Switzerland has long been associated with its neutral stance in international affairs, alongside its reputation for banking services and mountainous landscapes. The Swiss case is often regarded as the most exemplary instance of political neutrality globally. However, a new trend appears to be taking shape as the European nation undertakes unprecedented steps and positions in recent times.
The Swiss maintained the neutrality of their country for centuries, but this long-held tradition is now under scrutiny amid increasing international polarization. This was particularly evident in Switzerland’s recent positions regarding Middle Eastern issues, culminating in the Swiss parliament’s decision on December 17, 2024, to ban the Lebanese Hezbollah.
New Positions:
The Swiss Parliament’s decision to prohibit Hezbollah’s activities on December 17, along with Hamas a week earlier, has raised questions about the rapid succession of these new positions, which represent a clear bias towards one side in the conflict. Until very recently, Switzerland had only banned the organizations of Al-Qaeda and ISIS, merely adopting the sanctions imposed by the United Nations on terrorist organizations.
The implications of the recent decisions against both Hezbollah and Hamas include a ban on any activities related to these groups within Swiss territory, along with legal actions against anyone connected to them. This also extends to assets and financial transactions associated with them. This shift in policy has coincided with the rise of pro-Israeli sentiment in the Swiss parliament, particularly with the ascent of the far-right Swiss People’s Party. Although the European Union designated Hezbollah’s military wing as a terrorist organization back in 2013 and followed several European countries in doing so, Switzerland remained neutral until Germany labeled Hezbollah a terrorist organization in 2020. At that time, Israel pressured Switzerland to initiate an investigation to assess the matter.
After two years of investigations, a final report was issued in November 2022, in which the Swiss government decided not to ban Hezbollah’s activities or classify it as a terrorist group since it does not utilize the financial sector in Switzerland for funding or laundering illegal money to support its military wing. The report noted that, despite a few individuals being politically or personally connected to Hezbollah in Switzerland, there was no evidence of activities carried out under Hezbollah’s direction, and the ideologically linked religious centers were very few, with limited fundraising that did not recruit members but instead focused on anti-Israel rhetoric. The threat posed by Hezbollah to Switzerland was deemed extremely low in both political and security terms, and the likelihood of it executing operations in Switzerland was considered remote.
Although the initiative in 2020 was led by Marian Binder-Keller from the Christian Democratic People’s Party (currently the center party), the recent decision was driven by David Zuberbohler from the Swiss People’s Party, who led a campaign to ban Hezbollah in the National Council (the lower house), with support from Binder-Keller as well. The National Council approved the ban with 126 votes in favor, 20 against, and 41 abstentions, while the Federal Council (the senate) had previously approved a similar proposal with 31 votes in favor and one against, with ten members abstaining. This now constitutes a binding resolution that requires the Federal Council (the government) to draft a law to implement it.
Switzerland had previously suspended its funding contributions to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) before reversing that suspension. In December 2023, the National Council voted in favor of completely halting funding to UNRWA, but the Federal Council blocked the passing of this decision by just two votes, as both councils need to agree. Subsequently, the contribution for 2024 was halved from 20 million Swiss francs (23 million USD).
Efforts to halt funding for UNRWA are ongoing; on September 9, the National Council approved a proposal from the right-wing People’s Party to cut funding to the agency, accusing it of collusion with Hamas. The matter now rests with the Federal Council, while the Ministry of Foreign Affairs opposes this step, warning of its consequences. In December, the National Council approved another proposal from Zuberbohler to remove the UNRWA funding clause from the Swiss development aid budget, which the Federal Council postponed deliberating. Meanwhile, the Foreign Affairs Committee held hearings on the issue.
Supporters of Israel in Switzerland have not limited their actions to legislative efforts. Last year, Jean-Daniel Roche, nominated for the position of State Secretary for Security Policy, was dismissed before taking office, which was created due to the conflict in Ukraine, due to accusations of having links to Hamas because of a meeting he had in 2012 with Khaled Mashal, the leader of Hamas at that time, during an official diplomatic mission. The campaign against him was led by Alfred Heer, a member of the Federal Council from the far-right Swiss People’s Party, with support from Israeli authorities, according to Swiss diplomats. The People’s Party aimed to enlarge the ban on Hamas to include organizations that are not affiliated but whose work and ideology are similar, but that initiative met with resistance that hindered its progress.
