saying if it's 100% true, of course.
You state still this falsehoods after I pointed out that
* other swiss pecularities (e.g. their banking laws about anonymous number accounts) might be more to blame
* other european neutral countries didn't exhibit any correlation between neutrality and money?
If you talk about correlation, then you need to take in the full data set. You speak general about neutrality, so take in ALL neutral countries. Malta, Ireland, Austria, Liechtenstein. And maybe even neutral microstates like Vatican.
Only THEN can you come to a conclusion. But not by only focusing on one single country, and extrapolating your observation to all of neutrality.
Wasn't it you that stated the hypothesis "neutrality is to appease the rich"?
Can't you see that I tried to refute this hypothesis? But maybe you have arguments to back this hypothesis?
Pharmaceuticals exports are highlight of Swiss exports, but as only 25% of the GDP is attributed to industry[0], this can't be a significant part of the economy.
Now how much of the 74% of the service revenue is banking is up for grabs, as tourism for instance is also a potentially big part. But even if it was only half of that, it would still be bigger that the pharma I guess ? (except if patents and/or IP was also counted as "services" ? but would it be that big either way ?)
[0] https://www.eda.admin.ch/aboutswitzerland/en/home/wirtschaft...
It very much did indeed.
And probably a lesson the rest of the world should finally learn.
1 - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-07/swiss-arm...
I don't know exactly, maybe you tell me?
If it were because of Neutrality, then surely Ireland, Austria, Malta must have become equally rich. But ... they aren't. So certainly other factors than just neutrality contribute to it.
You might want to look at some recent GDP growth charts for at least Ireland and Malta ;-)
Like, Austria was in both World Wars; the Swiss weren't.
The sanest political system in the world, where power is only ever reluctantly relinquished to the higher authorities (individual -> city -> state -> federation), unlike - say - the US, where the power that still remains in the hands of local govts is nothing but a joke.
[1] https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP_1457_20...
[2] https://www.worldscientific.com/pressroom/2022-05-25-01
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Winsemius
[4] https://thekopi.co/2019/09/02/albert-winsemius/
So, not sure your point carries much weight.
And just to drive home the point why citing unbiased sources is important: According to the early fascists they were a movement lobbying for democracy and women's rights, among other positive sounding demands. That was right on their manifesto in big letters. It didn't quite turn out that way, and in fact looking back with the power of hindsight people like Mussolini had questionable motives from the start.
Singapore is primarily characterized by... none of those things???
> So, not sure your point carries much weight.
It's not "my point", it's reality on the ground.
The neutrality is used for propagating "you and your money are safe here", which is true at first glance. They are ready to take it from you as soon your seat gets a bit too hot for your liking.
The 1814 neutrality was granted after Napoleon invaded the confederation and made it a republic, only to be saved by Russia, no less, so a different solution had to be found.
They were dirt poor back then.
No country was afraid of Switzerland doing anything, they had no military might whatsoever, the current militia model was introduced in fear of a Nazi invasion.
Your statement about constitional changes is vastly incorrect, omitting many things, see here https://www.parlament.ch/de/%C3%BCber-das-parlament/parlamen...
There is no poverty is switzerland, even the worst off are better off than us citizens on food stamps. The treasury returns so much money to the cantons, they could build a socialst utopia if they wanted, so long the economy as a whole is fine. They already have such a thing on a federal level, its just not called guaranteed minimum income. Its been in place for a while. This all is before corporate and income taxes and vat.
Say what you want, but soviet russia and yugoslavia and such, exepct for the communist elite did not give an iota about appeasing the rich. Not saying it was the best way, but they stood their ground until they sank. Switzerland will sell out 1000 times any day before that happens.
Swiss mercenaries were famous and feared enough to be regularly employed by the French royalty and also the Pope.
Okay. But ... isn't "me and my money" not save in Malta? Or in Ireland? Or in Austria? Or used to be it unsave in Belgium, Portugal, Sweden? All mentioned countries are (or were) neutral.
> Your statement about constitional changes is vastly incorrect,
I stand corrected.
> There is no poverty is switzerland
Here you are vastly incorrect: https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/society/poverty-in-switzerland-...
They have things like "Tafel" like in Germany, they have students that pay lots for their flats but have little income, they have homeless people ... the idea that there is no poverty, or no risk-of-poverty doesn't make sense, even when you don't know reports like the one I posted.
Oh, and not everyone can drive to Italy or Germany to enjoy 50% cheaper prices for groceries.
> even the worst off are better off than us citizens on food stamps
One doesn't exclude the other. You can be poor, and still be better off compared to some dysfunctional state.
[0]https://medium.com/@weeklydoseofhistory/the-burgundian-wars-...
I don't know about the validity, but I love how Germany (as one of the richest countries in the world), is used in this comparison.
Many people regularly oppose this, as being inexact.
Maybe this is correct ... but: the mean income level also influences prices, e.g. for flats or groceries. Swiss prices here are exceptional. What costs 1 EUR in Germany costs 2 swiss francs there. And francs and euro are more-or-less on parity, if you exchange them. Droves of Swiss people drive to Germany (or Italy) to buy groceries. But: some people don't have a car. They can't do that.
I saw a map of Switzerland with different colors on how high the risk of poverty is estimated in which region, and clearly the french speaking parts around Genevre had a worse risk assessment than e.g. the italian or german speaking parts. You couldn't really see the Röstigraben, but you could still see a stark difference.
I think it’s much older than that, though. The Swiss confederacy had been trying to be neutral since the 16th-17th centuries.
Also Austria does have some significant pro-Russian tendencies for some reason..
Austria is a lot smaller and easy to influence.
It's also not in NATO, and there is strong public sentiment to stay out of NATO -- which means there is a vacuum Russia can enter in ways that it cannot with full-on NATO members.
Neutrality though made it a good place for exchange and safe-keeping. e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_gold
These days, I don't think Switzerland really fears an invasion, but it's true that the financial incentives have taken over. At the level of the population, the neutrality culture runs deep, and as Switzerland is one of the richest countries in the world, there's really no reason for the average Swiss to be upset about it.
But knock out the UK or the Soviets, lower the pressure, and there is little doubt the Nazis would have made a go of it eventually.