The Swiss lived in splendid isolation for years. Trump's tariffs have shattered that complacency
That glass was shattered last week when Donald Trump announced 39% tariffs on Swiss exports. The US is the most important destination for Swiss products: 18.6% of all its exports go there. If Trump maintains the tariffs, sales to the US 'will be effectively annihilated', said Switzerland's industry lobbying group. The rightwing Swiss business minister, Guy Parmelin, announced a furlough programme to shield the economy from 'mass layoffs'. The tabloid newspaper Blick captured the mood with a stark black front page, pronouncing it a 'black day' for Switzerland.
Trump's tariff shock has provoked a major identity crisis in a country that has grown rich on exports, and done so in splendid isolation from world politics.
To understand Switzerland, imagine it as a giant country club. First, you don't get in there easily: immigration laws are tight, although being rich helps. Second, it's a tidy place: every inch of land is curated, and every lawn mowed. Third, there are ample leisure activities on offer: after work, the Swiss go biking, or show off their toned bodies on the shores of immaculate lakes.
Most importantly, the Swiss club has traditionally offered its members tranquillity. History doesn't happen here. The last war Switzerland was involved in was the Sonderbund war of 1847 (it lasted 26 days, and about 100 people died). The country has been run by a majority rightwing government since 1848. The Swiss economy has contracted in only six of the last 60 years.
As a teenager in the 2000s, looking out through the bulletproof window at the rest of Europe, I saw Islamist terrorism and mass youth unemployment. We had none of it. Crime is low and social conflict barely exists, though Islamophobia did raise its ugly head in the 2009 vote to ban minarets. The Swiss have Europe's lowest proportion of working days lost to strikes. Disputes are resolved through compromise, and frustrations vented through direct democracy, or drowned in a sea of passive-aggression. And yes, 93.2% of trains do run on time.
This all-pervasive sense of calm and predictability is perhaps the main reason why so many wealthy people move here. On a chaotic and anxious planet, Switzerland offers the luxury of living in a parallel reality – a chance to take a break from the world. That is the Swiss dream. That is the story of the children's book Heidi, in which a wealthy German girl suffering big city life in Frankfurt escapes to the Alps. That is the story of Thomas Mann's The Magic Mountain, in which Europe's neurotic elite retreats to the Swiss Alps to pontificate on the state of the world from a safe, numbing distance.
Switzerland's long history of neutrality and deliberate remoteness also nurtured a feeling of Swiss exceptionalism. Surviving two world wars untouched convinced many that staying alone means staying safe – indeed, that it can even be profitable, especially if you are happy to trade with Nazi Germany and apartheid South Africa.
Isolationism carries benefits even today. Not being part of either Nato or the EU allows Switzerland to be the only European country, apart from Iceland, to have a free trade agreement with China. It also allows Berne to spend just 0.7% of GDP on defence – far below Nato's 3.5% target. Swiss aid to Ukraine stands at just 0.13% of GDP, eight times lower than that of the Netherlands. Switzerland has thrived on being part of the free world without shouldering any of the burdens that come with it. But in the new era of cutthroat geoeconomics, this 'have your cake and eat it' policy doesn't work any more.
Moreover, Trump's move completely blindsided Berne. In Switzerland, many people assumed that the president Karin Keller-Sutter's majority rightwing government would get along well with the Rolex-wearing Trump. After all, he dislikes the EU, taxes and wokeness, and so do the Swiss. When the US vice-president, JD Vance, argued at the Munich Security Conference in February that social media 'censorship' was a bigger danger to Europe than Russia, Keller-Sutter praised the speech as 'very Swiss'.
Trump's shocking tariff announcement has left the Swiss establishment clueless as to how to respond. Last week, Keller-Sutter tried to convince Trump to let go of the US's $38bn trade deficit with Switzerland. Trump later said of the call, 'The woman was nice, but she didn't want to listen.'
Switzerland has little leverage at its disposal. The country has already committed to buying F-35 fighter jets. Keller-Sutter can't even promise to cut tariffs on US products. In 2024, Bern unilaterally eliminated tariffs on industrial products. If Trump adds pharmaceuticals to the 39% tariffs, the economic pain will be real: up to 0.7% of GDP a year or 700 Swiss francs a head, according to the Swiss Economic Institute. But the greater shock is psychological. A nation that has become accustomed to always getting its own way is now floundering, with a worse tariff rate than Algeria (30%). In a multicultural, federal country with four official languages, the grand unifying narrative of Swiss exceptionalism is in tatters.