Redefining Neutrality:
Swiss neutrality is generally viewed as one of the strongest forms of neutrality worldwide. After the Congress of Vienna in 1815, the major powers recognized Switzerland’s special status, and over time, this entrenched tradition has become a core component of national identity. The experience of weathering the storms of two world wars has profoundly impacted the national psyche, convincing generations of Swiss that neutrality was the right policy to protect their livelihoods in a small country, embedding it as a value and identity to uphold.
Despite neutrality not being constitutionally enshrined, this policy, later formulated under what is known as the “bindschiedler” principle, has been followed by generations of Swiss foreign policy makers and forms a respected approach to diplomacy.
International organizations have made Switzerland their home, hosting the League of Nations in Geneva, which has since become one of the four main offices of the United Nations. Switzerland has refrained from joining the European Union to preserve its stance and has even avoided joining the United Nations until 2002. Public opinion polls consistently show astronomical approval ratings for neutrality. Since the end of the Cold War, the Zurich-based Center for Security Studies has conducted annual surveys on various security issues, demonstrating overwhelming support for maintaining neutrality.
The Russian war in Ukraine in February 2022 destabilized the security framework in Europe, prompting Switzerland to question its identity, pushing it to repeatedly re-explain its policies to its Western partners. Its contradictory statements drew immense criticism, with Switzerland being perceived as a “free rider” not cooperating with European countries, leading to voices stating that if it wished to benefit from assistance from its European partners, it should give something in return.
Switzerland’s politicians have varied in their opinions regarding neutrality. While the Swiss Federal Council, which governs the country, has expressed readiness to cooperate with NATO and the European Union on security and defense matters, the position of the Swiss People’s Party (the country’s largest party) has been contrary, along with leftist parties.
In August 2024, a report prepared by a committee commissioned by the Swiss Minister of Defense called for increasing cooperation with NATO, not ruling out the possibility of Swiss troops participating in joint military exercises outside their borders in the future. This suggests that matters may be changing in Switzerland, as the strict interpretation of neutrality might be revisited; just mentioning such a possibility would have been unthinkable last year. This report sparked extensive debate even before its release, with opposition parties accusing Viola Amherd, the current president of the Swiss Confederation, of appointing enthusiastic supporters of NATO and the European Union primarily to the committee tasked with preparing the report.
The Swiss government adopted the same sanctions imposed by the European Union on Russia due to the Ukrainian war in 2022, considering that these do not contradict neutrality. The state had previously applied sanctions multiple times, such as in 2014 in response to Russia’s annexation of Crimea, but Switzerland’s implementation of sanctions on Moscow was not as stringent as those of other EU countries. The Swiss People’s Party fundamentally opposes this direction, citing President Joe Biden’s statement in 2022 about the sanctions, when he stated, “Even Switzerland” joined them; thus, the party views the credibility of neutrality as threatened because legal neutrality does not hold when circumvented by economic sanctions. Therefore, the People’s Party, with support from some leftist factions, has called for a referendum on the sanctions issue in the form of a new constitutional definition of Swiss neutrality. By early 2024, 100,000 signatures had been collected in support of holding a referendum, expected to take place by 2028 at the latest, to determine whether economic sanctions violate Swiss neutrality.
Since the outbreak of the Ukrainian war, Switzerland has taken unprecedented steps in this regard. For the first time, Switzerland secured a seat on the United Nations Security Council for the 2023-2024 term, and the government plans to increase its defense spending by up to 19% over the next four years, despite reducing overall spending by 1.4% in other government departments. On April 10, the Swiss Federal Council announced its approval for the country to participate in Germany’s European Sky Shield Initiative launched following the Ukrainian war, aimed at creating an integrated air and missile defense system across Europe. This has sparked significant debate in Switzerland, despite the Bern government asserting that the project aligns with the country’s neutral status as it imposes no obligations, allowing Switzerland to decide where it participates and how far, as it can also withdraw its cooperation if any member becomes involved in a war.
