Swiss sanctions policy against Venezuela

“Me sött de Pilet go laa!” (We should let Pilet(-Golaz) go) – with this play on words, our ancestors demanded the resignation of Federal Councillor Marcel Pilet-Golaz, head of the Federal Department of Political Affairs (now the FDFA), during the Second World War because he tended to give in to the constant threats and pressure from the Nazi war machine. At that time, our country was in real danger, and when our big neighbour France surrendered in June 1940, the then Federal President Pilet-Golaz called for restraint and compliance with Germany in a radio address, thereby jeopardising Switzerland’s sovereignty and neutrality. Fortunately, we had General Henri Guisan at that time! A month later, in July 1940, he responded to this weak stance in a unique way with the Rütli Report, which was both fundamental and unforgettable. The vast majority of the population felt strengthened in their own will to resist by the highly esteemed General Guisan and rejected the weakness of the Federal Council.
    Unfortunately, today we have no figurehead anywhere near the stature of Henri Guisan, neither in the Federal Council nor, indeed, in the Swiss army (where senior officers who take a stand for neutrality and against NATO membership are systematically weeded out!). This makes it all the more important for us citizens to take action.
    The current head of the FDFA, Ignazio Cassis, constantly demonstrates his admiration and zeal for Western power politics and, accordingly, tramples on Switzerland’s obligations to neutrality and human rights. This is evident in his failure to protect Swiss citizens Nathalie Yamb and Jacques Baud and, once again, in his uncritical adoption of EU sanctions, this time against Venezuelan citizens. It is time for a clear “Me sött de Cassis go laa!” (Cassis must go!).
    A sitting head of state was attacked by the Trump administration in his own country with armed force and shipped abroad in handcuffs. Many countries around the world condemned this criminal act, which violated international law and human rights, in no uncertain terms. But not Switzerland. Instead, on 5 January 2026, the Federal Council announced that it had “decided to freeze any assets in Switzerland belonging to Nicolás Maduro and other persons associated with him with immediate effect.”¹ 

Sanctioning of “politically exposed persons” and collective punishment

The associated ordinance² is based on the Federal Act of 18 December 2015 on the “Freezing and the Restitution of Illicit Assets held by Foreign Politically Exposed Persons (FIAA)”. It is therefore apparently sufficient for someone to be a “foreign politically exposed person” for the “constitutional state” of Switzerland to be able to arbitrarily freeze their assets. Proof that the assets were “unlawfully acquired”, as required by the underlying federal law, is not required.
    Members of the current Venezuelan government are not affected by the asset freeze, according to the Federal Council. However, this distinction is problematic: who decides who belongs to the “current” government? The annex to the ordinance of 5 January 2026 lists 37 names of individuals subject to sanctions, including numerous members of the government, marked with the adjective “former”. For example, next to Nicolás Maduro’s name is written “former President of Venezuela”. However, he and the other “former” members of the government and senior officials were not removed from office by the population or parliament. This means that someone who is still effectively in government may be on the list, such as the current interim president Delcy Rodríguez, who, according to media reports, was sanctioned by Switzerland under an earlier regulation from 2018. In addition to various “former” ministers and directors of banks or energy companies, all kinds of relatives such as wives, brothers, sons, daughters or cousins, even Nicolás Maduro’s stepsons, are also on the list – collective punishment? Furthermore, “close ties” to a sanctioned person, or even “close ties to Hugo Chávez”, the long-deceased former president, are sufficient grounds for the freezing of assets.

