Neutrality initiative could restrict Swiss military cooperation with NATO

A yes vote on Switzerland’s neutrality initiative would affect the country’s military cooperation with NATO and other foreign alliances, SRF reports. Supporters and opponents agree on that point but differ sharply over the extent of the restrictions.

Switzerland currently cooperates militarily with other countries, including NATO members and NATO itself. This includes exchanging air surveillance data, joint arms procurement through the European Sky Shield Initiative, joint air force exercises such as those currently taking place in Italy, and troop exercises with Austria and NATO member Germany under the TRIAS framework.

The popular initiative, formally titled “Safeguarding Swiss neutrality”, seeks to define neutrality more precisely and bindingly in the federal constitution. It would largely prohibit Switzerland from adopting economic sanctions, allowing it in principle to support only sanctions imposed by the United Nations Security Council.

It would also bar Switzerland from joining a military or defence alliance. Cooperation with such alliances would be permitted only in the event of a direct military attack on Switzerland or to repel an immediately impending attack. The initiative was launched by the Pro Switzerland association and several Swiss People’s Party figures. The Federal Council and Parliament recommend rejecting it.

Werner Salzmann, a Swiss People’s Party member of the Council of States and president of the initiative’s support committee, believes most existing cooperation could continue, but joint exercises involving ground troops, such as those under TRIAS, would no longer be allowed.

“NATO has the mutual defence clause under Article 5,” Salzmann told SRF. “If we train together with troops, it creates the impression that Switzerland would also be prepared to fulfil this duty to provide assistance.”

Franziska Roth, a Social Democratic member of the Council of States who opposes the initiative, expects far greater restrictions. After a yes vote, she said, Switzerland could cooperate with a military alliance only when the Federal Council had to declare that war was at the country’s doorstep, “for example at Lake Constance or in Chiasso”. She called that dangerous for security policy, arguing that security must be practised before a crisis reaches its final moments.

The two politicians interpret the initiative’s wording differently. It allows cooperation with a military alliance in the event of a direct military attack or “actions in preparation for such an attack”. Salzmann argues that Switzerland is already so seriously threatened that the condition is met. “We are no longer in relative peace, but in relative war,” he said.

Roth rejects that interpretation and described the relevant provision as vague. She predicted that opponents of the government’s policy would use it as grounds to claim that a constitutional provision was not being implemented.

The Federal Council’s message on the initiative states that security and defence cooperation would be “strongly restricted”. If the initiative were approved, its wording would likely lead to extensive debate because it leaves considerable room for interpretation.