Neutrality debate pits security guarantee against risk

Switzerland’s neutrality is at the centre of a dispute over whether it protects the country or leaves it militarily vulnerable, Swiss broadcaster SRF reported ahead of the September 27 vote on the neutrality initiative.

Supporters point to Swiss history to argue that neutrality has provided protection. Swiss People’s Party lawmaker Michael Götte said neutrality had brought Switzerland security over the past 200 years.

The original promise of the 1907 law of neutrality was that a neutral state treating warring parties equally would not itself be attacked.

But military historian and militia officer Alexandre Vautravers, editor-in-chief of the Revue militaire Suisse, said history could also be interpreted differently. He pointed to Belgium, which had rearmed extensively before the Second World War in an effort to remain neutral and defend itself, but was nevertheless unable to stop Germany.

Neutral Finland, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands and Luxembourg were also overrun and occupied by Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. Switzerland and Sweden avoided occupation, but had to cooperate with Nazi Germany in certain areas, at the cost of their neutrality, Vautravers said.

Military analyst Franz-Stephan Gady concludes that neutrality itself can pose a security risk. He said a neutral country such as Switzerland or Austria could obtain ammunition quickly only through other NATO countries. If NATO were at war, those countries would prioritise NATO members over neutral states, he said.

Switzerland includes a so-called neutrality suspension clause in all international military agreements. It did so recently when joining the European Sky Shield Initiative, a joint procurement, training and logistics platform for air defence. If a member state comes under armed attack, Switzerland reserves the right to halt military cooperation.

The Swiss People’s Party and the initiative’s supporters do not consider this military restraint a problem. Götte said the initiative allowed cooperation with NATO in the event of a direct military attack or preparatory actions. However, it remains unclear whether NATO or other countries would help defend Switzerland or even supply it with ammunition in such a situation.

Peace and conflict researcher Günter Bächler, a former ambassador and Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe envoy to the South Caucasus, criticised what he called this lack of commitment. He warned that Switzerland would not be protected or prepared in a modern air or hybrid attack, including a possible Russian attack on Europe, and would lack the necessary means and a broad debate about what the country wanted and needed.