Once again:
uncritical adoption of EU sanctions

In its press release of 5 January 2026, the Federal Council does not reveal from whom it copied its hasty sanctions and the list of those sanctioned. However, he refers to his earlier sanctions from 2018, stating that the new ban is “complementary” to them. Anyone who takes the trouble to read the 2018 press release will find the answer. It states: “On 28 March 2018, the Federal Council imposed coercive measures against Venezuela. Switzerland is thus joining the sanctions imposed by the EU on the grounds of human rights violations and the undermining of the rule of law and democratic institutions.”³ The reasoning at the time: “The Federal Council is very concerned about the repeated violations of personal freedoms in Venezuela, where the principle of separation of powers is being disregarded and numerous irregularities have occurred in the run-up to the upcoming elections.” How dare the EU and Switzerland interfere in the internal affairs of a sovereign state and impose sanctions without a mandate from the UN Security Council!
    What is also astonishing is the remark in the current press release of 5 January that this is merely a matter of securing assets for possible future legal proceedings. Just because someone might bring a case against me at some point, my assets have to be frozen as a precautionary measure? Whether they were acquired legally or not will only be determined in court. Goodbye, rule of law!

And the icing on the cake: no statement from the Federal Council on the criminal attack by the USA

One would expect a neutral state to at least issue a statement on the criminal attack on another state and the capture and abduction of a foreign head of state from his own territory. Not a word about this in the Federal Council’s press release. We do not want to withhold from our readers the text that once again demonstrates the disastrous state of the Swiss government: “On 3 January 2026, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro was arrested by US forces in Caracas and transferred to the US. […] Switzerland has called for de-escalation, restraint and compliance with international law, including the prohibition of the use of force and the principle of respect for territorial integrity. Switzerland has also repeatedly offered its good offices to all sides and is endeavouring to find a peaceful solution to the situation.”⁴ (emphases mw)
    It seems that the Federal Council and its administrative team urgently need a lesson in neutrality law and policy, as well as the rule of law! Such a blatant failure to take a stance is almost inconceivable – and then, after the violent act, to call for “de-escalation, restraint and compliance with international law”! Perhaps the Federal Council is referring to the Venezuelans? And who has disregarded “territorial integrity”? And last but not least, offering “good offices” – as a label that can be used to cover up any act contrary to neutrality?

Neutrality initiative is urgently needed

This whole outrageous story from the Federal Government in Bern confirms how urgently the neutrality initiative and the discussion about it are needed among the population!
    Paragraph 3 of the initiative contains an important provision on the prohibition of economic sanctions:

3 Switzerland shall not participate in military conflicts between third countries and shall not take any non-military coercive measures against belligerent states. This does not apply to obligations towards the United Nations (UN) or measures to prevent the circumvention of non-military coercive measures taken by other states.

If the Swiss people approve the initiative, economic sanctions against other countries will no longer be permitted. How can a neutral country contribute to entire populations, such as the Venezuelans, being forced to live in economic misery? How can Switzerland freeze individuals’ bank accounts, potentially causing them hardship, without a court ruling and without legal recourse? It is outrageous that Western countries, which have bled Venezuela’s economy dry with severe sanctions for years, are now trying to blame the Venezuelan government for the country’s poor economic situation!

4 Switzerland uses its perpetual neutrality to prevent and resolve conflicts and is available as a mediator.

Regarding the Federal Council’s assertion that it has “repeatedly offered its good offices to all sides in the conflicts surrounding Venezuela and endeavoured to find a peaceful solution to the situation”, it should be noted that Switzerland can only carry out genuine peace work within the meaning of paragraph 4 of the neutrality initiative on the basis of its perpetual neutrality. The first prerequisite for offering good offices is the confidence of all parties involved in Switzerland’s impartiality. The Federal Council has squandered this confidence with many countries in recent years with its policies that run counter to neutrality. Regaining this confidence through the careful and trust-building neutrality and peace policy that Switzerland has built up over centuries is an important goal of the neutrality initiative.   •

¹   “Federal Council freezes any assets held by Nicolás Maduro in Switzerland”. Media release of
5 January 2026
²   “Ordinance on the freezing of assets in connection with Venezuela (Venezuela Ordinance)” of
5 January 2026
³   “Sanctions against Venezuela”. Federal Council press release of 28 March 2018
⁴   “Federal Council freezes any assets held by Nicolás Maduro in Switzerland”. Media release of
5 January 2026