Neutrality initiative: arguments instead of slogans

As soon as the popular initiative “for a neutral, cosmopolitan and humanitarian Switzerland” was submitted, the leading media chorused about it: “Blocher initiative” or “Putin initiative” was the verdict. It was intended to vilify the referendum from the outset and nip any objective discussion in the bud.
  As a political scientist and citizen, this outraged me. Because all my life I explained to my students: “In Switzerland, the most important national issues are regulated in the Federal Constitution. They are decided by the voters after a serious and factual discussion.”
  This should also apply to a popular initiative that concerns one of Switzerland’s most important political issues: the future of our country’s neutrality. It is a non-partisan issue. I support the neutrality initiative for reasons that should make sense not only to conservative-minded people, but also to liberals, left-wingers and Greens.

Why neutrality
belongs in the constitution

For decades, Swiss neutrality was something so self-evident that it was hardly ever talked about. Every child learnt that “Switzerland is neutral”. But now many hardly know what that means. Neither the children nor the voters.
  Even individual members of the Federal Council don’t seem to have much of an idea about neutrality. Otherwise, Federal Councillor Cassis would not have been able to adopt all the EU sanctions against Russia word for word after the outbreak of the war in Ukraine in spring 2022 and at the same time declare that we would remain neutral. Foreign countries reacted promptly. Both US President Biden and Russian President Putin declared in rare agreement: Switzerland is no longer a neutral state.
  Zelensky was honoured as a guest at the Bürgenstock Conference, but Putin was not invited. Recently, some military officers have been seriously preparing the concept of a Swiss detachment with helicopters for missions abroad.
  Neutrality, I ask: Who still believes in it today?

Against relativisation
and softening of neutrality

It is not enough for us to believe in neutrality ourselves. Above all, neutrality must be credible to the outside world. Unfortunately, the Federal Council has squandered this credibility to some extent over the past three years. That is why the popular initiative wants to enshrine neutrality and its basic principles in the constitution.
  The initiative now wants to visibly establish our neutrality both internally and externally in the Federal Constitution as a principle of foreign policy. This removes it to some extent from the short-term thinking of politicians and individual federal councillors. Above all, however, it strengthens the backing of a credible and reliable foreign policy. This also protects it against attempts to exert pressure from outside, as we are currently experiencing.
  I think that’s a good and sensible thing.

Not a matter of the heart,
but a principle of foreign policy

Some people have obviously forgotten what it means to be neutral. After the outbreak of the war in Ukraine, many citizens and seasoned politicians shouted indignantly: “How can we remain neutral when a large country is invading a small country? How can we still talk about neutrality when Russia is committing a crime under international law and turning thousands of innocent Ukrainians into victims of war?”
  The outrage was widespread and stifled an objective discussion. The sympathy is understandable. But neutrality is not an article of sympathy, not a matter of the heart, but the principle of foreign policy. It states that Switzerland remains independent, does not take part in wars and helps to resolve violent conflicts by peaceful means.
  The ethical foundation of neutrality is not personal morality and concern, but rather the idea of peace.
  Neutrality should also preserve the unity of the people at home. The writer Carl Spitteler taught us this in his speech “Our Swiss point of view” more than 100 years ago. Back then, at the outbreak of the First World War in 1914, the sympathies of the German-speaking Swiss were with the German Empire. The hearts of the Romands, on the other hand, beat with the French. Spitteler appealed for these one-sided sympathies to be put aside. Because if the German and French-speaking Swiss followed the voice of their hearts, it would lead to a split in Switzerland and the end of neutrality. What’s more, a divided Switzerland could be dragged into the war. Spitteler therefore called for Switzerland to maintain its own independent and neutral standpoint.
  When there is war, the Neutral [the neutral country, ed.] remains impartial towards the belligerents. Switzerland tried to do this in the First and Second World Wars and also during the Cold War, not always successfully, but nevertheless. Of course, we all have our personal sympathies and antipathies, but in terms of state policy, neutral Switzerland does not differentiate between “good” and “bad” states.
  Former US President Bush, on the other hand, did with his “axis of evil”: “Those who are in our favour are good states, those who are against us are rogue states.” This categorisation of the world into the “good” and the “bad” is the opposite of neutrality.

