contents
Swiss politics has changed since the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The parties are looking for a new definition of their understanding of neutrality. Your decisions not only influence how Switzerland interprets and lives out its neutrality, but also how it is perceived abroad.
Articles of the law and certainties are changed. What seemed impossible in Swiss politics for years is suddenly made possible by Parliament in a short space of time. First of all, this was reflected in the increase in the army budget. The SVP had had no chance with the same demand four years ago. After the Russian invasion of Ukraine, it took just three months for parliament to approve a budget increase. The National Council has now approved a demand that a year ago in the Council of States was only supported by left-wing parliamentarians.
The National Council wants Switzerland to be able to independently decide on sanctions against other states, people or companies if they are involved in human rights violations. Today, at most, it accepts sanctions introduced by the UN, the EU or other trading partners. The law change may sound like a Lex Ukraine. But the SP originally raised the demand in the context of EU sanctions against China.
Consequences for Switzerland
The change of position in the middle was decisive for the decision of the National Council. This argues that Switzerland must play a more active role because of the Ukraine war. You should name the EU Russian people or companies that can be sanctioned in addition – and can lead the way themselves. The latter is not possible today based on the law.
Cooperation with the EU and other partners has gained in importance for many Swiss parties in recent months. If the amendment to the embargo law also gets through in the Council of States at the second attempt, Switzerland is sending a signal to the EU: that it is ready to take a clearer position in the future and become an actor itself. However, this sign will also be noticed in Russia or China, which could have economic and political consequences.
Is that compatible with Swiss neutrality? From a legal point of view, the answer is yes: The Hague Agreement does not dictate how neutral Switzerland should act in the area of sanctions. It only forbids her to intervene militarily in a war.
First the debate, then the decision
Politically, the question is more complex – and the parties answer it differently: SP, Greens, GLP and Mitte say yes, SVP and FDP say no or rather no. The justifications vary: the SP believes that Switzerland has a duty to play a more active role in view of Russia’s violations of international law. The center wants to adapt the concept of neutrality to the security policy interests of the country. While the SVP sees any change in sanctions practice as a threat to neutrality, the FDP wants to wait and see the broader debate on neutrality.
This debate should be interesting. However, the Swiss understanding of neutrality is shaped by concrete decisions. Make decisions like today’s in the National Council. It is still unclear whether the Council of States also sees independent sanctions as an important sign of increased cooperation – or whether they continue to dismiss them as dangerous activism.
One thing is clear: If the Councilors of States follow the positions of their parliamentary groups in the National Council, Switzerland will have a new sanctions policy. The Federal Council then has to decide whether to apply them in practice.