• Military Menu                       

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Industry
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

Swiss Security Policy

The Swiss Council of States, the upper house of the parliament, on 18 September 2024 voted against a ban on the participation of its military in joint NATO drills. "The participation of Switzerland in joint defense exercises with NATO must not be banned. The Council of States rejected a motion from the National Council to this effect on Wednesday by 29 votes to 12 and after a lively debate," the upper house said in a statement. Swiss senators believe that in case of an attack on the country, its neutral status will disappear, so Switzerland's army needs to be ready to defend itself.

Switzerland’s neutrality is self-determined, permanent and armed. The term “neutral” is derived from the Latin: “ne uter” – neither one nor the other. A power is neutral when it does not take sides in a war. The decisive factors governing the Swiss policy of neutrality are the national interest, the body of law on neutrality, the international situation as well as tradition and history. Originally neutrality was a kind of emergency stop-gap. However, over the course of history, it brought clear advantages and is therefore firmly rooted in Switzerland’s self-perception. In the Federal Agreement of 1815 and in the constitutions of 1848, 1874 and 1999, neutrality became a foreign policy norm for the authorities. This maxim was always flexibly adapted to the circumstances and applied according to the interests of the country.

A group of Swiss experts said 29 August 2024 it was time for Switzerland, which has been neutral since 1515, to redefine its non-alignment status, in a report ordered by the defense ministry in Bern. Critics, in response, have accused the panel behind the paper of bias and insist that neutrality is forever enshrined in the country’s constitution. he study committee, which was set up a year ago, presented a paper with 100 recommendations on how to boost the Alpine nation’s security.

“The neutrality policy needs to be revised, more focused on its security function and applied more flexibly,” the members of the panel, which is said to include politicians, economists and scientists representing different age groups and regions, suggest in the report. Another key recommendation in it is that Switzerland’s “cooperation with NATO and the EU must continue to be deepened with a view to achieving a common defense capability and becoming a genuine defense cooperation.”

Among other things, the commission urged that the country’s defense budget be increased from 0.75% of GDP to 1% by 2030. It also said that the majority of the members of the panel spoke in favor of lifting the 1998 ban on the re-export of arms to countries that are at war. This legislation previously caused complications for EU states looking to supply Kiev in its conflict with Moscow with weapons that had Swiss-made parts in them. The changes to Swiss neutrality policy are needed due to a “sharp deterioration in the situation in Europe, marked by power politics, increasingly destabilized crisis regions and, above all, the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine,” the paper claims.

The recommendations by the commission are going to be taken into account during work on Switzerland’s new security policy, to be unveiled in 2025. The expert group’s paper had caused controversy even before it came out, with critics claiming that the head of the Federal Department of Defence, Civil Protection and Sport (DDPS), Viola Amherd, had deliberately formed the panel using experts who are against neutrality.

The opposition Swiss People’s Party (SVP) again slammed the report, saying that the “politically one-sided” commission behind it has shown “disregard of the constitutionally guaranteed perpetual… neutrality of our country.” The statement by the SVP read “It is an open secret that… Amherd wants to destroy Swiss neutrality and throw herself into the arms of NATO and the EU”.

Despite not being a member of the EU or NATO, Switzerland has joined nearly all of the Western sanctions imposed on Russia over the Ukraine conflict and has frozen billions of dollars worth of Moscow’s assets. In early 2024, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that, because of this, Moscow does not consider Switzerland to be a neutral country anymore. In June 2024, the Swiss authorities hosted the so-called Ukraine peace conference, to which Russia was not invited. Moscow described the summit, which focused solely on Kiev’s proposals to settle the conflict, as a “parody of negotiations” and insisted that it would not have attended the event if Bern had asked for a Russian delegation to come.

There will not be a European army any time soon. But military co-operation has increased on the continent, driven by the actions of the United States and Russia. The Swiss government has decided to participate in military projects of the European Union. Under President Barack Obama, the US chose to focus on the Pacific region. His successor, Donald Trump, at times massively undermined the integrity of its most important allies. In response, many European leaders began discussing how Europe could guarantee its own security. The large-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine has significantly accelerated the debate and turned words into action.

The Federal Council (executive body) decided in August 2024 that Switzerland will participate in two projects of PESCO, or Permanent Structured Co-operation, which is the military arm of the EU. With the exception of Malta, all EU member states take part in PESCO. Regular invitees are the US, Canada, Norway and more recently Ukraine, which is also interested in participating in the cyber project. For the political right, this is seen as a breach of neutrality.