The ICRC as an example

The International Committee of the Red Cross is also committed to impartiality. Without equal distance from the warring parties – both the “good” and the “bad” ones – it would not be able to fulfil its humanitarian tasks. As the ICRC shows, impartiality does not mean indifference to world events. Despite its neutrality, Switzerland has made significant achievements in the humanitarian field. This began in 1871 with the reception of the 80,000 defeated soldiers of the Bourbaki army in the Jura and continued with the reception of war refugees in the world wars, from Hungary in 1956 and now with the 70,000 refugees from Ukraine.
  Humanitarian aid and the political rationality of neutrality are therefore not mutually exclusive. Heart and mind, the ethics of humanitarian aid and the ethics of responsibility of neutrality and peace are not opposites. They complement each other. This can be summarised in a catchy formula: A Yes to solidarity with the victims of war on both sides, but no to solidarity with a warring party.

More NATO is
not compatible with neutrality

Our relationship with NATO will be a tricky subject in the referendum campaign. The geopolitical situation is uncertain. European countries are arming themselves militarily, including Switzerland. Many people think: We should place ourselves under NATO’s protective shield. I think that’s a bad idea.
  One, this protective shield is not free. As a member of NATO, we would have alliance obligations instead of neutrality. Article 5 of the NATO statutes stipulates that in the event of an “armed attack” on a NATO country, the other states “will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith [...] such action [...], including the use of armed force”, as they “deem necessary”. This would of course also apply to our country.
  Two, NATO has long since ceased to be a mere defence alliance. In Afghanistan, Serbia and Libya, NATO waged wars or was involved in them – in some cases even in violation of international law and without a NATO country itself having been attacked. NATO has become the military arm of the USA in order to secure the supremacy of the West and its economic interests.
  You can think of it as good or bad. But one thing cannot be denied: NATO uses military means to intervene far beyond its borders, far beyond the borders of Europe. And it considers this to be justified: “Our security is defended not only, but also in the Hindu Kush,” said the then German Defence Minister Peter Struck in 2004. But instead of security and democracy, these interventions left behind political chaos and additional refugee flows to Europe.
  Should our children and grandchildren some day take part in such adventures?
  “Linder is painting the devil on the wall”, NATO supporters will say. “We don’t want to become a member of NATO; we just want to cooperate with the alliance on technical matters.” This sounds sensible at first and has long been the case, with fighter aircraft, airspace security and in many other military areas.
  Where are the confines? In joint manoeuvres, in joint command staffs, in troop contingents for NATO?
  Where are the red lines that are incompatible with neutrality?
  We could end up like the EU: Although we are not a member, we fulfil Brussels’ regulations and expectations more faithfully than some EU members. Our authorities could well interpret the case of an alliance with NATO as a marching order for Swiss troop contingents, citing the extraordinary situation and “flexibilized” neutrality.
  But the honest answer is: we can’t have both NATO and neutrality. We have to decide, even if it’s difficult: NATO or neutrality.

Questionable boom in sanctions

Hot heads are also turning when it comes to sanctions. Sanctions are unilateral coercive measures taken by a state, a group of states or the UN against another state. Sanctions are becoming increasingly common, and some are now talking about a real “sanctionitis”.
  Many of these sanctions violate international law and are unauthorised punitive measures by the more powerful against the weaker.
  The neutrality initiative demands that Switzerland only participates in those sanctions that are decided by the UN. The reason is simple. Although “only” issued by the Security Council and not by the General Assembly, the UN sanctions are the only ones that can claim the legitimacy of a global organisation and are binding for the entire world of states.
  This contrasts with the EU sanctions against Russia, which are controversial in other parts of the world.
  As a member of the UN, Switzerland must accept non-military UN sanctions under international law.
  In the case of non-military coercive measures imposed by other states or the EU, Switzerland takes measures to prevent these states from being circumvented via Switzerland. Switzerland does not expand trade with a warring party so that it cannot be accused of being a war profiteer.
  Some claim that waiving sanctions would restrict Switzerland’s room for manoeuvre in foreign policy. But the opposite is the case. Switzerland is currently involved in 27 sanctions. Only 14 of these have been adopted by the UN. The Federal Council would not have to support the 13 other sanctions packages adopted by the EU. Under international law, Switzerland would remain free to take its own measures. This would increase Switzerland’s room for manoeuvre in terms of trade policy. There can be no question of gagging foreign policy.
  On the contrary, as the example of Iran shows: The USA is imposing sanctions on Iran that Switzerland does not support.
  There are also fundamental arguments against many sanctions:

• They do not affect the offending governments, but the people, especially the poorest sections of the population.