Thus, the debate in Switzerland revolves around two main directions: the first advocates for a more pro-Israel foreign policy approach, while the second demands a more stringent stance against Russia, with both accusing the other of violating neutrality. Each party clings to the banner of neutrality as a pretext to obstruct steps taken by the opposing side. This scene is part of the broader trend in Europe marked by the rise of far-right currents skeptical of any cooperation with the EU, and Switzerland is not exempt from this context, despite its unique case.
Impact on Mediation:
Switzerland’s new directions cast doubt on its ability to continue fulfilling mediation roles, particularly in the Middle East and regarding the Ukrainian crisis. For a long time, Swiss diplomacy has maintained a policy of keeping channels open under the slogan “talking to everyone.” Bern has continued to uphold a longstanding diplomatic tradition of providing communication channels between countries that have severed ties, as occurred after the rupture of relations between Washington and Tehran since 1980, where Swiss diplomacy played a pivotal role for over four decades in facilitating communication between both sides and achieving significant outcomes.
Consequently, the Swiss Federal Council opposed the decision to ban Hezbollah, and Justice Minister Beatrice Yanci warned that Switzerland’s credibility as a neutral country “that can help build bridges” is at stake due to this decision.
Historically, Switzerland’s policy of neutrality has allowed it to serve as a mediator in the Palestinian issue and to communicate with Hamas, especially after 2006. The justice minister spoke about the possibility of continuing to engage with Hamas despite the recent ban. Still, Nicolas Walder, a parliamentary member from the Green Party, cautioned that Switzerland would not be able to host any negotiations between Hamas and Israel after the ban, and trust in Bern among Arab countries is eroding, as Switzerland is increasingly viewed as biased concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
A report from the Swiss Federal Council issued in October 2022 cautioned that banning Hezbollah could weaken Switzerland’s humanitarian commitments in Lebanon and damage its credibility as a neutral state. However, MP Zuberbohler, who led the campaign to ban Hezbollah, defended the notion that Switzerland cannot be a true and reliable peace mediator if it overlooks “anti-Semitism” and terrorism, justifying the shift towards bias in issues he sees aligning with Switzerland’s identity and not conflicting with it.
The Swiss government believes that a culture of bans has no place in the country’s foreign policy, arguing that imposing a ban on Hezbollah raises questions about how to draw the line between what deserves a ban and what does not; thus subjecting Swiss foreign policy to unprecedented dilemmas that might necessitate a redefinition of its role in the Middle East.
It is indeed notable that the Swiss Ministry of Foreign Affairs has shown less eagerness to fulfill its traditional role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In 2022, it decided to withdraw financially from the “Geneva Initiative” by the end of 2023, a plan supporting the two-state solution prepared under Swiss academic auspices; moreover, the efficacy of Switzerland’s role in this matter has increasingly come into question since October 7, 2023.
In conclusion, the Russian war in Ukraine and the changing geopolitical context have disrupted Switzerland’s view of the world and its place in it amid a regional context characterized by increasing polarization, in addition to the state of international division following the events of October 7 and the ensuing official Western alignment in support of Israel. Thus, Switzerland finds itself compelled to re-evaluate its foreign policy amid these changes.
The upcoming period is expected to witness internal debates and conflicts in Switzerland over the interpretation of neutrality, especially between a faction seeking to broaden it for rapprochement with NATO against Russia and another wanting to expand it for aligning with its orientations, particularly regarding Israeli positions in the Middle East, while a third direction wishes to narrow the definition significantly to maintain the strict application of this longstanding tradition.
Amidst this debate, Switzerland’s status as an international mediator is at stake, as it transitions from an acceptable neutral party to an actor with clear biases in various conflicts. Nonetheless, fundamental changes to the concept of neutrality remain subjects of inquiry and discussion, with none indicating a radical shift in Switzerland’s role or a complete break from this illustrious tradition.