Perhaps worst of all, Brussels is getting a better trade deal than Berne. That is provoking a lot of head scratching in a country where support for EU membership stood at 17% in a 2024 poll. Keeping the EU at a distance may no longer be the best option. The first test will come soon: the Swiss will vote on new economic treaties with the EU – something that the Swiss far right is fighting tooth and nail.
Trump's golf-cart style of governing ought to see him fit right in to the Swiss country club. Who would have guessed that he would be the one to finally shatter its splendid isolation?
Joseph de Weck is a fellow with the Foreign Policy Research Institute
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
.jpg%3Ftrim%3D0%2C640%2C360%2C0%26width%3D1200%26height%3D800%26crop%3D1200%3A800&w=3840&q=100)
The Independent
11 minutes ago
- The Independent
CNN's resident MAGA defender keeps getting his past Jan. 6 condemnation thrown back in his face
In January 2021, CNN senior political commentator Scott Jennings was unwavering in his criticism of Donald Trump following the Capitol riots, saying that the president 'caused this insurrection with his lies and conspiracy theories' and 'every Republican must condemn it.' Now that Jennings is the network's resident MAGA defender and Trump has federally taken over Washington while deploying the National Guard into the city because of a so-called 'crime emergency,' the longtime GOP strategist is now getting his past anti-Trump criticism of January 6 thrown back in his face. And, quite frankly, he is not thrilled about it. Hours after the president held his Monday press conference announcing that he was seizing control of the D.C. police department and mobilizing the military to patrol the city's streets to 'rescue' the nation's capital from 'crime, bloodshed, bedlam and squalor and worse,' Jennings appeared on CNN NewsNight to discuss Trump's widely criticized move. Spurred into action by images of former DOGE staffer Edward 'Big Balls' Coristine bloodied following an attempted carjacking and Fox News reports about crime in D.C., Trump has called his move 'Liberation Day in D.C.' while giving the green light to law enforcement to 'do whatever the hell they want.' Critics, meanwhile, have noted that despite the president's rhetoric about 'out-of-control' crime, violent crime has rapidly declined in the city over the past two years and is at a 30-year low. During the Monday night CNN panel discussion, Jennings was unsurprisingly applauding the president's decision as being tough on crime while showing support for law enforcement, prompting fellow panelist Tara Setmayer to take issue with the idea that Trump 'backs the blue' by referencing Jennings' prior condemnation of January 6. 'You look at what Donald Trump did and what MAGA has done to the police officers who defended our Capitol on January 6th,' Setmayer, a former GOP strategist and Never-Trump conservative, declared. 'You want to talk about spitting in the face? Donald Trump spit in the face of every single one of those officers who took that oath to protect and serve on January 6th when he pardoned those insurrectionist bastards and who wanted to take down our Capitol and stop the free and fair, peaceful transfer of power.' One of the president's first acts after his second inauguration was to issue a blanket pardon to roughly 1,600 rioters who were charged with crimes during the attack on the Capitol, including many who were jailed for violently attacking police officers. 'And so how dare people sit here and say that he backs the blue? He abdicated that, because you know what? He did not protect or defend the Constitution and he violated his oath of office,' she continued. 'You know, who said that? You did after January 6th. And that's exactly what he continues to do right now with the way he is throwing around our military, our police, talking about moving us to other states. This is something people should be very concerned about.' Indeed, shortly after a MAGA mob stormed the Capitol on January 6 in an effort to stop the certification of Joe Biden's electoral victory, Jennings wrote a scathing opinion piece for CNN chastising the president and any Republican who didn't rebuke Trump's actions. 'I'm ashamed and embarrassed for our country, and for any Republican who fails to condemn this shameful behavior,' Jennings stated at the time. In an on-air appearance the night of the riot, Jennings also suggested that Trump had become such a threat to the country that he may need to abdicate his office immediately. On Monday night, however, Jennings was seemingly stunned into silence and merely held his hand to his chin after Setmayer aired her receipts, prompting anchor Anny Phillip to move on to another guest. Several minutes later, though, Phillip circled back to the right-wing pundit to see if he wanted to finally jump back in. 'I want to give Scott a moment because he has not said a single thing,' the CNN host said. Saying that 'what happened to the cops that day was a disgrace,' Jennings then pivoted to defending Trump's federal takeover of Washington and deployment of the National Guard, adding that 'the only city' that Trump really has control of is Washington. 'If he controls D.C., why didn't he do it on January 6th?' Setmayer shot back. 'Why didn't he do it on January 6th when he sat there and let them take over the Capitol? He had the opportunity, but he didn't.' Two days later, another longtime political strategist would once again confront Jennings on his harsh criticism of the president's behavior on January 6 as it related to Trump now invoking the D.C. Home Rule Act. This time around, however, Jennings didn't sit in silence and instead lashed out with personal attacks. 