Swiss government says neutrality permits stance on law violations

The Swiss government stated this week that neutrality does not require Bern to remain silent when international law is violated, defending the country's right to impose sanctions ahead of Sunday's referendum on stricter constitutional neutrality rules. Foreign Ministry spokesperson Pierre-Alain Eltschinger told Anadolu Agency that sanctions serve as a foreign policy instrument allowing Switzerland to respond to violations without compromising its neutral status.

"Neutrality does not mean having no position in the face of violations of international law," Eltschinger said, adding that neither international cooperation nor sanctions adoption is inherently incompatible with neutrality. He noted that the Federal Council has observed no evidence that such measures have undermined Bern's capacity to provide 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 stated, emphasizing that Switzerland continues to dedicate its diplomatic tradition and neutral stance to peace and mediation efforts.

Supporters seek to enshrine permanent neutrality

Proponents of the "Safeguard Swiss neutrality" initiative argue that Switzerland's diplomatic credibility depends on other states recognizing that its neutrality remains constant regardless of political circumstances. Geneva lawmaker Celine Amaudruz wrote this week that the country's role as a meeting place for adversaries stems from its perception as representing no bloc's interests against another. "If Switzerland has become the place where adversaries agree to meet, it is because it is not perceived as representing the interests of one bloc against another," she said.

Amaudruz warned that eroding this credibility could damage Geneva's position as an international diplomatic hub, arguing that constitutional enshrinement of permanent armed neutrality would provide certainty without forcing withdrawal from global affairs. Jean-Luc Addor, a Swiss People's Party lawmaker from Valais, contended that sanctions against Russia not mandated by UN obligations should be lifted, stating that neutrality requires being "neither on one side nor the other" in conflicts. During parliamentary debate, Addor argued that the measures had produced no effect on the war while causing Bern to lose "all credibility" in Moscow's eyes.

Opponents warn of restricted maneuverability

Liberal-Radical Party lawmaker Damien Cottier told Anadolu Agency that while the Ukraine war has altered European security perceptions, neutrality should not be mistaken for indifference. "Being neutral does not mean being indifferent," Cottier said, noting that the referendum question concerns how much flexibility neutrality should permit regarding cooperation with European neighbors against shared threats. He cautioned that the initiative's proposed changes would eliminate Switzerland's autonomy to impose economic sanctions independently of UN mandates and could restrict defensive cooperation with neighbors and NATO in areas such as air defense and cyberdefense.

Cottier stressed that such capabilities cannot be developed spontaneously during crises. "You cannot improvise it when the threat is at our doorstep," he said. Eltschinger echoed these concerns, stating that the initiative would "significantly restrict" Bern's existing room for maneuver regarding sanctions and security policy.

Voters poised to reject initiative

An SRG poll published Sept. 16 indicated that 63% of respondents intend to vote against the initiative, with 34% supporting the measure. Eltschinger said a rejection would affirm support for neutrality as Switzerland currently practices it—an approach respecting international law while maintaining flexibility to protect national interests amid evolving circumstances. For Cottier, preserving such latitude represents neutrality as a pragmatic tool serving Swiss security rather than a rigid constitutional totem.