| Swiss Model of Neutrality - a
New Zealand Focus
†
December 2002
Sorry this has ended up a bit long
but it gives a bit of detail. Feel free to ask if you want any points
elaborated on. Some may well not be so clear, or you might like
additional details on a specific area that interests you. Ideas
on how it could work for NZ would be good to discuss.
Please bear in mind that I've only
been looking into this for the past couple of years. It forms the
basis for a handful of (unrelated fictional) projects. Hopefully
I'll learn more in time. Even the US, who now admit their inability
to act alone in operations globally, are looking into how they might
benefit from the Swiss model.
Before I do go on, obvious points like
Switzerland being a different country, having different needs and
a different history are assumed. However there are some needs which
are universal to any and all countries. These are the ones focused
on.
After Compulsory Military Training
(CMT) in Switzerland a soldier takes their rifle home. Have a guess
how high crimes with firearms are in Switzerland, and how many burglaries
or home invasions you get. Article 18 of the Swiss Constitution
has every male beginning their training at 20, up for regular refreshers
until 42 (or older if an Officer). It works out about 3 weeks over
a year. A little less than a Territorial Force soldier is expected
to do here per annum, including Annual Camp. Not that much really.
The Swiss draft system means they can raise almost half a million
soldiers, while only having around 2000 full timers. Basically this
means a ready resource of trained personnel for any given trouble
faced, for a very low relative cost. Society as a whole benefits.
Reserve training over later years continues
in whatever Corps you're in, be it medical, combat trades, logistics,
or whatever. Before the antagonists say what use are combat trades...
I say, how many fox holes have you dug in your life and how would
you like to build sandbag walls during a flood or track through
the bush while looking for a missing tramper? Most skills in combat
trades are transparent, it is simply that people often miss this
because they are blinded by a soldier's primary (traditional) role,
that of engaging with and killing an enemy in times of war. Other
skills include first aid, survival, navigation, fitness, personal
administration, and the benefits of teamwork, self discipline and
a sense of service to one’s country and those who inhabit
it.
Fortification Guard - military
for defence but also for overseas deployment, logistical and technical
training. Regionally based like New Zealand Army regiments are.
Division of Rescue Troops - Search and Rescue (SAR) all integrated
- For example the Swiss Training Centre for Military Disaster Relief.
Constant refresher training, specifically for the task. Another
words, regional units on a constant state of readiness. Like a Ready
Reaction Force being on 24 hour standby. $$$ ??? Yes well, how about
lives lives lives?
Medical, Supply,
Transport, Rescue, Material,
Veterinary components all form part of the Swiss
Logistics system. So, where a unit needs other elements (eg: transport
needing mechanical engineers, MPs for traffic control) they are
embedded in those units at the lowest level possible increasing
co-ordination and reducing logistical strain rather than having
more difficulties having to organise requirements at a higher level
with much greater problems as most militaries face when they actually
deploy.
Think of the benefits of civilian society
meshing with military society as one. Shooting competitions / rock
climbing / adventurous training / SAR exercises, so that the two
elements of our nation as a whole are truly compatible and constantly
interacting, far far more than they are at present.
New Zealand treats this is separate
entities rather than cohesive coexistence. The military is a separate
sub-culture of its own, often forgotten by the public unless it
is made aware by circumstances outside of their control, such as
East Timor.
Don't consider budget as an excuse
or comparative. Consider the size and demographics of a nation and
how things are managed. Coast Guard is a good example here, of how
much better things should / could be, before one even starts to
look at the dilapidated state of our military. It all has to be
a personal, national concern of the individual. With a budget surplus
we can afford to invest in our military, and thereby invest in the
well-being of our nation for times of trouble. With our capital
on a fault line you'd kind of wonder why things shouldn't be more
than a little different.
Defence is considered a national requirement
and something to be proud of in Switzerland.
The Swiss model is geared towards their
own specific needs, not those of others', allies, or potential partners
of coalition, while having the modularity to partake in global affairs
as required. Kosovo is a good example. As such to take this solo
road, and not necessarily one of pure neutrality, one MUST have
an effective military and civil infrastructure and industry for
self reliance. If New Zealand really wishes to go it alone, they
could only do so realistically by similar means. History has forged
us down a different path, though there is still great potential
for greater independence if it is desired and the work is done to
achieve it.
In a place like New Zealand the public,
even in the post 9/11 era, are generally misguided to their country’s
state of security, whether it be biological, airborne, maritime
of otherwise. Our geographical isolation makes us vulnerable in
the modern age, as much as it assists our natural geographical freedom
from danger. We do not need the highly unlikely potential of being
invaded in a conventional sense to dissuade us from having a decent
military. On the contrary we need to understand the greater threats,
see military benefits of such scenarios and act accordingly. As
such it would be moulded to our own needs and not the needs of others.