• The affected population shows solidarity with the sanctioned government.

• Sanctions prolong the conflict.

• Sanctions very rarely lead to a regime change.

The problem can be illustrated by the example of Cuba. Because the USA dislikes the regime of its small neighbour, it has boycotted Cuba for over 60 years with comprehensive sanctions. Despite this, the regime is still in power. Despite impoverishment, there has been no popular uprising against the regime so far. Rather, the sanctions serve to keep the government in power, which can blame the USA for poverty and shortages. The conflict between the USA and Cuba remains unresolved because there are no negotiations on a neighbourly peace between the two parties.
  In short: sanctions follow the logic of war, not the logic of peace.

Peace efforts under
the banner of neutrality

According to the text of the initiative, Switzerland’s neutrality should expressly serve to maintain and promote peace. Switzerland is available as a mediator.
  This is more than a pious wish. After the Second World War in particular, Switzerland initiated, organised or conducted a whole series of mediation activities on behalf of international organisations. Here are a few examples:

• The Swiss/Swedish mission to monitor the ceasefire between North and South Korea (since 1953).

• The organisation of the Evian Peace Conference, which brought France and Algeria to the negotiating table and led to the end of one of the bloodiest colonial wars (1962).

• The mediation between Russia and Chechnya (1997 ff.).

• The investigation report on the war between Georgia and Russia in 2008 on behalf of the EU Council of Ministers. The Swiss report is one of the few that have been recognised by both parties to the conflict.

• The Minsk Agreements (2014/15).

• The many initiatives in the OSCE, before and during the term of office of the Swiss Secretary General, Ambassador Greminger (2017 to 2020).

Geneva has also developed into a centre of international diplomacy. Switzerland is the depositary state of around 80 international agreements, compared to Germany’s 20.
  These are achievements of Swiss diplomacy that are little recognised or are often downplayed today. Admittedly, many peace efforts have been unsuccessful. But peace-making is a demanding art. Its success depends on the willingness of the parties to actually make peace.
  However, it also requires the credible impartiality of the mediators. It is true that Switzerland is not the only actor that can conduct peace negotiations. But thanks to its neutrality, Swiss representatives have often enjoyed more trust than others to treat both parties to the conflict impartially and equally.

Neutrality must apply globally

But are all these considerations still worth anything in a time of geopolitical upheaval, in which new power blocs are emerging with China and India, the BRICS states and, in the distant future, Africa? In future, Europe will no longer be the centre of the world – neither economically nor politically. Our neutrality must also be credible for China, for India and towards all southern countries. And it must be credible towards countries with other religions or non-democracies, where two thirds of the world’s population currently live. In other words, our neutrality must prove itself globally in the future.
  The UN Peace Charter, which requires all states to renounce war and the threat of violence, must remain the guiding principle. If Switzerland wants to contribute to world peace in the future, it must stand up against violations of UN peace law from all sides.
  Such neutrality is challenging and may be politically uncomfortable. But there are also obvious economic policy advantages, for example if we do not take sides in the trade war between the USA and China. It is not national egoism if a fair foreign trade policy also takes the interests of non-Western countries and the interests of developing countries seriously. There needs to be a balance between the poor and the rich world, without which there can be no lasting peace in the world.
  Switzerland’s neutrality and its adherence to reliable principles of international law not only serve the country’s own security and domestic peace. It can also make a modest contribution to a more peaceful world.
  However, Swiss neutrality only has a future if it remains credible and reliable beyond Europe. Anchoring it in the Federal Constitution can only be an advantage. •

Source: https://www.infosperber.ch/politik/schweiz/neutralitaetsinitiative-argumente-statt-parolen/ of 16 May 2025

(Translation Current Concerns)

* Prof. em. Dr Wolf Linder taught political science at the University of Bern. In addition to academic research on Swiss democracy and democratisation in developing countries, he has produced numerous expert reports for Swiss authorities. Linder was Dean of Faculty and Ombudsperson at the University of Bern as well as a member of the SNSF Research Council and the Swiss Science Council.