Neutrality as a supporting pillar in the political culture of Switzerland*

Switzerland remains independent, will not take part in wars and will help to resolve violent conflicts by peaceful means. The idea of peace is the ethical foundation of neutrality. Neutrality is a cornerstone of Switzerland’s political culture. It protects our independence, our federalism and our direct democracy.

The planned Framework Treaty 2.0 aims to link Switzerland’s political entity with its unique structures and institutions to the EU. The focus is on the so-called “dynamic adoption of law”. This and much more would fundamentally change the political face of Switzerland. The Federal Council intends to submit a 1,800-page paper for consultation shortly.
  Well, this is nothing new. In recent Swiss history, there have been repeated attempts from various directions to link Switzerland politically to the EEC, the EC and now the EU. Was that a good idea then and is it a good idea now? My tour’horizon through Swiss history since the Second World War aims to shed some critical light on this question.

On the significance of neutrality
in the Second World War

When war broke out in 1939, parliament gave the Federal Council comprehensive authority and a mandate to take the necessary measures in the military, financial and economic fields – to maintain Switzerland’s security, independence and neutrality. The Federal Council reaffirmed Switzerland’s neutrality with a declaration of neutrality, which was recognised by the warring parties.

Effects on military service,
economy and finances

I will choose three personalities from the military, economic and financial sectors who were particularly committed to their task: Henri Guisan, Hans Schaffner and Friedrich Traugott Wahlen. Parliament appointed Henri Guisan as General of the Swiss Armed Forces. He fulfilled this task in an outstanding manner. This is generally known.
  The second personality: the Federal Council appointed Hans Schaffner as Delegate for War Economy. Switzerland was a country practically without raw materials. His task was to procure raw materials such as iron and coal, but also fertilizer for agriculture in order to increase yields. This was not so easy, because Switzerland was surrounded by the Axis powers. Raw materials and coal could usually only be procured from Germany.
  The third person I would like to introduce here is ETH professor Friedrich Traugott Wahlen. He was responsible for agriculture. In a lecture held in Zurich, Wahlen presented his plan for the so-called “Anbauschlacht” to the population. He assumed that farmers would be able to feed up to ten times more people with one hectare used as arable land than with one hectare of grassland yielding milk, meat and fruit. For many farmers who were used to dairy farming, this was a huge change and Wahlen did not receive only applause. He asked the question: “Do we want to lose our independence for a piece of bread?” This speech was Switzerland’s programme and outlook for surviving, if necessary, without any food imports. – The farmers followed suit in a way which earned them a lot of thankfulness, sympathy and goodwill. After the war, the citizens gratefully agreed to a regulation that actively supported and protected farmers – entirely in the spirit of independence and neutrality.
  A few more thoughts on finances:
  Independence and neutrality require inner strength and personal responsibility – also when it comes to finances. In Switzerland, this includes the communes, cantons and the Confederation refraining from incurring debt wherever possible. This strengthens neutrality and independence and makes it possible to pursue an independent policy. I was amazed when I read that the federal budget was almost debt-free after the major economic crisis in the 1930s – and even during this crisis. Today, this principle has been somewhat weakened.
  During the war, parliament and the Federal Council endeavoured not to simply pay war costs through the printing press, as other countries did – and which was almost the rule in the many wars of the 20^th century. Instead, they introduced the so-called military tax (1940) and the goods turnover tax (1941) via emergency war legislation – but only provisionally. In other words, numerous referendums followed in the years after the Second World War. This was in contrast to the First World War, when the people were able to vote on the temporary introduction of an income and wealth tax in 1915 and approved it by a large majority. The unavoidable war debts were gradually repaid after both world wars.