We would, therefore, be concerned more with things like coastal
and civil defence, and maritime interdiction. We are not.
Though we continue to make waves against
the likes of America, and increasingly project views of neutrality
and our sovereign rights towards traditional partners like Australia
and the UK, we insist on purchasing Australian assault rifles, American
ATGW (Anti-tank Guided Weapons) and communications systems, and
Canadian LAV, so that we can hook into the larger traditional allied
force. We do not, for example, purchase BTR 80 vehicles from the
Russians and retrofit NATO weapons systems at a fraction of the
price of the NZLAV. Unlike New Zealand, Switzerland can buy her
defence equipment and arms from whomever without needing to worry
about what others think. And when they produce quality defence equipment,
Switzerland can get others to sell it for her, to counter their
neutrality clauses. As is shown by the SIG Sauer example.
Switzerland permits a substantial arms
industry which creates jobs, confidence and export markets. Remember
that these industries also manufacture essential commercial materials.
Developing defence technology (and no I'm not just talking weapons,
in fact these come last) should not be shun as it directly relates
to effectiveness of the NZDF and its ability to help and develop
the greater civil community, enhance logistics and co-ordination
and inter-training, from health / medical, to Search and Rescue
(SAR), law enforcement, to engineering and educational systems.
You earn the right to defend your country
and uphold your values and things you hold dear by showing you have
a very capable defence network, both willing and able, to fight.
We have neither. Switzerland during WW2 has demonstrated what this
means.
People are not adverse to the military
in the streets or fighter planes overhead. They are proud of their
Armed Forces and confident that they have the means and materials
to do the jobs asked of them, military or civil in nature. They
understand that this is an investment which stands as a deterrent
against aggression.
The sooner the general populous see
the military as a benefit to the nation and not some detracted outdated
part of it the better. This means real democracy taking place were
the government is compelled to take real measures. The sooner it
is allowed to have the things it needs to bring it up to where it
can do the jobs expected of it the better. This means being proactive,
not simply fixing problems well after they are recognised in the
first place. It is very difficult for us to be able to help other
nations', in our region let alone in any other part of the world
if we cannot first help ourselves. The NZDF struggled unquestionably
in East Timor, and more recently our capacity in the area of Civil
Defence has shown itself to be well below par. Perhaps the Swiss
model would demonstrate that, in order to rectify the issues it
takes a combined overhaul of both civil and military capacity, it
best not be envisioned as separate entities.
Land or air or sea, it matters not
in the days of cruise missiles, fast mover jets, warships and mid-air
refuelling. And dirty bombs, chemical and biological weapons are
another matter altogether. But not having the capacity to deal with
any manner of threat is foolhardy, no matter how remote the possibility.
In a country were power crisis come about through incompetence we
hardly need a natural disaster to help us along. We have virtually
no self reliance. Rather than taking the worst case scenario and
saying “well, no one could handle that on their own”,
why not press for the best possible outcome in even a moderate circumstance?
As things stand, our prospects are quite bleak to say the least.
We can do all this stuff, enhancing
industry, creating jobs and technical innovation, but we need the
will to do it. The more one is prepared and capable in defence the
more they are capable of preventing war. This is at the heart of
the Swiss model. Asides civil and military preparedness, their primary
mission is promoting peace. They are capable of this. We, due to
history, and other factors, including critical manning in the Armed
Forces, outdated equipment and bad policy (for example to quote
a student of Defence Studies below) we are not;
[There is] nothing in policy about actually defending New Zealand's
assets abroad, or it's borders and territories, from foreign or
domestic threats, or for partaking in any combative activities beyond
minor skirmishes that occur from time to time in peacekeeping, OOTW
operations.
(OOTW = Operations other than War)
I know many don't share the view that
this is important, but (lets take current global trends) being a
country of infidels (in the views of extremist elements) I would
really like to think that government defence policy had my interests,
the interests of my friends and family and fellow countrymen and
women at heart no matter where they were, no matter what their faith
or creed. At home or abroad or out at sea in international waters
or in the skies. Of critical note, obviously they do not. Good intentions
are no substitute for solid policy and adequate investment in people,
logistics and hardware.
The Swiss are very pro military. And
this translates into better society, and, ironically, an anti-war
view. Many, especially in a country like New Zealand, are unable
to see how such a view could possibly exist, believing it to be
the height of hypocrisy. This is one major barrier to our being
able to share this kind of model allowing for a much greater heightened
sense of preparedness regardless of the nature of the threat. For
us, this is undoubtedly mostly of an environmental nature and nothing
to do with going to war with our fellow man at all. Yet the end
result, because of this outlook, will be the very one we would all
dearly wish to avoid.
http://www.cins.ch/
- Campaign for an Independent and Neutral Switzerland (CINS) |
