OMM Redaksiyası
Switzerland’s government has said that neutrality does not require the country to remain without a position when international law is violated, ahead of a referendum on whether to impose stricter constitutional rules on its long-standing policy of neutrality.
“Neutrality does not mean having no position in the face of violations of international law,” Foreign Ministry spokesperson Pierre-Alain Eltschinger told Anadolu Agency.
He said sanctions were an instrument of Swiss foreign policy that allowed the country to respond to such violations, adding that international cooperation and the adoption of sanctions were not, in themselves, incompatible with neutrality. “The limit is set by the law of neutrality,” he said.
What the neutrality initiative proposes
The remarks come ahead of the Sept. 27 vote on the “Safeguard Swiss neutrality” initiative. The proposal seeks tighter restrictions on Switzerland’s ability to impose sanctions on states involved in armed conflicts and would limit cooperation with military and defence alliances.
The debate has intensified since Switzerland adopted European Union sanctions against Russia following Moscow’s war in Ukraine. Supporters of the initiative say those measures have weakened Switzerland’s credibility as a neutral actor.
Eltschinger said the Federal Council had seen no indication that sanctions had undermined Switzerland’s ability to offer its traditional good offices.
“The Federal Council does not find that Switzerland’s adoption of international sanctions has called into question its ability to offer its good offices,” he said. “Switzerland continues to put its tradition of dialogue and its neutrality at the service of peace and mediation.”
Supporters call for firmer constitutional limits
Supporters argue that Switzerland’s credibility depends on other countries knowing that its neutrality will not shift according to political circumstances.
Geneva lawmaker Celine Amaudruz, who supports the initiative, said Switzerland had become a venue where adversaries could meet because it was not perceived as representing the interests of one bloc against another.
She warned that weakening the credibility of Swiss neutrality could affect Geneva’s position as an international diplomatic hub. Amaudruz said enshrining permanent and armed neutrality in the Constitution would provide greater certainty without requiring Switzerland to withdraw from international affairs.
Russia-related sanctions are a particular point of contention. Jean-Luc Addor, a Swiss People’s Party lawmaker from Valais who supports the initiative, has argued that sanctions against Russia not required by Switzerland’s United Nations obligations should be lifted.
Addor has said neutrality means being “neither on one side nor the other” in a conflict. He argued that the sanctions had produced no effect on the war while Bern had lost “all credibility” in Moscow’s eyes.
Opponents warn of reduced room for manoeuvre
Damien Cottier, a Liberal-Radical Party lawmaker from Neuchatel who opposes the initiative, said the war in Ukraine had changed perceptions of security in Europe but warned against confusing neutrality with indifference.
“Being neutral does not mean being indifferent,” Cottier told Anadolu Agency.
He said the issue was not whether Switzerland should remain neutral, a principle he described as broadly accepted, but how much room neutrality should leave the country to cooperate with European neighbours against common threats and respond to serious violations of international law.
Cottier said the initiative’s two most significant changes concerned sanctions and security cooperation. If approved, he argued, Switzerland could lose the ability to autonomously impose economic sanctions on a belligerent when such measures were not mandated by the United Nations.
He also warned that the proposal could restrict cooperation with neighbouring countries and NATO in defensive areas such as air defence and cyberdefence, where training, compatible equipment and coordination must be developed before a crisis emerges.
“You cannot improvise it when the threat is at our doorstep,” he said.
Eltschinger likewise said the initiative would “significantly restrict” Switzerland’s existing room for manoeuvre, particularly on sanctions and security cooperation.
If voters reject the proposal, he said, the result would support the current understanding of neutrality — one that respects international law, including the law of neutrality, while allowing sufficient flexibility to protect Switzerland’s interests as circumstances evolve.
“The Federal Council believes that room for manoeuvre is important to allow Switzerland to preserve its security, independence and prosperity and to contribute to peace,” Eltschinger said.
The latest SRG poll, published on Sept. 16, showed that 63% of respondents intended to vote against the initiative, while 34% supported it.
Cottier said retaining flexibility did not amount to abandoning neutrality. “I advocate neutrality understood as a pragmatic tool serving Switzerland’s security and international credibility, and not as a totem that should be rigidly enshrined in the Constitution,” he said.
He added that Switzerland should continue dialogue with nearly all sides, expand partnerships and offer its good offices while strengthening Geneva’s international role.