The Bretton Woods Agreement

In 1944, 44 countries adopted the Bretton Woods Agreement – a new monetary order with the US dollar as reserve as well as reserve currency. In 1949, Swiss voters were able to vote on a new currency article in the Federal Constitution, which was based on the new order with the US dollar. Virtually all members of the National Council and Council of States, the Federal Council and the management of the National Bank voted unanimously in favour of the new currency. – But then came a big surprise: almost all cantons and 61.5 per cent of voters voted against. Many thought, why the US dollar? What will we do if the US government inflates its currency and finances future wars through the printing press? There is, after all, a kind of neutral money that is not dependent on anyone, that protects neutrality and independence – and that is gold. The Federal Council and parliament rushed to propose a currency article based on gold. It was put to the vote on 15 April 1951. This time, 71 per cent of voters and all cantons said yes. The people had a better understanding of how important healthy finances are for independence and neutrality.
  When “Bretton Woods” collapsed 20 years later because the US government financed the Vietnam War largely through the printing press, the Swiss National Bank held 2,600 tons of gold and was well able to compensate for its dollar losses. – During these years, the Swiss franc gained a reputation as a “safe haven”. This is still relevant today, as a flight from the dollar may be imminent or has already begun. Since then, the US dollar has lost around 80 per cent of its value against the Swiss franc.

GATT welcomes Switzerland –
thanks to neutrality and dialogue

Let us return to Switzerland after the Second World War. Hans Schaffner – the Federal Council’s delegate for war economy during the war – now became the delegate for trade issues. One of his main problems was the many tariffs and customs walls that most countries had erected during the great crisis of the 1930s, as these were a massive trade obstacle at the time – just as they are today. The USA, for example, imposed a 60 per cent tariff on Swiss watches.
  In 1947, 33 countries founded the GATT, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the forerunner of today’s WTO. Each country had one vote. the GATT’s statutes provided for the gradual dismantling of obstructive tariffs. Switzerland was very interested, as it had a long tradition of free trade – without tariffs. Textile manufacturers in Glarus had already been selling their colourful sarongs to India, Africa and Indonesia in the 18^th century. Today, Switzerland earns more than every second franc abroad. Customs duties can only get in the way – except in agriculture, where customs duties and quotas protect local farmers from cheap competition from abroad. So the Federal Council applied for membership, but it was rejected.
  What to do? Hans Schaffner embarked on a “hard slog”. He contacted all the governments of the then GATT and tried to convince them that small-scale, mountainous Switzerland would not be able to compete in the agricultural sector with countries that practiced agriculture on a much larger scale – countries such as Canada, the USA, but also France and Germany. Switzerland had to protect local farmers in order to maintain its independence and neutrality. It was not able to simply buy its food from abroad. We need the farmers, and they need us.
  Schaffner fell on sympathetic ears in many places, so that almost all governments were prepared to include Switzerland in the GATT, with a reservation in favour of agriculture. Schaffner also found that many governments were very understanding of Switzerland, precisely because of its neutrality and numerous good offices. In 1958, almost all countries – including the USA – agreed to include Switzerland in the GATT, with a special arrangement for agriculture. Almost all of them – there were two that still objected and vetoed Switzerland’s admittance - New Zealand and Australia.
  Hans Schaffner did not give up. In 1960, he succeeded in getting Switzerland accepted as a provisional member. He was actively involved in GATT and, for example, organised the so-called “Kennedy Round”, which further dismantled the “customs walls”. In 1966, the time had come: everyone agreed and Switzerland was accepted as a full member – with a reservation for agriculture – in the spirit of independence and neutrality (Federal Gazette 1966 p. 713, dodis.ch/30835).

EEC or EFTA? For neutral
Switzerland, the answer was clear

There is another area where we also come across the traces of Hans Schaffner’s work. The EEC – the European Economic Community – was founded in 1957. It also wanted to abolish customs duties. However, its statutes included the sentence that the EEC should develop into an ever “closer union”. At the time, it was not so clear what this meant. It became clearer when Jean Monnet appeared and made propaganda for the “United States of Europe”. Hans Schaffner was suspicious and made contact with countries that were suspicious, too. He campaigned for a free trade area with countries that did not want a supranational alliance and wanted to retain their full sovereignty.
  Hans Schaffner was able to convince six countries – i.e. Great Britain, Denmark, Portugal, Norway, Sweden and Austria. These seven countries then founded EFTA – the European Free Trade Association – in 1960. This was a complete success for Hans Schaffner, who was called the “father” of EFTA because he got the whole thing going. Everyone was convinced that this was the way for Switzerland to participate in European integration – while maintaining its independence and neutrality. Following this major success, Hans Schaffner was elected to the Federal Council – even though he had never been elected to any parliament by the people.

