Menu
stage img
  • Politics

Rigid or flexible? Neutrality in the spotlight

17.07.2026 – Theodora Peter

Neutrality is part of Switzerland’s identity. But how far should it go? On 27 September, voters will decide on the “Neutrality Initiative” submitted by the right-wing Pro Switzerland association. The proposal advocates a strict interpretation of neutrality.

SVP doyen and former Federal Councillor Christoph Blocher is the mastermind behind the popular initiative “Safeguarding Swiss neutrality” (Neutrality Initiative). Blocher was unhappy that the Federal Council adopted the wide-ranging European Union sanctions against Moscow in 2022 after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Financial sanctions, the freezing of assets, and import and export bans are some of the measures now in place. This was a “breach of neutrality”, lamented Blocher. Switzerland had itself become a party to the war “for reasons of pure opportunism” and had damaged its credibility as a neutral intermediary (see “Swiss Review” 6/2022).

According to the results of a survey, a majority of the public want Switzerland to be able to impose sanctions on countries that violate international law.

An initiative subsequently tabled by Pro Switzerland – the successor organisation to AUNS (the Campaign for an Independent and Neutral Switzerland), which Blocher founded 40 years ago – now wants “perpetual, armed neutrality” to be enshrined in the constitution. This would prohibit Switzerland from joining any military or defence alliance, while cooperation with an alliance such as NATO would only be permitted in the event of a direct military attack on Switzerland. The authors of the initiative explicitly want to ban what they call “compulsory, non-military measures against warring countries” of the type Switzerland has imposed on Russia. The only exempt measures would be sanctions approved by the UN Security Council. Regarding the war in Ukraine, Russia has consistently used its veto as a permanent member of the Security Council to block any substantive resolutions.

Flexibility matters, Foreign Minister Ignazio Cassis (FDP) told parliament: “Neutrality is an instrument and not an end in itself.” Photo: Keystone

The Federal Council had cited violations of international humanitarian law as the reason for joining the EU’s economic sanctions on Russia. “Playing into the hands of an aggressor is not neutral,” Foreign Minister Ignazio Cassis (FDP) explained at the time. But the government ruled out supplying weapons and protective equipment to Ukraine. The international law of neutrality precludes Switzerland from affording preferential treatment to any warring party – and the Federal Council has so far stuck to this strict interpretation of impartiality, even if doing so weakens the effectiveness of sanctions against the aggressor.

A majority in parliament oppose the initiative

Until now, the Federal Constitution has contained no explicit definition of Swiss neutrality. But it obliges the Federal Council to take measures to safeguard Switzerland’s external security, independence, and neutrality. The Federal Council sees no reason to amend these provisions. Since the birth of the federal Swiss state in 1848, there has been a conscious choice not to make the wording more precise, Cassis explained during a debate on the Neutrality Initiative in parliament. This flexibility was necessary and had proven itself in the last 175 years. “Neutrality is an instrument and not an end in itself.”

Besides the Federal Council, a majority in parliament also oppose the initiative. Those who would vote no warn against Switzerland limiting its foreign policy options in a time of uncertainty. The initiative promises clarity but inflicts a straitjacket, said the FDP National Councillor for Aargau, Maja Riniker, during the parliamentary debate. “Maintaining neutrality by shielding ourselves from the world is utopian.” There is particular pushback on prohibiting economic sanctions against warring countries. Had Switzerland not aligned itself with the EU sanctions against Russia, “we would more or less have become Putin’s European lifeline”, said the SP National Councillor for Grisons, Jon Pult.

The SVP, the only party to support the initiative, wants the Federal Council’s interpretation of neutrality to be strictly limited. Preserving neutrality requires courage and backbone, it says. SVP National Councillor for Geneva, Céline Amaudruz: “It is not our role to be following the herd, but to keep channels open for negotiation.”

 

Former Federal Councillor Christoph Blocher – shown here (centre) submitting the Neutrality Initiative to the Federal Chancellery in April 2024 – wants a strict definition of neutrality to be enshrined in the constitution. Photo: Keystone

Most Swiss want to keep things as they are

What do the Swiss public think of neutrality? According to the results of a survey published at the start of 2026 by the Sotomo research institute, the Swiss support the principle of neutrality but do not want to change the way it is currently applied. A big majority are in favour of Switzerland not participating militarily in conflicts involving other countries. By the same token, an equally strong majority want Switzerland to be able to impose sanctions on countries that violate international law.

The survey, conducted in November 2025, showed considerable opposition to the Neutrality Initiative. Only 39 per cent said they intended to vote yes or would tend to vote yes, while 58 per cent rejected the proposal or were inclined to do so. The undecided accounted for only three percent.

There was no updated polling data available at the time of our editorial deadline. The initiative will be put to voters on 27 September. A separate initiative on food security will also be on the ballot.

Contentious arms exports

After addressing the Neutrality Initiative, the electorate will have another neutrality-related issue to think about. A vote on amending the War Materiel Act (WMA) is expected to take place at the end of November. This is after left-wing parties called a referendum opposing the bill, which aims to relax restrictions on Swiss arms exports. The conservative majority in parliament approved the revised WMA in December 2025 to help the Swiss arms industry generate more revenue. It would allow Switzerland to grant exports and re-exports of war materiel to any of 25 Western countries – including the US, Argentina, Japan, and EU and NATO countries – if these countries were ever involved in an armed conflict. This would be a change to the current export restrictions designed to prevent Swiss arms from being used in civil wars or ending up in the hands of terrorist organisations. The Federal Council can exercise its veto whenever it believes that Swiss interests are in jeopardy with regard to foreign affairs, security, or neutrality. Yet there is still a risk that Swiss weapons could circulate unchecked around the world, say opponents. Nothing will change for Ukraine, regardless of the referendum: pressure from the SVP has resulted in parliament maintaining the ban on Swiss military equipment being sent to Kyiv. (TP)

 

 

Comments

×

First name, surname and place/country of residence is required

Enter valid name

Valid email is required!

valid email address required

Comment is required!

Comment rules have to be accepted.

Please accept

* These fields are required.

top