On September 27, 2026, Swiss voters will decide on the Neutrality Initiative.
But why is this initiative even necessary, given that neutrality has been enshrined in the Federal Constitution
since 1848 and 89 percent of Swiss citizens support it?
The Federal Council asserts that the outcome of the vote does not call Switzerland's neutrality into question.
But is that really the case? Ultimately, this is a matter of how one interprets neutrality.
The Neutrality Initiative was launched because its proponents believe that neutrality is not enshrined clearly
enough in the Federal Constitution and has been increasingly diluted and watered down in recent years.
That is why the initiative calls for a stricter policy of neutrality and seeks to include a new article in
the Constitution to further enshrine this principle,
● “that Switzerland’s neutrality is perpetual and armed;
● that Switzerland shall not join any military or defense alliance nor cooperate with such an alliance, unless Switzerland
is under military attack or such an attack is being prepared;
● that Switzerland does not participate in military conflicts between third countries and
does not impose sanctions on belligerent states.
Excluded are United Nations (UN) sanctions and measures to prevent the circumvention of sanctions;
● that Switzerland uses its neutrality to its advantage in its role as a mediator.
"The Federal Council and Parliament reject the Neutrality Initiative without a counterproposal."
This program analyzes the positions of the Federal Council and Parliament and places them in a broader context.
The aim is to determine whether it stands up to critical scrutiny.
Federal Council: “Switzerland is permanently neutral.”
"Its neutrality is therefore already eternal."
As I said, this is a matter of how we define “neutrality.”
The vote is crucial for defining Swiss neutrality.
Federal Council: “As a permanently neutral state, Switzerland does not currently belong to
any military or defense alliance (such as NATO).”
A "yes" vote on the neutrality initiative is intended to ensure that this remains the case in the future.
After all, individual politicians repeatedly raise the possibility of NATO membership
or, at the very least, closer ties with NATO.
Federal Council: “Security cooperation (with defense alliances such as NATO) would be hampered by the initiative. (…)
This would have serious consequences for Switzerland's security:
"She would be (...) less well protected in the event of an attack."
Is that really true?
The key question is whether NATO can actually guarantee security and peace—or whether, on
the contrary, it actually jeopardizes them.
The NATO documentary explored this question and found the following:
In Europe, the possibility of war is more real than it has been at any time since World War II.
For decades, it has been evident that NATO has been fueling the entire war-mongering agenda, whether through propaganda, threats
such as NATO's eastward expansion, or actual military buildup.
Kla.TV examined some of NATO's most significant official operations, such as the one in Yugoslavia
in 1999, Afghanistan after 9/11, and Libya in 2011.
All these wars have one thing in common:
The evils inflicted by the war were greater than the supposed injustice it was meant to
eliminate in order to secure peace in the country.
This violates the principle of international humanitarian law.
And these wars have one more thing in common:
They were based on lies.
In his book *Illegal Wars: How NATO Countries Sabotage the UN*, Swiss historian Dr. Daniele Ganser has demonstrated how illegal
wars have been waged—both in the past and in the present—without a case for collective defense and without an explicit UN mandate.
NATO cannot, therefore, be regarded as a guarantor of “peacekeeping” —certainly not in Europe, and certainly not for
the small country of Switzerland, which, thanks to its neutrality, has successfully stayed out of wars for 200
years and is equipped with its own army in case of an attack.
Federal Council: “Switzerland already refrains from participating in military conflicts between third countries.”
No, not exactly.
However, the initiative is intended to ensure that this remains the case in the future and that Switzerland does
not participate in military conflicts, even indirectly.
Even those who participate in sanctions—such as Switzerland in the war in Ukraine—are taking sides.
Anyone who supplies weapons to war zones is not neutral either.
Although it is currently prohibited to export Swiss military equipment to countries
involved in internal or international conflicts,
However, as federal official statistics show, this ban was nevertheless openly circumvented.
According to this report, Switzerland exported 17.5 billion francs worth of weapons from
1975 to 2016—most of them to warring parties!
In addition, there have been repeated discussions in the past about possible relaxations of the arms export regulations.