Intervention by the USA

One year later – in 1961 – something extraordinary happened. The US ambassador called the Federal Palace and informed them that George Ball, an undersecretary of state in the US government, was on his way and wanted a meeting with the Federal Council. This took place with Federal Councillors Hans Schaffner and Friedrich Traugott Wahlen, both of whom had fought for independence and neutrality during the Second World War. Minister Albert Weitnauer, Federal Councillor Schaffner’s closest aide, was also present and wrote the report, which we can view today at dodis.ch/30116.
  The US Secretary of State informed the Federal Councillors that US President Kennedy and British Prime Minister MacMillan were in agreement: they would welcome the dissolution of EFTA. The NATO members of EFTA were to join the EEC, and the neutral countries were to conclude an association agreement with the EEC that supported the EEC’s political orientation – a kind of political framework agreement. Great Britain had already declared its withdrawal from EFTA and was preparing its application to join the EEC.
  This caused great agitation in the Federal Palace. There were many outraged. How dare the Americans interfere in domestic affairs like this? Switzerland was not a USA vassal. On the other hand – the USA’s request could not simply be rejected. The Federal Council decided to set up 14 working groups – on neutrality policy, agriculture, the economy and many more (dosis.ch/30134). Minister Albert Weitnauer suggested the formation of a special working group – the “Working Group for Historical Assessment”. Well-known historians who had expressed their views on neutrality at the time were invited. They were Jean Rudolph von Salis, Herbert Lüthy, Peter Dürrenmatt, Edgar Bonjour and others. Their task was, together with the Federal Council, to develop a path for Switzerland. This working group in the Federal Palace was soon referred to as the “Council of the Wise”.
  I have picked out Jean Rudolph von Salis’ lecture entitled “Swiss neutrality in the light of the European and world situation” and will reproduce some of the key statements verbatim (dodis.ch/34186).

Jean Rudolph von Salis in the
“Working Group for Historical
Assessment” on 24 February 1962

• Close links between EEC and NATO
  “The states of the Common Market are striving for a European Union, which is in turn to form an organic part of the North Atlantic Pact.”

• No “Swissification”
  “The development of European integration to date shows that the Swiss ideal of building from the bottom up, of autonomous, self-governing bodies that unite to form a confederal superstructure, is alien to the other Western and Eastern European countries. We should not expect European unification, if it takes place, to lead to a ‘Swissification of Europe’.”

• Direct democracy will meet with little appreciation
  “If Switzerland wants to put itself in the company of other states, it must take account of the fact that its form of government of permanent popular participation in political decision-making would meet with little appreciation among its partners.”
    Comment: Today, this would play a role if the EU were to decide on compensatory measures in the dynamic adoption of law in the planned Framework Agreement 2.0.

• A verbal commitment to neutrality is not enough
  “It is a requirement of the good reputation that Switzerland enjoys in the world that it maintain its objectivity, its practicality and its impartial stance on all sides. A merely verbal commitment to neutrality is not enough; a certain behaviour and corresponding conduct on the part of state bodies is also required in peacetime. Neutrality must be credible and inspire confidence.”

• Neutral states as bridges and mediators
  “Switzerland must not allow inappropriate behaviour which could deprive it of the opportunity to perform the functions of mediator, host and protecting power as well as to offer humanitarian or other services in a divided world. Neutral states are natural bridges and links between states and groups of states between which there is mistrust.”

• More experience and greater trust capital
  “No one – we can say this without arrogance – has gained more experience and greater trust in the world in the field of neutrality than Switzerland. Nothing would be more detrimental to our own independence and security than if we were to carelessly squander this capital.”

• Focus on the entire world
  “Swiss neutrality must be global, or it loses its meaning and its right to exist. Apart from the International Committee of the Red Cross, many Swiss have proven themselves in the exercise of international functions – in particular within the framework of Unesco, the FAO, the WHO, technical assistance, etc. These things are too little known in our country; not enough people are aware of them.”

