For a small country like Switzerland, there is only one option: perpetual armed neutrality

Current Concerns: One of the main objectives of the strategy (The Security Policy Strategy of Switzerland 2026) is to expand military cooperation with the EU and NATO. The Federal Council is seeking a security and defence partnership with the EU and an “Individually Tailored Partnership Programme” with NATO. It is supported in this by the security committees of the National Council and the Council of States. How is this compatible with Switzerland’s neutrality?
    Lukas Reimann: It is completely incompatible with Switzerland’s neutrality; it is diametrically opposed to Switzerland’s neutrality. For centuries, Switzerland has relied on maintaining perpetual armed neutrality, and the law of neutrality – I myself studied the law of neutrality and even wrote my bachelor’s thesis on the law of neutrality – clearly regulates that as a neutral country, you are not allowed to enter into military cooperation with a direct party to a war. And NATO is a direct party to a war. And I also believe in general, when I look at the global political situation where power politics comes to a head, that there is only one option for a small country like Switzerland, and that is neutrality, perpetual armed neutrality. This is fundamentally at odds with the increasing number of exercises together with NATO, the transit of NATO troops through Switzerland, and also to the rapprochement with the EU, which with its Common Foreign and Security Policy also wants to increasingly build up its own army. These objectives of the strategy are diametrically opposed to the core and essence of Switzerland, and we must not allow this to happen.
    However, it should be noted that this already began in 2003 with Army XXI. At that point, they had already started to align officer ranks with NATO standards and conduct tank exercises between the Swiss Air Force and NATO. This is now intensifying once again on a massive scale. Army XXI was a small step toward NATO, but all these programs that have been introduced in recent years and are to be consolidated with this security policy strategy are almost like the EU framework agreement. There, it is an entry into EU without membership; here, it is actually passive NATO membership.

You have already mentioned participation in NATO’s Article 5 exercises. These are to be explicitly institutionalized with the strategy. This is – quote: “compatible with neutrality.” In addition, the Federal Council wants to allow foreign troops and weapons to pass through and fly over Switzerland – quote: “in compliance with the law of neutrality.” What do you think?
    The law of neutrality clearly stipulates – as stated in the Hague Convention on the rights and obligations of neutral states! – that a neutral state may not allow foreign troops on its territory. This is completely incompatible with neutrality. I just find that so deceitful. Either the Federal Council has the courage to stand up and tell the people that we are now breaking with neutrality, but then I believe the people will not follow it. Or it stands by neutrality. But what it is doing now is talking about neutrality but doing the opposite. This is very damaging to the army; it is damaging to the independence and freedom of Switzerland. The essence of Switzerland is being destroyed, and not only externally. Credibility abroad is dwindling, but credibility at home is also dwindling. We are a very diverse country. We have different cultures. Some sympathize with these, others with those. This is very impressive to see in Carl Spitteler’s speech to the Swiss people during the First World War. There are stories that they cheered for France in the barracks in western Switzerland and for the German emperor in German-speaking Switzerland. Spitteler then called out: Hey, we are neutral, we sympathize with no one, we stick together as Switzerland. I think such a call is urgently needed again today. Even if you personally sympathize with someone, Switzerland as a country must remain neutral.
    And I also believe that the only thing we as a small country can give to the world are Switzerland’s good offices, diplomacy, and therefore we need neutrality. The foreign policy committee was recently invited to Lausanne by the Olympic Committee. They told us: We have our headquarters here in Switzerland because you are neutral, because from here we can negotiate with sports associations in every country in the world. The same applies to the ICRC in Geneva. It has its headquarters in Switzerland precisely because we are a neutral country. This gives them the opportunity to help both sides in every conflict. We are putting a lot at stake today. I believe that with this policy, we are causing enormous damage to international Geneva, because credibility is lost when you are not seen as neutral by both sides. But the crucial thing is credibility, is reality – how do you really behave?

