Blocher’s initiative also has its merits

Russia’s war against Ukraine raises the question of what Swiss neutrality means in the 21st century. The Federal Council is reluctant to lead the difficult debate. He let Foreign Minister Ignazio Cassis, who wanted a redefinition, emerge in September. The government sees no need for action. It adheres to the practice of neutrality, based on a 1993 paper. Since the EU sanctions against Russia were adopted, hardly a Federal Councilor has commented on the subject. The step was compatible with neutrality, Cassis stated succinctly at the end of February.

Participation in the EU sanctions has aroused opposition. The SVP doyen Christoph Blocher sees Switzerland already “at war” and started an initiative in the summer. A committee close to the SVP launched the collection of signatures on Tuesday. It wants to enshrine “perpetual and armed neutrality” in the constitution. In principle, Bern should no longer be allowed to impose sanctions on warring states as long as the UN has not decided on them. Switzerland should only be able to take measures to prevent sanctions being circumvented via the Confederation.

The initiative wants to go behind the status quo. Neutrality is rightly not anchored as a goal in the federal constitution. It is not an end in itself, but an instrument of Swiss foreign and security policy. Although neutrality law sets limits for the Bundesrat, it still has leeway in terms of neutrality policy. The initiative would now limit this. Of course, Switzerland could not have imposed sanctions on Russia. She would be isolated in the West and would be a free rider. Cooperation, as it exists today with NATO, would also be made more difficult.

It is dangerous to exaggerate neutrality as initiates do. Retreating into a snail’s shell is the wrong way to steer Switzerland through the 21st century unscathed. Nevertheless, it is not enough to simply fight the initiative in a disdainful manner. The Federal Council must also show how the policy of neutrality can be adapted to current conditions. The referendum offers the opportunity to catch up on the discussion. Those who cling to the status quo help those who make neutrality absolute – or want to join NATO right away. The current practice from 1993 arose at a time when the UN Security Council had not yet lost its ability to act.

Switzerland rarely looks beyond its own nose. However, it only did so well with neutrality because it was also perceived as useful from abroad. That may continue to be the case in the Middle East, in Africa or in Asia. However, understanding has waned among Switzerland’s most important political and economic partners in the West.

Hardly anyone there understands why Bern prohibits the Germans from passing on ammunition to Ukraine. Of course, this is formally due to the strict War Material Act. But in the Western perception, neutrality is to blame. The former Ukrainian Foreign Minister drew this conclusion in a guest commentary in the NZZ – and he is not alone.

Switzerland has prepared the ground well to help Ukraine with its means. Secretary of State Cassis organized a conference in Lugano to set out the principles for reconstruction. The Federal Council supports Kyiv with 100 million francs to help the war-ravaged country through the winter – more money will have to follow. But in the Western perception, Switzerland is largely reduced to the controversy surrounding 12,400 rounds of ammunition and Russian oligarch funds.

Switzerland is well advised not to act under great pressure, as it did with banking secrecy. Secretary of State Cassis may have acted clumsily in the unsuccessful redefinition of neutrality. But he raised the right questions.