Swiss voters reject neutrality initiative that would have restricted sanctions

Swiss voters rejected an initiative to define neutrality more strictly on 27 September, leaving the government’s existing room to adopt sanctions and cooperate on security in place. SRF reported that 70.2% voted No. The proposal would have allowed economic sanctions only when authorised by the UN Security Council, a restriction with direct relevance to Switzerland’s response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

The result was broad across the country. SRF reported that every canton rejected the proposed constitutional change. The No vote was strongest in Basel-Stadt, at 79.9%, and narrowest in Ticino, at 51.8%. Only 149 of Switzerland’s 2,105 municipalities supported the new article, according to the broadcaster. The vote decided how neutrality would be defined in the constitution; it did not end Switzerland’s policy of neutrality.

What the initiative would have changed

The initiative sought to write ‘perpetual and armed neutrality’ explicitly into the constitution. It would have barred Switzerland from joining or cooperating with a military or defence alliance, except when the country was under attack or facing an imminent attack. It also sought to prevent Swiss participation in military conflicts between other countries and to give neutrality a greater role in Switzerland’s work as a mediator, SRF reported.

Its sanctions provision would have permitted economic sanctions only with UN Security Council authorisation. Measures intended to stop sanctions being evaded would still have been possible, according to SRF’s account of the proposal. The distinction matters because Switzerland adopted European Union sanctions against Russia after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, which SRF identifies as the event after which the initiative was launched.

The argument over neutrality

The Swiss People’s Party, known as the SVP, and Pro Schweiz backed the initiative. Its supporters argued that a stricter approach would help keep Switzerland out of foreign conflicts and protect its security. They also argued that sanctions often hurt civilians rather than those responsible for a conflict, and that a neutral country with a humanitarian role should generally avoid them, SRF reported.

The government and parliament opposed the proposal, as did all major parties other than the SVP, according to SRF. Opponents argued that existing policy gives Switzerland flexibility to cooperate with other countries on security and to adopt sanctions when it considers them necessary to uphold international law and order. The BBC reported that Russia openly backed the initiative; the vote result alone cannot establish how that position affected individual voters.

Foreign Minister Ignazio Cassis said in a televised debate, as quoted by the BBC, that ‘neutrality has always been applied with a degree of flexibility’ and that ‘neutrality does not mean indifference.’ The BBC also reported that Switzerland had no plans to lift its ban on arms sales to countries in conflict, including Ukraine. Rejecting the initiative did not itself announce a change to that position.

Lukas Golder, co-director of the research institute Gfs.bern, told SRF that ‘neutrality is not being questioned’ and said the government and politicians should retain room for manoeuvre. He told the BBC that the result showed support for sanctions against Russia. Those are Golder’s interpretations of the vote, rather than a measure of each voter’s reason for opposing the initiative.

A long-standing policy, a current choice

Switzerland has been recognised as neutral under international law since 1815, SRF reported, and neutrality was included in its federal constitution when the modern state was founded in 1848. The September vote concerned the rules governing that policy today: whether to impose new constitutional limits on sanctions and security cooperation. With the initiative rejected, those proposed limits will not take effect. The reporting reviewed for this article does not establish a subsequent government decision on sanctions or alliance cooperation.