Veto by de Gaulle –
A sigh of relief in Switzerland –
Free Trade Treaty of 1972

It was a bombshell. In January 1963, Charles de Gaulle, President of France, vetoed the UK’s accession to the EEC. De Gaulle envisioned a Europe of fatherlands. He feared that Great Britain would, together with the USA, dominate the EEC. Great Britain was only to join the EC ten years later, after de Gaulle’s death (and recently left again after a referendum).
  As a result, the planned association agreement with Switzerland was put on hold and EFTA came to life. The EFTA countries lowered tariffs on industrial goods in step with the EEC, so that in 1972 a free trade agreement was concluded between Switzerland and the EC, as Hans Schaffner had wanted – barring agriculture. Federal Councillor Hans Brugger presented it to the media as follows:
  “The agreement between Switzerland and the European Community, which I have the honour to sign, represents a decisive step in our traditional endeavour to cooperate in the integration of our continent, insofar as we are able to do so while preserving direct democracy, parliamentary powers and a neural foreign policy.” (dodis.ch/36209)
  In later years, more than 100 additional treaties were added.
  This was a special moment in Swiss history: as far as I know, it was the last time that the Federal Council reaffirmed Switzerland’s political culture in a public appearance in this way – by stating that Switzerland must uphold neutrality, independence, federalism and direct democracy.

Politics is changing

In 1978, the newly elected Social Democratic Federal Councillor Pierre Aubert summoned the top-class minister Albert Weitnauer to his office and informed him that he “by no means shared his view of the nature of foreign policy” (see Weitnauer, Albert “Rechenschaft – 40 Jahre im Dienste des Schweizerischen Staates” (Accounting for 40 years in the service of the Swiss state), p. 246). Aubert dismissed him or rather released him six months before his regular retirement. As a result, the “Arbeitsgemeinschaft für historische Standortbestimmung” (the “Working Group for Historical Assessment”), which Weitnauer had founded and led, was dissolved a few years later. Aubert sought a different kind of “opening up”, and he was to receive the receipt for his “change of policy” in 1986. When he wanted to lead Switzerland into the UN, 75 per cent of voters and all cantons voted No – in line with that independence and neutrality that he could not accept.

Accession to the EU becomes
the Federal Council’s strategic goal

New people entered the political arena. Jakob Kellenberger began his career in 1974 as embassy secretary in Brussels. A few years later, he became head of the Integration Office. Now he was to contribute significantly to the imminent policy change. He played a decisive role in the application for EU membership – long before the EEA referendum. Accession gradually moved to the top of the integration reports (NZZ Geschichte 1/2015). In October 1991, accession became the Federal Council’s strategic goal. This remained the case until 2005 – despite the people’s rejection of the EEA in 1992. Kellenberger negotiated the Bilateral Agreements I with the free movement of persons in 2001 and then moved to the International Committee of the Red Cross, where he did an excellent job.
  More recently, it can be observed that Kellenberger has undergone a change of heart. In 2014, Kellenberger wrote a book entitled “Wo liegt die Schweiz – Gedanken zum Verhältnis Schweiz-EU” (The position of Switzerland – thoughts on the relationship between Switzerland and the EU). The last sentences read: “A return to the free trade concept of 1972 is perhaps the obvious path for a country that has its difficulties with the prerequisites for successful post-92 bilateralism and also has no political ambitions which could only be realised by joining the EU.” (p. 186) Now he too had understood what neutrality and independence meant for Switzerland.

Resistance

However, as early as by the end of the 1980s, resistance was stirring. Christoph Blocher began to build up his SVP (the Swiss People’s Party) into a kind of campaign organisation – with the aim of preventing the EEA and accession. With success – as we all know. Neutrality and independence once again became a fixture in political discussions, and the SVP became the largest party in the country. However, accession to the EU remained the Federal Council’s strategic goal – until 2005. In 2001, the Conference of Cantonal Governments (KdK) published a skeptical study entitled “The cantons facing the challenge of EU accession”.

