Umstrittene Schweizer Sicherheitspolitik ... - ETH Zürich

Institute
Having described these three transformations and the lists of threats, I
can turn to my second question: What does this imply for Swiss Security
Doctrine? As I have already suggested, the threats that Switzerland faces
are not qualitatively different to those its European neighbours face. In
addition to stating clearly what kinds of threats Switzerland faces, it is
very important for a security policy document to state what things are not
threats to Switzerland for the foreseeable future: there is some indication
that small- or large-scale armed violence, or a military conflict on European
territory that could directly or indirectly affect Switzerland, is not
a threat for the foreseeable future. This was stated in the 1999 doctrine,
and I think it should be restated in the upcoming document.
It is true that security doctrines traditionally are about preventing or
responding to the threat of armed violence, and that is what the core or
traditional missions of armed forces are. But we probably should think
a little bit more clearly about what “violence” means in contemporary
security doctrines. The 1999 Swiss security policy focused on “la prévention
et à la maîtrise de la violence de portée stratégique”, and it noted that
the “politique de sécurité doit être comprise comme étant le domaine des
activités de l’Etat consacré à la prévention et à la défense contre la menace
et le recours à la violence d’importance stratégique”.
I think there are two aspects of this that need to be rethought a little
bit. First, I am not really sure what “violence d’importance stratégique”
means and whether that formula is sufficiently clear in the context of
the threats we face today. Are we speaking of low-tech and asymmetric
violent threats that may manifest themselves in terrorist attacks
on infrastructures or individuals of vital interests, or are we speaking
of high-tech military threats of one sort or another? Where do these
threats – “violence d’importance stratégique” – come from, and how
can Switzerland respond to them through its conventional armed forces
and force structure?
“Politique de sécurité” seemed to be defined in terms of traditional
external military threats. Even if the 1999 report covered a much broader
scope of potential threats, it narrowed the focus and seemed to place the
emphasis on only one part of a very broad spectrum. If in the future we
have a broad diagnosis of security threats, we need a broad set of tools
410