The Council of States rejects the Neutrality Initiative, but wants to include Neutrality more clearly in the Federal Constitution

Two committees of the Council of States at once dealt with the Neutrality Initiative (NI). The Security Policy Committee (SPC-S) did not discuss it in depth, followed the Federal Council’s message and rejected the initiative without any counter-proposal.
  The Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC-S) took the matter more seriously. It postponed the vote on the NI a total of three times, apparently discussed the proposal intensively, obtained expert opinions and studied numerous sources on Swiss neutrality. Such a way of dealing with a concern from the population (and not, as sometimes mistakenly maintained, from the centre of a political party), is an excellent example of the pre-effect of direct democracy. An initiative triggers debate and fundamental reflection can take place. In the APK-S, this also included discussing a direct counter-proposal alongside the initiative. In the end, both were rejected, but there is now a good basis for an objective debate in the Council of States.
  The Council of States discussed the NI for three hours. The votes of the members of the Council of States varied in terms of quality and content. However, the issue was discussed seriously, as same as the direct counter-proposal, which the FAC-S first proposed and then rejected. The NI was ultimately rejected, but the direct counter-proposal was accepted. The Federal Constitution shall be amended as follows:

“Art. 54a Swiss neutrality
1 Switzerland is neutral. Its neutrality is perpetual and armed.
2 The Confederation shall use the neutrality to guarantee Switzerland’s independence and security, to prevent conflicts or to contribute to the resolution of conflicts. It is available as a mediator.”

The first section is of the same content as in the NI. The following two sections of the NI were deleted. The fourth section of the NI is also adopted and even supplemented. The fourth section of the NI states: “Switzerland shall utilise its perpetual neutrality to prevent and resolve conflicts and shall be available as a mediator.” The addition to the counter-proposal emphasising the protective effect of neutrality for Switzerland’s independence and security is an important addition. However, this addition never compensates the loss of meaning of the two deleted sections!
  The omitted sections two and three contain essential demands to define Swiss neutrality in a clearer wording. Section two states that Switzerland should not join any military or defence alliance. Section three formulates the principle that Switzerland may not take part in any military conflict in between third countries, nor may it take any non-military coercive measures against belligerent nations. These aspects are fundamental to integral and comprehensive neutrality, which must be enshrined in the Federal Constitution. Only, if Switzerland stops to converge closer to NATO and if it no longer supports any economic sanctions, it will once again be regarded as a neutral country.
  It is now up to the National Council to decide on the initiative and the counter-proposal during the upcoming autumn session from 8th to 26th of September. If the National Council also votes in favour of the direct counter-proposal, both will be put to the vote. However, this will only happen if the NI committee, which consists of 27 people, does not withdraw the initiative. It must be clear that Swiss neutrality can only be credibly anchored in the Federal Constitution with the four sections of the NI.
  This will once again enable Switzerland to fully commit itself to peace in the world and to act as a mediator. It is also the best and most sustainable way to support Switzerland’s good offices and the ICRC. •

* René Roca is a secondary school teacher and holds a doctorate in history. He founded and heads the Research Institute for Direct Democracy(www.fidd.ch).