Swiss Neutrality 2.0: A change of direction in security policy?

“It would be bad if you once formed an opinion on security policy issues and then never changed it, no matter how the world develops. That would be extremely, extremely negligent,” Federal President Viola Ahed said on Thursday at a media conference on her research committee’s report. The Minister of Defense (VBS) was asked about the parliamentary impasse on various security policy issues, such as the size of the army’s budget or military cooperation with NATO and the EU.

Ahmed therefore set up a study commission to discuss various topics related to security policy in an “open-ended” manner. The federal president admitted that the composition of the group was criticized from the beginning as being “too close to Ahmed”, and Socialist politician Pierre-Alain Fridz resigned from the commission in protest four days before publication, and Green Party member Marianne Schlatter also spoke about this. It was like a farce that was seemingly calm: “I noticed this. My goal is to make the commission more diverse.” She hopes to use the report to lay the foundation for discussing future security policy. In particular, the discussion around the interpretation of neutrality is of great practical significance and importance. But this suddenly came to a standstill two years ago.

But from the beginning. “We stand together with all countries in the defence of common fundamental values,” Foreign Minister Ignazio Cassis declared at the 2022 World Economic Forum in Davos, where he first introduced the term “cooperative neutrality”. This will strengthen security policy cooperation with NATO and the EU and ease the ban on the re-export of war materials from partner countries.

Soon after, his proposal failed in the Federal Council, which explained that there was no need for a new definition of neutrality and that existing regulations were sufficient. This meant that the majority of the seven government members suppressed any discussion on the topic.

But the opposite is true. Since the outbreak of the war in Ukraine, Western partners no longer understand Switzerland’s foreign and security policy, while sensitive domestic politics have hindered important decisions. It is therefore not surprising that the research group set up by the VBS boss a year ago concluded that neutrality needs to be further developed.

Perpetrators and victims should be treated differently

The majority of the 21 commission members recommended that the neutrality policy be handled more flexibly and more in line with the UN Charter. In other words: Switzerland clearly distinguishes between aggressors and victims in a conflict. It does not do this in its regulations today, even though it supports EU economic sanctions against Russia.

This approach not only caused an uproar abroad, but also had a huge impact on the Swiss arms industry. Partner countries such as Germany, Spain or Denmark were not allowed to transfer war materials purchased in Switzerland long before the war to Ukraine.

Rheinmetall in Altdorf could have manufactured 35 mm ammunition for the Jagdpanther anti-aircraft tank. Germany wanted to pass this on to Ukraine. But Switzerland did not get the chance due to the re-export ban. Rheinmetall soon outsourced production to Germany. This meant that the country’s already small arms industry could not survive for long. Without Swiss production opportunities, armed neutrality would be naive wishful thinking.

In its nearly 70-page report, the research committee recommended that in the future Swiss war materials should be allowed to be resold by like-minded democratic countries. “Re-export bans are not understood and are no longer accepted in practice. The basic principle is that every cooperation is mutually beneficial,” the authors wrote.

Neutral 21 or Orthodox Neutrality

It’s not just the research council that sees things this way. A group around Thomas Cottier, professor emeritus of constitutional law, and René Rhinow, a liberal veteran MP, are also moving in this direction. In May, they presented a 10-point manifesto for “neutrality in the 21st century”. They also want to adapt the war material law “in line with Switzerland’s security and foreign policy interests”. Because it’s still based on the rights and obligations of the 1907 Hague Convention, an era of imperialism and colonialism. Back then, every country had the right to wage war.

But now Switzerland is a member of the United Nations. The authors of the declaration say this means they no longer have the right to treat perpetrators and victims equally. The Confederation should avoid doing anything “in favor of the aggressor.” The declaration also talks about a strong Swiss army, ready to defend jointly with NATO and the EU in the event of an attack.

The neutrality initiative proposed by the senior vice president in April aims in a completely different direction. Switzerland’s largest party wants neutrality to be written into the constitution, with the words “permanent and armed”. Sanctions against belligerent countries such as Russia would be prohibited, and cooperation with military alliances would be allowed only in the event of a direct attack. Switzerland should use good offices to prevent and resolve conflicts.

However, this orthodox interpretation of neutrality hardly resolves conflicts, but rather creates new ones, namely with Western partners. The Federal Council therefore rejected the initiative without presenting a counterproposal. It argues that it is in Switzerland’s interest to support sanctions that are widely supported by the international community and to cooperate with military and defense alliances.

“Debate alone is not enough”

The VBS research committee wants to use its report to stimulate discussion in the public and parliament. Valentin Vogt, the committee’s chairman and former president of the Swiss Employers’ Association, could not help but take a swipe at parliament at a media conference. He said the report itself does not enhance Swiss security. The palace must ultimately shoulder its responsibility: “It is not enough to discuss what parliament has done since the start of the war and what it has said in the past 30 months.” The polarisation of parliament’s work must ultimately take a back seat in favour of strengthening Swiss security.

But what now? The report was written for the Ministry of Defence and is the basis for the 2025 security policy strategy. Asked whether the Federal Council would revisit the neutrality debate, Amhed told a press conference that the topic would certainly be discussed again in one meeting. One form or another. But it is not on the agenda. The Federal Department of Foreign Affairs of Federal Councillor Ignazio Cassis is in charge of the matter. In other words, the Federal Council wanted to lead the discussion with its own report two years ago. If he had not been so rudely silent, Switzerland might already have a broad-based neutrality policy today.