Conclusion: Neutrality as the
protection of independence

What I want to show with these remarks is that even in the first three decades after the war, neutrality and independence were not only a guiding principle for foreign policy, but neutrality has proven itself as a mainstay of Switzerland’s political culture. Federal Councillor Wahlen put it in a beautiful way in Brussels in 1962, when he formulated the Federal Council’s concerns with regard to the planned Association Treaty as follows:

“In the agreement to be concluded with the Community, Switzerland must however preserve its neutrality, which is the safeguard of its independence, and its domestic structure of federalism and direct democracy. Direct democracy, federalism and neutrality have shaped the political face of Switzerland. They have grown out of its diversity and have given it a political stability which, it seems to us, has had a favourable effect on its relations with third countries.” (dodis.ch/30371)

From the mid-1970s, this foundation in federal policy began to crumble.
  An example taken from agriculture: In the first decade of this century, the so-called Doha Round took place in the WTO, which aimed to liberalise agriculture worldwide. Federal Councillor Deiss tried to prepare the population for this allegedly necessary step, but without pointing out that we need a healthy agricultural sector to maintain our independence and neutrality – as Hans Schaffner had repeatedly emphasised. Instead, Deiss claimed that agriculture had to be restructured and that farms had to become larger and thus more competitive, as in the EU. Federal Councillor Leuthard took a similar approach when she pushed for a free trade agreement with the EU in the agricultural sector. The Doha Round failed in 2010 but the Federal Councillor continued to pursue her project. Parliament had to stop her in 2011.
  Deiss had also made no effort to advocate a special regulation for farmers, as Hans Schaffner had done in exemplary fashion at the GATT. The number of farms has almost halved in recent decades. After the war, there were once over 100,000 farms. Today there are fewer than 60,000, and they have to keep more cows because the price of milk has almost halved due to the EU.
  I can add another example here: gold. But I shall say just a few words about it: when Bretton Woods collapsed in 1972, Switzerland owned 2,600 tons of gold, which had largely been acquired by the post-war generation in particular – as a guarantee of independence and neutrality and as a provision for emergencies. This gold was a national asset – selling it was not an issue: I chose the following image at the time: Nobody in a mountain valley would think of cutting down the protective forest that offers protection against avalanches.
  That too was to change. In the 1990s, there was suddenly talk about the gold being surplus and that a large part of it could be sold – no more talk of independence, neutrality and insurance for emergencies. And indeed: a total of 1,500 tons of gold were sold for 21 billion francs – without asking the people. A vote was held – but not on the sale, only on the distribution of the proceeds. This gold would be worth around 150 billion francs today if it were still there. There is evidence to suggest that the US had exerted pressure.
  It is interesting to note that even without this gold, the Swiss franc has not lost its reputation as a “safe haven” – because of our still stable political culture. – We must continue to fight for this – also with our popular initiative on neutrality. Today, the National Bank could make good use of that gold. With the collapse of the dollar, which has only just begun, it is suffering huge losses.

A little episode in conclusion

There are probably few people who stood up for their country’s neutrality and independence during the Second World War and in the decades that followed like Federal Councillor Hans Schaffner. When Switzerland came under massive attack from the USA in the 1990s (keyword: dormant assets), the Bergier Commission investigated the allegations. Strangely enough, Hans Schaffner was not invited. He was one of the few surviving witnesses from this difficult period. He had been heading of the Central Office for War Economy at the time. In 2002, at the age of 93, he travelled to New York and published his indignation at the misplaced attacks on Switzerland in an article entitled “The Truth about Switzerland” in the New York Times. His comments were entirely in the spirit of his country’s neutrality and independence. Current Concerns has translated and reprinted the article (Current Concerns No. 33, 21 August 2002).
  Neutrality and, with it, independence – combined with a meaningful, great task such as that of good offices in our war-torn times – are still the pillars of Switzerland’s political culture today. Switzerland should stick to this path. – Hans Schaffner could be a role model for us, because he never tired of explaining this special path to his foreign colleagues, and of fighting for it. – This is exactly what we are doing with our popular initiative! •

In more detail:
Wüthrich, Werner. Wirtschaft und direkte Demokratie in der Schweiz. (Economy and direct democracy in Switzerland), Zeit-Fragen publishers, Zurich 2020; ISBN-3-909234-24-0

* Lecture at the Seminar Week 2025 of the Institut für Personale Humanwissenschaften und Gesellschaftsfragen IPHG and the Zeit-Fragen cooperative on the topic of ‘Swiss Neutrality’ from 21 April to 25 April 2025