The Federal Council has now proposed granting the national government the authority to export
military equipment to 25 countries, even if those countries are involved in armed conflicts.
In principle, the transfer of weapons should also be permitted.
In contrast, the referendum titled “No Swiss Weapons in War Zones” was successfully launched in the spring of 2026.
Now it must be put to a vote by the Swiss people.
Federal Council: “Switzerland already implements all UN sanctions.”
"As a member of the UN, it is obligated to do so."
This is precisely what the Neutrality Initiative aims to enshrine in the Federal Constitution and ensure in the long term.
Switzerland should only be allowed to adopt UN sanctions against countries at war.
EU sanctions would therefore be ruled out, since they are not adopted by the internationally recognized UN Security Council.
Federal Council: “Sanctions are a tool for responding to violations of international law
and threats to the international order. (…)”
Under this initiative, Switzerland would no longer be able to adopt many sanctions against countries at war.
"This would have negative consequences for Switzerland's interests and reputation and could, in certain
cases, trigger negative reactions from other countries."
Although Switzerland has not actively participated in any war to date, it has allowed itself to
be drawn into taking sides in the war in Ukraine.
On February 28, 2022, it yielded to domestic and foreign policy pressure and adopted the EU’s economic
sanctions in their entirety—without taking its previous policy of neutrality into account.
The scope and the unconditional adoption of the EU sanctions were unprecedented.
Russia immediately declared Switzerland to no longer be neutral and removed the country from its list of friendly nations.
In his compelling essay “Sanctions Are War by Other Means,” investigative journalist James Corbett examines the evolution
of sanctions as an “economic weapon” in the 20th century.
He explains that sanctions are a weapon of war that starve and kill people by cutting off their food supply.
Sanctions are therefore by no means effective measures for responding to violations of
international law, as the Federal Council claims.
In fact, they often lead to the prolongation of wars and usually affect the civilian population
even more severely than the hostilities themselves.
The results of a study conducted by researchers at the University of Denver and the Center for Economic and Policy Research
in Washington showed that the death toll from sanctions was five times higher than that from war-related deaths.
Federal Council: “The initiative committee’s call for Switzerland to use its neutrality to play a mediating
role and promote peace is already standard practice today.”
Is that really true?
Although the Federal Council maintains that adopting the sanctions is compatible with neutrality, in
practice, Switzerland’s role as a mediator is over:
● Russia designated Switzerland as an “unfriendly state.”
● This was followed by a deterioration in bilateral relations.
Among other measures, Russia curtailed diplomatic and political exchanges with Switzerland.
● The Russian side also began to no longer view Switzerland as a credible neutral mediator.
This role was now taken on by countries such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia, which portrayed themselves as neutral peacemakers,
even though they are pursuing their own hard-nosed interests.
By watering down its neutrality, Switzerland thus missed the opportunity to make a significant contribution to peace.
Federal Council: “Compared to current practice, the initiative would limit the flexibility that allows us
to protect our security, independence, and prosperity.”
"This flexibility is especially important when the security situation is deteriorating."
It has already been pointed out that the exact opposite is true.
By drawing closer to major allies such as NATO and the EU, Switzerland is increasingly losing its
independence and its role as a neutral mediator.
This has been clearly demonstrated by the war in Ukraine.
Only a clearly defined and legally binding neutrality, as envisaged by the initiative, can reliably
protect Switzerland from becoming entangled in warmongering—the greatest enemy of prosperity.
Conclusion: Prof. Dr. Wolf Linder, professor emeritus at the University of Bern, sums it up as follows:
"I hope that Switzerland will work to restore its image as a neutral country that is credible to all sides."
Because we live in a world that is not peaceful.
There are more and more acts of war against other countries.
"And this time, a neutral stance is important not only for Switzerland, but probably for the whole world as well."
If you want Swiss neutrality to be clearly enshrined in the Constitution rather than further eroded, vote
YES on the Neutrality Initiative on September 27, 2026.
This is the only way Switzerland can maintain its credibility as a peace mediator and contribute to world peace!