For centuries, neutrality has been the cornerstone of Swiss foreign policy, a principle so deeply embedded in the national identity that questioning it has long been considered almost taboo. Yet the seismic shifts in the European security landscape over the past three years have forced a reckoning that can no longer be postponed. It is time for Switzerland to have an honest, open conversation about what neutrality means in the 21st century — and whether the traditional interpretation still serves the nation’s interests.
The Shifting Ground
The notion that Switzerland can remain entirely detached from the security concerns of its neighbours has always been somewhat illusory, but recent events have made this fiction increasingly untenable. The ongoing conflict in Ukraine, the re-emergence of great power competition, and the growing assertiveness of authoritarian regimes have fundamentally altered the security environment in which Swiss neutrality operates. When Switzerland declined to allow the re-export of Swiss-manufactured ammunition to Ukraine, the decision drew sharp criticism from NATO allies and raised uncomfortable questions about the practical implications of strict neutrality.
Neutrality should not be confused with indifference. A neutral Switzerland that refuses to take sides in a conflict between aggression and self-defence risks becoming not a beacon of peace, but an enabler of impunity. We must find a way to uphold our values without abandoning our tradition.
Critics of the current approach argue that Switzerland’s rigid interpretation of neutrality is increasingly at odds with its other international commitments and values. As a member of the United Nations, a participant in the Partnership for Peace, and a country that has explicitly committed to upholding the rules-based international order, Switzerland cannot credibly claim that all conflicts are morally equivalent or that neutrality requires treating aggressors and victims with equal detachment.
A Path Forward
What I am proposing is not the abandonment of neutrality but its evolution. Switzerland can remain militarily non-aligned while developing a more nuanced framework for responding to clear violations of international law. This might include a willingness to participate in targeted economic sanctions endorsed by the UN Security Council, a more permissive approach to arms re-export in cases of defensive warfare, and a more active diplomatic role in conflict mediation and post-conflict reconstruction.
The Federal Council’s recent proposal to establish a neutrality advisory commission is a welcome step, but it must not become a mechanism for delay. The commission should be tasked with producing concrete recommendations within 12 months, and its deliberations should be open to public input. The Swiss people deserve a voice in this conversation, and they are more than capable of weighing the complex trade-offs involved. History teaches us that the strongest traditions are those that adapt to changing circumstances. Swiss neutrality can — and must — do the same.
