History may remember May 2025 more for what the United States and China agreed to in Geneva – a 90-day tariff truce – than for who brought them to the table. Commentators have parsed every gesture from U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and China’s Vice Premier He Lifeng, yet most have skipped over the quiet host of the meeting: Switzerland, whose shuttle diplomacy transformed a lakeside Geneva villa into the world’s most valuable negotiating room – one that may have spared the global economy a tariff-driven recession.
Switzerland’s Overlooked Role: “Good Offices” in Practice
When the United States slapped a surreal 145 percent tariff on almost every Chinese import, and Beijing hit back with 125 percent duties, economists ran out of adjectives. The two largest economies on earth were locked in a lose-lose spiral that threatened global growth. The standoff looked unbreakable, not just because of dollars and cents, but because of the pride and prejudice of two leaders who seemed determined to play a game of chicken with the world economy.
Tariffs of 145 and 125 percent are not bargaining chips; they are wrecking balls. Yale’s Budget Lab estimated that the April 2 tariff surge would cut global imports by about $540 billion in 2025. Farmers in Iowa and factory owners in Guangdong feel the same punch in the gut. There is no clever geopolitical upside – only inflation, layoffs, and a world inching toward recession.
Neither Washington nor Beijing wanted to blink first. Domestic politics demanded toughness, and each capital assumed the other would cave first under domestic pressure and market pain. Shakespeare’s tragedies remind us how easily catastrophe unfolds when principals refuse to talk and bystanders stay silent. Without a Friar Laurence to mediate, “Romeo and Juliet” ends in the tomb.
Bern decided not to be a bystander. The Swiss Foreign Ministry contacted both China and the United States to convince them to meet in Geneva, ending the guessing game over who made the first move. In late April, President Karin Keller-Sutter flew to Washington to prod Bessent toward dialogue. That same week Foreign Minister Ignazio Cassis made a two-day swing through Beijing, arguing that an unchecked tariff war would hurt everyone.
The two superpowers finally agreed to meet in Geneva. Switzerland offered genuinely neutral territory: the secure 18th-century Villa Saladin, normally reserved for its United Nations ambassador. On May 9, Keller-Sutter and Economics Minister Guy Parmelin met the delegations separately – first China’s He Lifeng, then Bessent and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer – to settle the agenda and logistics for the talks. The Swiss president even quipped that she hoped “the Holy Spirit” would descend on the proceedings.
Swiss officials did not sit at the table. They didn’t draft text. They simply created the political space in which the superpowers could negotiate without losing face. That is the essence of Swiss “good offices,” honed from the Cold War to Iran-U.S. back-channel talks. After the first day of China-U.S. talks, both sides spoke of “substantial progress.” By the end of day two, negotiators clinched a breakthrough deal: the United States will roll back its tariffs on Chinese goods from 145 percent to 30 percent, while China will cut its duties on U.S. products from 125 percent to 10 percent – an outcome nearly unthinkable just a few days prior.
Greer later told reporters that “the most important discussions on the most difficult issues took place outdoors, overlooking Lake Geneva.” The Villa Saladin terrace offered more than neutrality; its snow-capped peaks and mirror-calm water helped calm the confronting negotiators, proving that a beautiful place can inspire beautiful ideas.
The story did not end at Villa Saladin. On May 21, at the World Trade Organization (WTO) General Council across town, Switzerland and Singapore co-sponsored a 47-nation statement urging that the bilateral pause be “folded back” into WTO rules – proof that Swiss diplomacy is morphing into multilateral momentum.
Why China-U.S. Rivalry Needs Mediators
Great power conflicts rarely resolve themselves. A neutral mediator lowers the diplomatic temperature and helps leaders recalibrate domestic political costs. Switzerland also reminds the rest of us that smaller states are not powerless. By shuttling between capitals and offering a dignified and neutral venue, Bern made itself indispensable – and revived a mediation tradition that had faded from public memory.
The United States and China will keep clashing; their rivalry is now the biggest source of geopolitical risk. Waiting for Washington or Beijing to sort it out alone is not realistic. Other governments – whether Norway, Singapore or the ASEAN member states – should look for niches where they can broker contact, clarify misunderstandings, and keep guardrails intact.
Equally important, third countries can advance peace simply by becoming honest truth‑tellers and critics. Too often, many countries slip into a diplomatic waltz – placating Washington one day, courting Beijing the next – creating just enough ambiguity for each superpower to misread where the world really stands. Smart diplomacy means telling both giants, politely but firmly, when their actions are reckless or destructive. Singapore, for example, has made a habit of reminding Washington and Beijing that the world cannot afford to choose sides and that escalating trade or military brinkmanship endangers all. Candid, well‑argued criticism – delivered in the language of friends, not foes – helps build a more transparent and responsible international order, even when no neutral villa is available.
Neutral diplomacy of the Swiss variety has another quiet virtue: it frees smaller states from the reflex to bolt themselves to one superpower’s mast. History shows that alliances built against a single adversary often fuel arms races and harden security dilemmas. By staying scrupulously neutral – or entering only cautious, non-provocative coalitions – third countries signal that their security rests on a stable global system, not on tipping the balance for one bloc. That stance both preserves their credibility as mediators and nurtures an environment conducive to cooperative global governance.
By brokering a 90-day tariff truce, Bern helped steady global trade flows that support both American and Chinese jobs, corporate earnings, and supply-chain resilience. The episode reminded both capitals that they remain deeply interdependent and share significant common interests, making prolonged decoupling unrealistic. A short burst of confrontation, paradoxically, clarified this reality and created space for both countries to pursue steadier, better-managed competition with each other.
The world owes Switzerland a thank you. Its diplomacy did not end the tariff war, but it restarted a conversation that everyone else needs. That’s no small feat in an era when nationalism trumps rationality and globalism is in retreat.
If Keller-Sutter’s “Holy Spirit” reference felt lighthearted, the stakes are anything but. Without neutral go-betweens, the next chapter of China-U.S. competition could read less like a Shakespearean tragedy and more like a Greek epic – long, bitter and ruinous for bystanders. Let’s hope other nations take a page from Switzerland’s playbook before that curtain rises.
The world needs more Switzerlands.