How do you see the significance of the neutrality initiative in connection with the Federal Council’s security policy strategy?
    The initiative could not be more important. When you look at this strategy, it is completely clear that the Federal Council wants to break with neutrality. The problem today is that the Constitution does not define clearly what neutrality is. And it is precisely this gap that the neutrality initiative wants to close. That we have perpetual armed neutrality, that we do not adopt EU sanctions, that we do not allow foreign troops to pass through Switzerland. I would also like to say something about the NATO “case for the alliance” exercises. These are war exercises that take place directly on NATO’s outer border with a war zone. Switzerland simply has no business being involved in this, no matter which side it is on. A neutral country has no business participating in war exercises. Our military must focus on self-defence within our own country and on disaster control which is also highly valued abroad. We must be able to defend our own country. And Switzerland does not defend itself in the way a German defence minister once said: “Our country is also defended in the Hindu Kush.” We defend Switzerland at the Swiss border and nowhere else.

Another worrying aspect of this strategy is the so-called “combating of influence activities and disinformation”. Under this label, the Federal Council wants to steer public opinion and monitor the expression of opinions, including school curricula. Are we heading towards the abolition of the fundamental right to freedom of expression, following the example of the EU, as we are currently witnessing with Jacques Baud?
    Unfortunately, yes. I am shocked by these plans, because this is not about protecting freedom of expression. This is actually disinformation. We are playing with words here. People are being told that we want to protect freedom of expression. From whom? From what? So far, I have seen no disinformation from abroad in Switzerland and no evidence of it. And now, based on these allegations, school curricula shall be rewritten, people shall be influenced, state money be used to steer people in a certain direction! In the past, I would have said this is Orwell, but today it is reality. Jacques Baud is a Swiss citizen who freely expressed his opinion, and Switzerland is not protecting him at all. I even had the impression that certain people in Bern were pleased about his sanctioning. I find it very dangerous when something like this happens, very dangerous for democracy.
    I do believe that we perhaps need a kind of intellectual national defence for the young people again, that they should do military service, participate in democracy, join associations, get to know Switzerland’s militia system. But I envision something completely different than Federal Councillor Pfister, who is fully on board with this EU-NATO track. Anything that does not follow this line of policy is then disinformation, foreign propaganda and who knows what else. In my opinion, the opposite is true: EU-NATO is foreign propaganda, and we want to continue on the proven Swiss path.

Finally, a question of state policy. The Federal Council wants to adopt this strategy after the consultation process in the second half of the year, then the two chambers are to “discuss it without taking a decision”. Does that mean that Parliament and the Swiss people have no say in this programme?
    We are already participating in this NATO training programme, the “Individually Tailored Partnership Programme”. That has already been decided. The approach taken was that the Federal Council informed the Foreign Policy Committees, but said that this was a matter of foreign policy and therefore the responsibility of the Federal Council. It only had to consult us and could then do whatever it wanted.
    I see it quite differently. These are such far-reaching steps. Joining an alliance is subject to the decision of the people and the cantons. The 2026 Security Policy Strategy is at least a partial accession to an alliance. So it would have to be submitted at least to parliament and, as a minimum, to an optional referendum. I firmly believe that a referendum would also be held on this issue. We will certainly have to submit a motion in Parliament that it has to be subject to a mandatory or maybe an optional referendum, so that the people have the final say on this issue. But I believe that the Federal Council is shying away from the opinion of the people, as it did with the EU agreements, because neutrality is fortunately still very strongly anchored as part of the DNA of the Swiss people.

Why is the Federal Council holding a consultation? Isn’t that designed to ensure that the bill is then submitted to Parliament and that it is then subject to a referendum, or not?
    In this constellation, the consultation seems to me to be a mere sham consultation, so that the Federal Council can then say: the vast majority of the cantons and all the major associations are of the same opinion as us, it is completely unobjectionable, and we can now simply push it through. But I would like to see more resistance from the military itself, especially on issues like this. I mean, these are seasoned, intelligent officers, and they can see what is happening here. I do wonder why there is not more resistance out of the Federal Department of Defence, Civil Protection and Sports (DDPS) as well. Or have all those who are not NATO-compliant been weeded out in the meantime?

Thank you very much for the informative conversation, Mr Reimann. •