'I think in Washington, D.C., you're gonna have to have substantial reductions in violence, substantial reductions in murder, substantial reductions in carjackings, and people are generally gonna feel like they can walk around and not be under threat all the time,' he said, boasting about the number of arrests that have occurred since the takeover. Julie Roginsky, a Democratic operative and former Fox News pundit, snarked that she was 'old enough' to remember when Jennings was 'appalled as the rest of us were on January 6th,' leading the former Mitch McConnell adviser to cut her off. 'Because January 6th happened, should we not enforce the law today?' Jennings sneered, resulting in a heated back-and-forth in which the GOP commentator accused Roginsky of engaging in a 'silly argument.' At one point, Phillip jumped in to ask Jennings to allow Roginsky to finish her point, only for the conservative pundit to grouse that he's 'not gonna allow it' if Roginsky kept taking 'potshots' at him. 'Scott, I know you're thirsty for that seat, but let me finish,' Roginsky snapped back, referencing reports that Jennings is considering a Senate run in Kentucky to replace the retiring McConnell. 'What are you thirsty for? Some kind of relevance out here? I mean, I don't even know what you do for a living,' he fumed in response. An undeterred Roginsky, though, continued on with her point following the broadside from Jennings. 'Can I just finish what I was about to say, which is that on January 6th, [Trump] could have deployed the National Guard. He chose not to. Now today, because somebody named Big Balls got beat up, allegedly, he wants to deploy the National Guard to a place that has had a 30-year low in violence. And we all know that he's doing this because it's a power grab.' Noting that Trump 'could have done this when this district was actually in danger on January 6th' but didn't, Roginsky said the president 'didn't give a d*mn' about 'backing the blue' then before invoking Jennings' past comments. 'And you agreed, back on January 6, he didn't give a d*mn about those police officers and about the safety of people in Washington, D.C.,' she concluded. 'Today, because he wants a power grab, he's doing this despite the fact that every statistic shows that Washington, D. C. has not been safer in the last 30 years.' Meanwhile, other progressives have called for CNN panelists to continue to challenge Jennings with his own words during discussions about the president's current actions in Washington. 'Not sure why every liberal pundit on CNN, confronted by Jennings, doesn't just read out every night his own words from Jan 6th back to him,' Zeteo founder Mehdi Hasan, who recently got into a heated exchange with a NewsNation anchor after invoking January 6, tweeted. 'Jennings called it an insurrection by domestic terrorists caused by Donald Trump. Remind him. Every. Single. Night.'
The Independent
11 minutes ago
- The Independent
What a cheek! The US is in no position to lecture us about free speech
In the spirit of free speech, I suppose we have to allow other countries to express their concerns about life in Britain, even though it's none of their business and is diplomatic bad manners. However, it is impudent of the Trump administration, currently engaged in dismantling the constitution of the United States, to issue a patronising school report on the state of human rights in the United Kingdom. Every so often, the Americans, whose system of laws owes much to the British, like to tell us we're no longer a free people. 'Sod off' is the instinctive and succinct British reaction to such treatment, but I shall endeavour to elaborate. In the document, produced by the US State Department, Britain is chastised for a human rights scene that has apparently 'worsened' over the past year. From the lofty moral heights occupied by Donald Trump, 'specific areas of concern" are raised, including restrictions on political speech deemed "hateful" or "offensive". The Americans are especially censorious about the way the government responded to the horrendous murder of three children in Southport last year, and the subsequent violence. This constituted, or so we are lectured, an "especially grievous example of government censorship". The UK is thus ticked off: 'Censorship of ordinary Britons was increasingly routine, often targeted at political speech". Bloomin' cheek! What the Americans don't like is that we have laws against inciting racial, religious and certain other types of hatred. Well, first, tough. That's how we prefer to run things to promote a civilised multicultural society. Second, they might do well to consider our way, which is not to pretend that there is ever any such thing as 'absolute' free speech. Encouraging people to burn down a hotel of refugees is not, in Britain, a price worth paying for 'liberty'. Although never stated explicitly, it seems that the State Department is upset about the now totemic case of Lucy Connolly, colloquially regarded in both the UK and the US as 'locking someone up for a tweet'. Connolly was sentenced to 31 months' incarceration under laws consistent with international human rights obligations, which obviously include the protection of free speech. It was more than one message on social media that landed Connolly in the dock, the most famous of which went as follows: 'Mass deportation now. Set fire to all the f***ing hotels full of the bastards for all I care. While you're at it, take the treacherous government and politicians with them. I feel physically sick knowing what these families will now have to endure. If that makes me racist, so be it.' It