Why the Swiss refused to give up their right to impose sanctions despite all of Russia’s influence

Last Sunday, Switzerland held a referendum on the limits of its neutrality. The vote could have had a direct impact on Ukraine.

The decision to take over the EU sanctions on Russia in 2022 sparked much debate – and ultimately the launch of the neutrality initiative. But a large swathe of the population seems now to have shown an understanding for the government’s strategic reasoning. The decision to take over the EU sanctions on Russia in 2022 sparked much debate – and ultimately the launch of the neutrality initiative. But a large swathe of the population seems now to have shown an understanding for the government’s strategic reasoning. 

A majority does not want to commit to systematically stand aloof from European sanctions – and run the risk of sparking incomprehension or isolation from its neighbours.

Read more about the six main reasons why Switzerland did not believe the advocates of expanding neutrality in the article by Katy Romy, Pauline Turuban and Balz Rigendinger (SwissInfo): A referendum under Russian influence: How Switzerland nearly abolished sanctions "in the name of neutrality.

When it comes to Swiss neutrality, the war in Ukraine marks a clear rupture. Before 2022, the topic rarely sparked strong feelings.When it comes to Swiss neutrality, the war in Ukraine marks a clear rupture. Before 2022, the topic rarely sparked strong feelings.

After a brief period of hesitation, the Swiss government – under international pressure – took over European Union (EU) sanctions against Russia. This decision took neutrality out of the archives and put it back at the heart of political debates: was Bern right to follow its European neighbours? 

Citizens have now given their answer: they accept a vision of neutrality as an evolving instrument, which can be adapted by government in the face of geopolitical upheavals.

The result on Sunday also reflects a desire not to cut Switzerland off from the rest of Europe in an increasingly uncertain geopolitical context. The result on Sunday also reflects a desire not to cut Switzerland off from the rest of Europe in an increasingly uncertain geopolitical context. 

Indeed, it was all too clear that the initiative mainly targeted Swiss sanctions against Russia. 

Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova praised the initiative from the start, and this set the tone for what followed. Russia’s mouthpieces in Switzerland rallied behind the campaign’s dove of peace.

It became clear that the circles behind the People’s Party initiative, which portrayed itself as Swiss through and through, also represented foreign interests.

At the same time, Russia was stoking fears in Europe with a series of aggressive acts: a foiled drone attack in Germany, sabotage in the Baltic Sea or targeting European politicians in Poland. 

The result is a disaster for former government minister and People’s Party figurehead Christoph Blocher. At 85, he wanted to lead yet another referendum campaign.

While still building up the company that made his fortune, EMS, Blocher continued to do business with South Africa’s apartheid regime, subject to international sanctions at the time. Much later, EMS – now with his daughter at the helm – continued to work in Russia, even after the invasion of Ukraine. 

Blocher sought to play this down, but this just made his Russian leanings seem all the more arbitrary.

For EMS, however, China is more important than Russia. And should Beijing one day attack Taiwan, it too could come under sanctions – thus directly affecting EMS’s business dealings with China. Thanks to this company, Blocher became a billionaire; and thanks to his instincts for reading the public mood, an epochal Swiss political figure. It was years before he managed to come to terms with his 2007 ousting from the Swiss government – it was his first major defeat. Now, in his twilight years, comes the second.

Opponents of the initiative managed to make this one of the topics of political debate.

In advocating the idea of total neutrality, supporters of the initiative said they wanted to preserve Switzerland’s credibility as a provider of good offices and as an independent venue for mediation. 

This position was championed not only by the populist right, but also by a movement – billed as apolitical – created specifically for the occasion: the Committee for International Geneva and its Neutrality. This group warned Switzerland’s international reputation for impartiality was at stake, and that "a little bit neutral is no longer neutral".

In effect, that would mean helping the aggressor. But the debate over neutrality is not over.

Despite Sunday’s result, neutrality is not about to be consigned to the history books just yet. With another vote on a reform to Swiss weapons export rules set for 29 November, it will remain a hot topic. Current legislation prohibits arms exports to countries involved in a conflict. The proposed amendment would allow such exports to certain states considered close partners – though not including Ukraine. This time, centre-right parties are backing the reform in order to give a boost to the Swiss arms industry. The left, meanwhile, fears more Swiss weapons will end up in conflict zones as a result; at the same time, it criticises that the new rules still don’t allow for providing support to Ukraine.

In just two months, essentially the same questions about neutrality will once again be at the center of the debate.