Since the start of the Ukraine war, Switzerland has been discussing how neutrality should continue. Should Switzerland move closer to NATO? Should it relax its practice in arms export deals? The Federal Council has now informed about its decisions. These are “explosive”, as Bundeshaus editor Dominik Meier notes.
SRF News: How does the Federal Council want to further develop neutrality?
Dominik Meier: He doesn’t want to change anything about the policy of neutrality. That may not sound electrifying, but it is really explosive. Foreign Minister Ignazio Cassis wanted to readjust neutrality and label it as “cooperative neutrality”. SRF has received a report on the neutrality report, which has not yet been completed. In it, Cassis’ people outline the direction in which things should go: more leeway with sanctions, more cooperation with NATO, and relaxation of arms exports.
If the Federal Council were to officially relax the policy of neutrality, it would certainly be a through ball for the opposing side, i.e. for the initiators.
Specifically: Switzerland’s partner countries should be allowed to pass on tanks or other weapons purchased in Switzerland, including to countries at war such as Ukraine. But with the current decision, this direction, this concept of cooperative neutrality, is off the table.
So Cassis came up with “cooperative neutrality”. Why?
There are two main reasons circulating in federal Bern. The first is a foreign policy one. The Federal Council does not want to stir up any dust in this geopolitically sensitive situation and wants to send out the signal abroad: everything stays the same. The second reason is domestic. The right-wing political camp is currently working under the aegis of Christoph Blocher on a popular initiative for a more rigid interpretation of neutrality. If the Federal Council were to officially relax the policy of neutrality, it would certainly be a through ball for the opposing side, i.e. for the initiators.
Viola Amherd presented a new version of the security policy report. In it, she is open to moving closer to NATO. How open?
For rapprochement, but certainly not for accession. On behalf of the Federal Council, she proposes that Switzerland should focus its defense policy more consistently on cooperation. She spoke to the media about opportunities for increased cooperation. They are all compatible with neutrality, but with better use of the neutrality policy space that is already available today.
In cooperation with NATO, we see the following concrete possibilities: Participation in a wider range of exercises, including consideration of case-by-case participation in joint defense exercises.
Literally, she said: “In cooperation with NATO, we see the following concrete possibilities: participation in a broader range of exercises, including consideration of case-by-case participation in exercises for common defense.” Joint defense would be an important novelty. So far, Switzerland has only practiced scenarios such as cyber defense or peacekeeping missions with NATO, but expressly not common defense.
Aren’t the signals from the Federal Council contradictory?
Yes, that’s right. But on issues other than NATO, today’s fundamental decision is likely to have consequences for neutrality. The Federal Council is at least sending out signals against an even more flexible sanctions policy and against substantial easing of arms exports. But on the NATO issue, there is a contradiction. In the case of NATO, Amherd solves this contradiction with a bit of verbal acrobatics; instead of a new interpretation of neutrality, she speaks of leeway that the Federal Council could make better use of.
The conversation was conducted by Roger Brändlin.