Neutrality as a strategy

Dear reader,

On Sunday, the neutrality initiative was very clearly rejected by over 70% of the vote. So everything remains as it was.

But what exactly does that mean? Swiss neutrality is world-renowned, yet no two people describe it in the same way. And this is not limited to other countries: even within Switzerland, people have different ideas about what it actually means to be neutral.

In domestic politics, this is useful: neutrality is seen as a unifying force on which the overwhelming majority can agree. Probably precisely because everyone understands it to mean something different.

In terms of foreign policy, however, there is a catch: Switzerland’s approach is an easy target for criticism – sometimes Switzerland is not “truly” neutral, and at other times it is accused of “hiding” behind its neutrality. There is therefore scope for criticism from various quarters.

Yet this vulnerability is not necessarily a weakness, as it affords Swiss politics room for manoeuvre.

In politics, there is the concept of strategic ambiguity: this involves keeping one’s opponent in the dark as to how one would react to a situation. Examples of this include the US policy on Taiwan (will the US come to the island’s aid in the event of an attack?) or the French nuclear doctrine (when would France detonate a nuclear bomb?).

Swiss neutrality is not a direct example of this. Switzerland has a largely coherent foreign policy, in which neutrality plays an organising role. However, the government always views neutrality as a means to an end, rather than an end in itself. In sensitive international situations, it is therefore only one of several factors that the government takes into account. It is, however, one to which it often refers in order to justify its decisions.

In the debate on the aforementioned initiative, this was indeed a central point: restricting neutrality would result in a restriction of the country’s own capacity to act. And largely refraining from sanctions would have amounted to a unilateral abandonment of a foreign policy instrument. Clearly, a clear majority does not want this – and wishes to retain flexibility in its external relations.

After all, if you do not commit yourself, you cannot be pinned down on anything.

On a personal note: What is your connection to Switzerland? We’d like to get to know our newsletter readers better. That’s why we’ve launched a short survey. We’d be grateful if you could take a few minutes to complete it. Click here for the surveyExternal link

And, as always, you can write to me at [e-mail]

Best regards,
Giannis Mavris

P.S. If you find the newsletter useful, please feel free to forward it to others – you can subscribe here.

Click here for our overview page on geopolitics.