Dear Wes Burt,
in your last posting (Subject: "Who cares?"), you have quoted an anonymous
"Swiss citizen" who replied to your earlier posting "Welcome to America III".
His claims are so utterly wrong and misleading that it's hard to take him
seriously. Anyway, for the international audience, a correction is necessary:
(I hope you give this the same wide circulation as the original piece)
"A Swiss citizen" wrote:
> Mr. Burt,
>
> I can only say you have been grievously misinformed. I should however inform
> you that as someone expelled from Switzerland
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Since no single Swiss citizen can ever be expelled from Switzerland, this
author cannot be a Swiss citizen, or he wasn't expelled. Both ways, he lied.
> you may wish to check the following
> assertions, which you will find substantiated by international statistics.
Nope. International statistics like the CIA Factbook 1998 or the databook
"Global Trends 1998" of the Development&Peace Foundation (Germany) do NOT
support his claims, quite the contrary.
> Switzerland is a poor country, unlike your own or Gabon, where manipulative
> use of statistics has made it appear rich.
The wealth may be distributed inequally -- like in Gabon and any capitalist
country too --, but it's just impossible to describe Switzerland as "a poor
country".
As for statistics, I do wonder what interest the Swiss authorities should
have to "make it appear rich". (In order to attract even more economical
refugees or what?) Does this author suggest the international data sources
have conspired with the Swiss in manipulating the economic data, or that
the CIA has uncritically copied the fudged data provided by the Swiss ?
> Most of its inhabitants live in substandard accommodation by EU standards
> (in terms of space)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In terms of space perhaps (see below), but certainly not in terms of quality.
Which "EU standards", anyway ? Some EU countries like Portugal or Greece
have rural infrastructures comparable to 3rd-world level, and in East
Germany (former GDR), thousands of Soviet-style homes are uninhabitable
by Swiss criteria, still 10 years after entering the EU. You see, the EU
doesn't give a heck about the so-called "EU standards".
> and for example in the canton of
> Geneva the owner occupancy rate is 9% -none owns their own property
The "canton of Geneva" is basically the *city* of Geneva, the second largest
city of the country. In the canton, 400'000 inhabitants live in an area of
110 square miles, of which 20 square miles are used for housing. I guess
with 20'000 people per square mile of housing, it would be pretty difficult
to give everyone her/his own detached family house ! But does that make
Geneva a poor canton ??
(Btw, since 40% of Geneva's inhabitants are foreigners, it's not too
surprising that few people *own* their housing.)
> and all are
> forced to submit to a form of common universal law, in which no human rights
> are incorporated.
Nonsense. Switzerland has one of the best human rights situations of the
world, and a great humanitarian track record -- documented by HR org's like
AI or PIOOM.
> No political dissent is tolerated.
This is just absurd. Where is the evidence, and did he compare with other
countries ? In this free country, one can even publish books full of lies
and dissent about the country, and still become/stay a State University
Professor and Member of Parliament. (example: Jean Ziegler in Geneva)
> The life expectancy is five years less than the EU norm.
According to the most recent data (1996/97), the life expectancy in
Switzerland is almost 2 years LONGER than in the EU (average):
EU: women=80.5 , men=74.1 years
CH: women=82.3 , men=76.2 years
> For hundreds of years it has operated a mercantilist
> foreign policy
For hundreds of years, most EU countries have operated an imperialist,
colonialist foreign policy, robbing out whole continents and killing/
enslaving millions of Natives. Is that better ?
> where, as in my own case, people are forced to work abroad and
> remit funds to the country.
For whom? For his starving relatives in Switzerland?? Hogwash -- it
just doesn't make sense to work in a low-wage country and spend the
money in an expensive country where the hard-earned money has less
purchasing power. Only the opposite direction makes sense, and actually,
most of the working foreigners in Switzerland are sending money to their
home countries -- that's why they came here in the first place.
> Were it a rich country, you would not see so many
> swiss abroad.
Actually, most of the few who live abroad, do live there because their
Swiss Francs have more purchasing power abroad (e.g. retired seniors
living in Spain). Or because they don't like the high population density.
You may also see "so many swiss abroad" because they have spare money to
travel around.
Were it a poor country, you would not see so many (working or asylum-seeking)
foreigners in Switzerland (about the highest rates of Europe!).
> You must understand that the trade off between material wealth
> in terms of manufactured objects and human rights is one on which you can
> choose your own point.
Actually, human rights are mistreated the worst in the materially poorest
countries. Ask AI or PIOOM, for example.
> The focus on 'things' has an enormous cost in
> human potential for freedom and communication.
IF he means the freedom to starve or to get killed (Sierra Leone?) and the
communication of talking with adjacent neighbors all day (but only with
them, because no phone/internet connection and no decent traffic means are
available), then that's right. However, if he means real freedom and real
communication, then the opposite is much closer to the truth.
> Most of the rich countries I have
> seen are in black Africa
Well, this definitely requires an extraordinary definition of "rich".
Wes, I think the above makes it clear that the anonymous author you quoted
has his "facts" completely wrong and can't be trusted.
Take care,
Christoph Reuss
(Swiss citizen)
