When did diplomacy ever work?

[Elind]

Yeah, it's based on neutrality and they're dreadfully proud of it.

Neutrality is cop out, and I think you know it. Guess why only the Swiss like the Swiss?

 

[Kerberos]

Neutrality is cop out, and I think you know it.

Coop out from what? I wasn't aware that small states had an obligation to get trampled in the conflicts of great powers. Neutrality is an exellent policy for a small state if they can mantain it.

Guess why only the Swiss like the Swiss?

Assumes fact not in evidence.

 

[David Swidler]

Coop out from what? I wasn't aware that small states had an obligation to get trampled in the conflicts of great powers. Neutrality is an exellent policy for a small state if they can mantain it.

Assumes fact not in evidence.

Yeah, how do you know that even the Swiss like the Swiss?

 

[Kerberos]

Yeah, how do you know that even the Swiss like the Swiss?

OK in that case: Assumes (2) facts not in evidence.

 

[SwissSkeptic]

Neutrality is cop out, and I think you know it.

Are you claiming that Neutrality isn't a legitimate foreign policy? According to what law or treaty would that be? Edit: Or are you just implying a moral obligation of a state to take sides in every conflict? Nations usually don't act according to moral standards, they act in their own interest. Neutrality is perceived as serving the interest of our nation, so I don't understand how it can be a cop out from anything.

Guess why only the Swiss like the Swiss?

 

[Elind]

Coop out from what? I wasn't aware that small states had an obligation to get trampled in the conflicts of great powers. Neutrality is an exellent policy for a small state if they can mantain it.

They have an obligation to participate in the issues concerning the small planet they live on. Neutrality served them well in WWII by preventing an invasion in the short span of the war, but they would have been "invaded" eventually had the allies lost. Could you imagine an island of "neutrality" in a Nazi Europe?

Times have changed. I have no admiration for people who pretend to have no opinion, and hide behind the word "neutrality". No one is ever actually neutral unless completely ignorant. Therefore it's a cop out when claimed.

Assumes fact not in evidence.

Well it seemed true to many (non Swiss) when I lived there, but that was admittedly a long time ago. Perhaps they have mellowed.

 

[Elind]

Are you claiming that Neutrality isn't a legitimate foreign policy? According to what law or treaty would that be? Edit: Or are you just implying a moral obligation of a state to take sides in every conflict? Nations usually don't act according to moral standards, they act in their own interest. Neutrality is perceived as serving the interest of our nation, so I don't understand how it can be a cop out from anything.

I beg to differ on the last part. Moral Standards are how we define ourselves, and that applies to Hamas and Al Qaeda too. The arguments about self interest follow after.

Apologies if I offended. That was meant more as a joke than anything. I never got to know too many. They probably thought we furriners were as standoffish as we theought they were.

 

[SwissSkeptic]

I beg to differ on the last part. Moral Standards are how we define ourselves, and that applies to Hamas and Al Qaeda too. The arguments about self interest follow after.

Maybe in theory, but not in practice. Surely the first and foremost interest of any government has to be the protection of its citizens, not the enforcement of a moral standard with which the country's citizens may or may not agree. For a small and weak nation protection may simply mean trying to stay out of trouble (whether this is effective or not is a different question). I still don't see where the obligation to participate in global issues comes from, but it doesn't even matter, since neutrality is a form of participation in global issues.
By the way, neutrality doesn't only mean refraining from military action, it also offers dipomatic means that aren't always available to non- neutral countries.

Now I've got to admit that I'm somewhat critical of our policy of neutrality and isolation myself, but I don't agree with your qualification of it as a simple cop out.

Apologies if I offended. That was meant more as a joke than anything. I never got to know too many. They probably thought we furriners were as standoffish as we theought they were.

No offense taken.

 

[Elind]

Now I've got to admit that I'm somewhat critical of our policy of neutrality and isolation myself, but I don't agree with your qualification of it as a simple cop out.

Alright, I concede it can be no worse than, say, supporting "the lesser of two evils", which everyone is guilty of at some time, but I also think that there are situations where a direct threat (to those claiming neutrality) is not present and as such it could be called a cop out.

This issue of "neutral" intermediary, for example, when dealing with clearcut dictatorships fools nobody except the fools. It simply presents the perspective that the parties involved have equal moral standing and therefore is a propaganda crutch to the dictatorship or those who pretend it is the "other" guy's fault.

 

[Kerberos]

They have an obligation to participate in the issues concerning the small planet they live on.

And we all know that moral obligations to participate in the issues concerning our small planet is one of the most important motivations for countries to participate in wars

Neutrality served them well in WWII by preventing an invasion in the short span of the war, but they would have been "invaded" eventually had the allies lost. Could you imagine an island of "neutrality" in a Nazi Europe?

