Supporters of the “Safeguard Swiss Neutrality” initiative launched their campaign in Bern on Tuesday, arguing that a Yes vote on September 27th is needed to prevent the country’s neutrality from being steadily eroded, reported RTS.
Walter Wobmann, a Solothurn MP from the Swiss People’s Party (UDC/SVP), presented the campaign to the media. As president of the Egerkingen Committee, he has already been involved in two successful popular initiatives: the 2009 ban on minarets and the 2021 ban on covering one’s face in public.
Mr Wobmann hopes to repeat those victories on September 27th, when Swiss voters and cantons will decide the fate of the neutrality initiative. His party is the only major party backing it.
Polls suggest that the proposal faces an uphill struggle. An online RTS poll found that 68% of respondents intended to vote against it. Even so, the campaign committee remains confident, claiming that the initiative also enjoys some sympathy on the left. This is not about party politics, but about Switzerland’s future, Mr Wobmann said.
A matter of principle
The initiative would write into the constitution that Switzerland’s neutrality must be permanent and armed. It would also severely restrict the country’s ability to join international sanctions. Economic sanctions would be permitted only if they had been approved by the UN Security Council.
Mr Wobmann argued that the vote concerns more than the wording of a constitutional article. It is a matter of principle concerning the place Switzerland should occupy in an uncertain world, he said. Neutrality, he argued, has defined Switzerland for generations.
The roughly 130,000 people who signed the initiative wanted to strengthen what he called a fundamental principle of the state.
The Federal Council and parliament oppose the initiative and have declined to put forward a counter-proposal. Opponents argue that Switzerland’s interpretation of neutrality must remain flexible. Mr Wobmann rejects that view, saying neutrality should not be reinterpreted. He accuses the federal authorities of seeking to weaken neutrality and move Switzerland closer to NATO.
A stronger role as mediator
Stephan Rietiker, president of Pro Suisse, argued that rising tensions between great powers made credible neutrality more important. Only such a policy, he said, could safeguard Switzerland’s freedom, security and independence. Neutrality has earned Switzerland respect abroad and kept it from aligning itself with power blocs, Mr Rietiker said. He described armed neutrality as combining military preparedness with the country’s humanitarian tradition.
He also argued that neutrality helped hold together Switzerland, a multilingual country built on political consent rather than a common language or ethnicity. Switzerland’s attractiveness as a business location, its financial centre and its open trading relationships also benefited from the policy, he said.
Mr Rietiker claimed that Swiss neutrality had recently been badly weakened and should once again be applied clearly and consistently.
Blocher attacks the government’s approach
Christoph Blocher, a former UDC/SVP federal councillor and one of the initiative’s most prominent advocates, stressed neutrality’s role in Swiss history. For small states, he argued, it can deter aggression. A potential enemy must hesitate before invading a neutral country, he said.
Mr Blocher described the government’s current, more pragmatic interpretation of neutrality as dangerous. He pointed to Russia’s designation of Switzerland as an unfriendly state after Bern joined Western sanctions imposed following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Even so, Mr Blocher acknowledged that Switzerland’s principle of neutrality would remain in place if voters reject the initiative. The question on September 27th is therefore not whether Switzerland should remain neutral, but how rigidly that neutrality should be defined in its constitution and foreign policy.
More on this:
RTS article (in French) – Take a 5 minute French test now
For more stories like this on Switzerland follow us on Facebook and X.
Leave a Reply