was up for three hours and read 310,000 times so not trivial. But there's more. According to the recent court of appeal review of her case, and before the Southport attacks, Connolly posted a response to a video which had been shared online by the far-right activist Tommy Robinson, real name Stephen Laxley-Lennon, showing a black male being tackled to the ground for allegedly masturbating in public. She wrote: 'Somalian, I guess. Loads of them', with a vomiting emoji. On 3 August 2024, five days after the attacks, Connolly posted a further message in response to an anti-racism protest in Manchester: 'Oh good. I take it they will all be in line to sign up to house an illegal boat invader then. Oh sorry, refugee. Maybe sign a waiver to say they don't mind if it's one of their family that gets attacked, butchered, raped etc, by unvetted criminals. Not all heroes wear capes.' Two days later, Connolly sent a WhatsApp message to a friend saying: 'The raging tweet about burning down hotels has bit me on the arse lol.' She went on to say later that, if she got arrested, she would 'play the mental health card'. So that is some extra background on the case of Lucy Connolly, and nor should we forget that she was sending inflammatory messages during the worst civil disorder in years. Of course, the great irony about the 2024 riots is that they were caused by what you might call 'too much free speech'. The entirely false rumour promoted on social media was that the killer, Axel Rudakubana, was a Muslim asylum seeker who had virtually just got off a boat before setting off to commit a terrorist offence. None of that was true, but it was stated near enough as fact by people 'just asking questions' with no official interference or 'censorship' whatsoever in free speech Britain. There was no 'cover-up' of the perpetrator's status because Rudakubana was born in Britain. At his trial, it was established that his massacre was not motivated by any political, religious or racial motive but by an obsession with sadistic violence. Had this propaganda about Rudakubana been banned, a great deal of needless anger, distress, and damage would have been avoided. And what of America? Where you can be refused entry or deported for your political views, and without due process, violations of the ancient rule of habeas corpus. Where the president rules by decree and can attempt to strike out the birthright clause in the Constitution by executive order? Where the Supreme Court is packed with sympathetic judges who give him immunity from prosecution, and the president ignores court orders in any case. A land where there is no human rights legislation, no international commitments to the rights of man, where the media is cowed and the universities intimidated? Where the president dictates what is shown in museums, how history is taught and where the historic struggles of people of colour are disparaged as woke nonsense. A country where gerrymandering is a national sport. Where science is being abolished and statisticians sacked for reporting bad news. America is in a state of incipient authoritarian rule and is in no position to criticise anyone about freedom and liberty. The British should tell them all that, but we're too polite.
The Independent
11 minutes ago
- The Independent
A ferry link between Scotland and France could be one step closer
A ferry linking Scotland to Europe could be one step closer to reality after a key border obstacle may be resolved. Ferry operator DFDS is planning on launching a service between the town of Rosyth in Fife, Scotland, and Dunkirk in France, as early as spring 2026, allowing for both passengers and freight to be transported between the countries. The route is nicknamed 'Project Brave', and was first proposed in 2022. If instated, the journey could take up to 20 hours, making it among the longest in Europe. One of the main barriers to the project was the need for certain goods to be processed at a border control post. Building a new facility at Rosyth was deemed expensive and unnecessary. DFDS proposed using the existing border control post at Grangemouth, in Scotland, instead, however local politicians say a new UK-EU deal could mean that checks at the posts would no longer be needed. In May, prime minister Keir Starmer confirmed a new agreement with the European Union, which means food and drink can be more easily imported and exported 'by reducing the red tape'. Goods are expected to flow more freely as some routine checks on animal and plant products will be removed. Negotiations are ongoing with the EU to determine specific requirements. Scottish MP Graeme Downie said this week that the new deal could bypass the need for border control posts, according to the Dunfermline Press, but temporary use of Grangemouth will be required for the ferry to launch by spring 2026. 'A regular passenger and freight ferry service from Rosyth to Dunkirk would be an incredible boon for the Dunfermline and Scottish economy, making trade easier as well as making it simpler for people from Europe to visit the kingdom of Fife," he said. 'These matters can be complex but we have taken a huge stride towards making this ferry service a reality.' Secretary of state for Scotland, Ian Murray, has written to Steve Reed, secretary of state for environment, food and rural affairs, detailing how the ferry service could launch without the new border control point, the local paper reported. He asked that for an 'urgent' amendment to the current model, and thanked Mr Murray for his support in finding a temporary workaround. '[The] efforts make it more likely a passenger and freight ferry to Dunkirk could begin as soon as next year,' he said.