Just to point out the obvious the Aliies did not in fact loose WW2. And on a similar veign just how much do you think that Swiss participation in the war would have mattered? As for whether they'd have been invaded after a hypothetical German victory I don't think that's certain. As long as their "neutrality" wasn't to neutral, Germany has no need to waste troops on occupying them so they might not have.

Times have changed. I have no admiration for people who pretend to have no opinion, and hide behind the word "neutrality". No one is ever actually neutral unless completely ignorant. Therefore it's a cop out when claimed.

What if your opinion is that the great powers shouldn't involve the lesser powers in their strugles?

Well it seemed true to many (non Swiss) when I lived there, but that was admittedly a long time ago. Perhaps they have mellowed.

I wouldn't know I never lived in Switzerland. Outside of Switzerland I've never noticed any great like or dislike for Switzerland which I suppose is a tolerable state for a nation that strives for neutrality.

 

[Almo]

If Stalin told two commie states to knock it off, that probably worked wonders.

 

[Elind]

And we all know that moral obligations to participate in the issues concerning our small planet is one of the most important motivations for countries to participate in wars

Sometimes; and that means what.....?

Just to point out the obvious the Aliies did not in fact loose WW2. And on a similar veign just how much do you think that Swiss participation in the war would have mattered? As for whether they'd have been invaded after a hypothetical German victory I don't think that's certain. As long as their "neutrality" wasn't to neutral, Germany has no need to waste troops on occupying them so they might not have.

I wasn't looking to get into a WWII analysis and I've already conceded that in this case it saved the Swiss a lot more grief, as it did Sweden, but they would have been at best puppets on a short leash had the Nazis won. My real point is that the comparisons with the present are not very relevant. We do not have, today at least, a situation where entire continents of nations are at risk of invasion and occupation by a malevolent aggressor. The closest example would have been Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, and part of Saudi, where they could conceivably have taken over the entire Arabian Peninsula had it not been for the US and friends. Would you have considered "neutrality" to be a commendable stance in that case? Can you describe any possible scenario in the near future where "neutrality" would be the smart and admirable thing to claim? Simple non participation militarily doesn't have to amount to neutrality.

What if your opinion is that the great powers shouldn't involve the lesser powers in their strugles?

What if your opinion is that pigs should fly?

 

[Crossbow]

Foreign policy decisions can often be quite complex as nations are vexed with how to best handle several alternatives that will make enhance relations with allies, generate fear in enemies, and produce respect from all concerned.

By the same token, the issue of neutrality can be complex as well, to illustrate:

A neutrality policy can be instituted so that the nation in question is able to stay out of conflicts wherein the involvement risks are judged to outweigh the involvement rewards.
Example: how France made a vociferous point of not getting involved with the current Gulf War.

A neutrality policy can also be implemented in order to prevent the conflict from occurring within the nation in question.
Example: this is what Poland and Belgium tried to do before Hitler invaded.

Then again, a neutrality policy can also be used a tool of tacit support as opposed to actual material support.
Example: the USA was officially neutral during the Falklands War of 1982, but then again the USA did not actually do anything to stop the war from being waged.

When you get right down to it, while nations often claim to be neutral about this, that, or the other, but in reality they are seldom neutral about this, that, and the other.

 

[SwissSkeptic]

Alright, I concede it can be no worse than, say, supporting "the lesser of two evils", which everyone is guilty of at some time, but I also think that there are situations where a direct threat (to those claiming neutrality) is not present and as such it could be called a cop out.

This issue of "neutral" intermediary, for example, when dealing with clearcut dictatorships fools nobody except the fools. It simply presents the perspective that the parties involved have equal moral standing and therefore is a propaganda crutch to the dictatorship or those who pretend it is the "other" guy's fault.

I can't say that really I disagree with you there. However, the case of the neutral intermediary isn't as simple as you describe it. Being neutral doesn't have to mean tacitly endorsing the dictators. To pick a random example, Switzerland could have sanctioned the Apartheid regime in South Aftrica just like the rest of the world did, without violating their neutrality. According to some Swiss law scholars, Switzerland even violated their policy of neutrality by not joining the sanctions. But it was because of greedy politicians that it didn't join the sanctions, not because of being neutral.

 

[Elind]

When you get right down to it, while nations often claim to be neutral about this, that, or the other, but in reality they are seldom neutral about this, that, and the other.

Exactly, but when they pretend to be neutral they are just using a word that they think will piss off less people that saying they "support" or "oppose" whatever the issue is.

Still sounds like a cheap cop out in most cases to me. Note I do say "most".