Neutrality as an achievement of the enlightenment

Following the Thirty Years’ War, the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 set important precedents in peace policy, including the principles of amnesty for those involved in the war and religious tolerance. These were also central elements of the early Enlightenment, which were later continued with the development of international law (including Emer de Vattel as a representative of the Western Swiss School of Natural Law) and with the discourse on human rights. Such elements were also important for the neutral Swiss Confederation, which was drawn into the armed conflicts, particularly the “Grisons Troubles”. Switzerland also became a sovereign state with the Peace of Westphalia. Twenty-six years later, in 1674, the Swiss Diet officially designated Switzerland a ‘neutral country’ for the first time. However, the conclusion of defensive alliances remained permissible, and the Swiss Confederation was entangled in numerous alliances. This led to contradictions, and power-political interests repeatedly blocked peaceful development. Nevertheless, the declared neutrality of multicultural and multireligious Switzerland increasingly brought about the desired unity. The Confederation also succeeded in keeping itself out of the European wars of religion, conquest and succession of the early modern period. By 1647, armed neutrality had also taken on a more defined form with the “Defensionale of Wil”, the first federal military code. Thanks in part to its neutrality, the Confederation also initiated comprehensive arbitration proceedings as part of its foreign policy and made a name for itself as a mediator. Mercenary services, too, came under increasing criticism and were eventually banned.

What does Swiss neutrality mean?

The Congress of Vienna in 1815 and the founding of the federal state in 1848 were important milestones in strengthening Swiss neutrality, both nationally and internationally. The Hague Peace Convention of 1907 reinforced the neutral foundation of the Swiss Confederation significantly. Although over a hundred years old, this Peace Convention is still regarded today as customary international law. It sets out the rights and obligations of a neutral country. These are principles that reflect the achievements of the Enlightenment and modern natural law. Essentially, this means that Switzerland must not participate in wars waged by other states (a principle now further reinforced by the strictest possible legislation on war material). It must not attack anyone nor participate in any military alliances (such as NATO today). Switzerland must continue to ensure its self-defence within the framework of armed neutrality and must treat the belligerents equally. It must not provide mercenaries for warring parties. In this context, the “modern military services” provided by Swisskoy in Kosovo within the framework of NATO should finally be scrutinised. A further duty of a neutral country is not to make its own territory available to the warring parties, as well as the right to the inviolability of its own territory.
    Neutrality is based on the experience that conflicts cannot be resolved by force, but only by addressing their causes. Neutrality requires us to follow conflicts closely, to process them, and not to “look the other way”. Only a consistent stance of neutrality can keep Switzerland out of conflicts. The neutral state must focus on the conflict itself and not on a specific party involved in the conflict. By not supporting one side of a conflict unilaterally, neutral Switzerland can contribute to conflict resolution by offering mediation and reaffirm its role as a protective power. The Federal Council and Parliament has to clearly reject violence, war and terror from all sides, call for dialogue, and in doing so best promote peace. The uncompromising stance of neutral Switzerland is also central to our country’s internal cohesion. Instead of moralising, Switzerland – that is, the Federal Council and Parliament – must consistently refrain from power politics. In doing so, Swiss citizens and the media need not remain ideologically neutral, but may form a critical opinion on any conflict and publicly express it. In this way, neutrality also protects a country’s freedom of expression.

Neutrality under pressure

Warring parties seeking to assert their superiority refuse to view the emergence and causes of conflicts as processes. For these reasons, warring parties relying on their superiority have no interest in neutral positions that could relativise their claim to dominance, either through argument or territorially. Warring parties striving for supremacy will therefore combat the neutral position, either openly or covertly. The ongoing, multifaceted attacks by the US on Switzerland must also be viewed in this context. Hegemony – particularly that of the US – shapes media coverage, increasingly diverting attention away from the temporal and spatial dimensions of conflict processes. As a result, the conflict becomes increasingly obscured in terms of its origins, causes and development, and the clarity of the sequence of events is veiled. Consequently, the root causes of the conflict remain obscure, and all that is visible is what the relevant hegemonic power stages for media effect, decides upon without any significant opposition, and implements more or less ruthlessly.

The Deconstruction of Neutrality

Belligerents seeking to assert their power perceive a neutral stance as a potential constraint. They therefore accuse the neutral party of acting in the interests of the opposing side. Attempts to deconstruct neutrality – portraying it as everything from a bystander turning a blind eye to a secret ally of the opposing belligerent – serve the interests of those eager for war and should be better explained. “We must simply bear in mind the fact that, fundamentally, no member of a belligerent nation considers a neutral stance to be justified. He can do so with his intellect, if he strains it mightily, but he cannot do so with his heart.” Carl Spitteler (1845–1924) said this over 100 years ago. This is where opponents of neutrality still latch on today with their propaganda and their nonsensical insinuations. This is not “mainstream”, but manipulation of public opinion: neutrality is denigrated as misconduct, as spying for the other warring party. Yet the traitor is not the neutral party, but the one who seeks to sell Switzerland out from behind its back to hostile foreign alliances. The Federal Council’s security policy strategy of 12 December 2025 bears eloquent witness to this. Of the roughly 60 pages, only 1½ are devoted to neutrality. The National Council debate on the subject of neutrality during the spring session was also more than modest, and unlike that of the Council of States, it was shallow and devoid of substance.
    Thomas Cottier (see “Neue Zürcher Zeitung” of 30 March 2026) and René Rhinow (see “Neue Zürcher Zeitung” of 7 April 2026) are also “architects” of such deconstruction. They apparently wish to revert to a pre-Enlightenment era, speak of “situational neutrality” (Rhinow) and thus attempt to promote an unspeakable “cherry-picking” approach by Switzerland. Rhinow continues: “In plain language: to be and remain neutral when it serves our security, and to abandon it when weighty foreign, economic and security policy reasons take precedence.” As lawyers, Cottier and Rhinow are thus indulging in legal positivism and bluntly calling for Switzerland to be integrated into the centralist misconstructions of the EU and NATO. Both organisations are calling for a “war-ready Europe” and seek to achieve this through alliance politics and rearmament, just as on the eve of the First World War.

Swiss neutrality beyond vassalage

The path for Europe to emerge from this hopelessly tangled situation and return to the universal mission of the Enlightenment lies through neutrality. This must be the contribution of the renewal of Swiss neutrality, and therefore a clear definition of it must be enshrined in the Federal Constitution with the help of the Neutrality Initiative. For Swiss neutrality is the result of its unique social and economic development, which from an early stage was oriented towards mutual economic benefit rather than colonial expansion. The restoration of the achievements of the Enlightenment, which includes neutrality, ultimately leads to the goal of a confederated Europe.
    Switzerland must stand outside slavish alliance obligations and vassalage. In this way, it can afford to hold an independent, well-founded opinion and remain in dialogue with all parties. Swiss neutrality is a political mandate for Switzerland that transcends all parties. The people’s need for peace must take precedence over power-political interests. Only if Switzerland’s political independence can be defended will it be possible to safeguard and further develop the achievement of an enlightened, liberal view of humanity. Those who have so far put forward the narrative of the “SVP” or “Putin initiative” are merely evading the question of the causes of the increasing conflicts. In doing so, they accept, partly unconsciously or with resignation, the ongoing process of disenfranchisement. •

An abridged version of this article appeared in the “Neue Zürcher Zeitung” on 30 April 2026.

* Hans Bieri, Swiss Association for Agriculture and Industry (SVIL), member of the Neutrality Initiative committee; René Roca, Research Institute for Direct Democracy (FIDD), member of the Neutrality Initiative committee.