The story so far: In addition to being a tax haven and celebrated for its chocolates, watches, and army knives, Switzerland is synonymous with neutrality, a policy that originated from the post-Napolean turbulence in Europe in the early 1800s. While the continent and the world went through several upheavals in the following decades.
What was the government’s position regarding the referendum?
The initiative was introduced by Pro Schweiz, a nationalist organisation, with former Federal Council member Christoph Blocher and his right-wing Swiss People’s Party. Officially titled ‘Safeguard Swiss neutrality’, the Initiative sought amendments in the country’s Constitution, making neutrality stricter in practice. The initiative also wanted the new article to establish that the country will not join any military alliance, take part in armed conflicts between other countries, or impose sanctions against warring party. It also wanted to make sure that Switzerland is constitutionally obliged to use its neutrality to fulfil its role as mediator. The Federal Council, a seven-member executive body which governs the country, had rejected the referendum without making any counter proposal. It was of the view that the proposals in the initiative reflects the legal obligations of a neutral state, which were already being upheld in practice by Switzerland. It noted that the initiative would impede cooperation on security policy, excluding the country from knowledge-sharing and making it less secure in the event of an attack.
One of the key triggers for the referendum was Switzerland taking part in sanctions on Russia by the European Union in 2022 in response to the invasion of Ukraine.
The major demands of the referendum were already part of the accepted neutrality provisions being practised by the country; it wanted them to be etched in stone with a new article in the Constitution stating that the neutrality is “perpetual and armed”. The “permanent neutrality” of the country by default made its position “perpetual” and abstaining from military alliances and armed conflicts was already a normal practice in the country, the council noted. It said that the demands of the initiative which went beyond the current practice could damage the country’s interests. Stricter neutrality would curtail the current flexibility that the country enjoys in its foreign policy, the council said, stressing that “room for manoeuvre” was important amid a “deteriorating security situation”, in reference to the Russia-Ukraine war.
The Federal Council, in the run-up to the vote on the initiative, was of the view that, if passed, the wording of the referendum would mandate the country lift sanctions against belligerent states, including those against Russia. Critics of the referendum have raised concerns about the impact of this, saying that the move would unfreeze Russian assets in Swiss banks. The council also sees Switzerland, as a small state, benefiting from international order being upheld and considers sanctions as a tool to respond to violations of and threats to this order. Under the initiative, Switzerland would no longer be able to join sanctions by international agencies, like the UN, on warring countries, which could affect both its interests and reputation.