The Military Mobility project’s aim is to simplify and standardise the administration of transporting military units on European territory. It is also referred to as the “Schengen of the armed forces”. Whether and how military units travel through Switzerland must still be authorised by the government on a case-by-case basis. Furthermore, warring parties will still not be allowed to cross Swiss territory – the law of neutrality prohibits this. The Cyber Ranges Federation project enables the Swiss Army to train in cyber defence with other armed forces. It involves the development and testing of technologies and the training of personnel.

Switzerland’s participation is not yet finalised, as it still has to be officially approved by the participating countries and the EU. However, the decision has already been criticised domestically. Switzerland’s most popular party, the right-wing Swiss People’s Party, supports isolationism and rejects all forms of rapprochement with the EU and NATO, arguing this would “destroy neutrality”. But the defence ministry reports that Switzerland will not take part in exercises with “belligerent states”, underpinning this with an additional agreement. Any co-operation will be carried out “in line with Switzerland’s obligations to the law of neutrality”.

Switzerland is only participating in two of the more than 60 projects which are currently underway. PESCO will not replace NATO in the foreseeable future and the Atlantic alliance remains Switzerland’s most important military partnership, which is a co-operation under the Partnership for Peace (PfP) framework.

The ban on the export of Swiss defence equipment to Ukraine caused a great deal of resentment and Switzerland was accused of opportunism. The Swiss defence industry is said to be suffering losses as a result. In spring 2024, the government also decided to join the European Sky Shield Initiative, which was launched by Germany and aims to strengthen European air defence. With about a dozen countries participating, it aims to coordinate procurement and improve interoperability.

In terms of foreign policy, closer co-operation is a reaction to the damaged security architecture in Europe that has been present since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and has resulted in the formation of at least a regional bloc. In terms of domestic policy, the new willingness to co-operate militarily is an outcome of the political debate about the country’s neutrality, in which the isolationist camp has so far lost. In the coming years, the political balance of power and the geopolitical landscape suggest that this policy will endure for the near future.

In accordance with the 2017 Military Doctrine, which was created in accordance with the 2016 Security Policy Report, Switzerland takes into account the remote direct military threat, but believes that now the potential threats to it include espionage, cyber attacks, external influence operations and sabotage , as well as the actions of non-state groups. The Swiss government plans to reduce the size of its armed forces after mobilization by 40% (up to 100 thousand people), which reflects the assessment that in a system based on the call of the militia will not always be available personnel for active service in times of conflict.

However, these smaller forces should use additional weapons. This plan for the development of the Armed Forces was approved in March 2016 and emphasizes the improvement of combat readiness, training and armaments; its introduction is expected in 2018-2021. The Swiss approach to combat readiness moves to a more flexible model, in which different units will be called up for active service gradually and at different times. Plans to replace combat aircraft and ground-based air defense systems were continued at the end of 2017 by announcing that $ 8.35 billion will be invested in airspace protection.

History not only taught Switzerland to keep out of foreign conflicts, it also taught it the importance of active solidarity. Switzerland‘s involvement here ranges from humanitarian internment (example Bourbaki Army) to the world-wide engagement of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and from the Good Offices of diplomacy to the ceasefire observers in Korea and the Swiss company (SWISSCOY) in Kosovo.

In Switzerland, a country with several cultures, languages and religions, neutrality has also always served to guarantee internal cohesion whereby the principle of neutrality was also applied to conflicts within the Confederation. A shift away from neutrality to an active foreign policy in the 16th century (religious conflicts), for example, would have led to unbearable tensions. In the 19th and 20th centuries, siding with Germany or France would have precipitated the Confederation into a national crisis. Without external neutrality, internal cohesion would be unthinkable.

In 1515 a confederate army of 20,000 men encountered the military limits of federal power politics at the battle of Marignano. Francis I of France concluded a landmark peace with the conquered in 1516. This peace formed the contractual basis of Switzerland’s reticence in foreign policy for centuries. Unity in foreign policy matters was impossible in the period of denominational tensions.

After the French conquest of 1798, there was no neutrality for Switzerland for 16 years. The major European powers fought to gain control of the Alpine transit routes. Switzerland became a theater of war. After France’s unsuccessful Russian campaign in 1812, the Swiss had to secure the retreat of the remainder of Napo-leon’s “Grande Armée” at Beresina. In 1815 Swiss forces took part in the fight against Napoleon’s troops, including the siege of Hüningen. In the wake of this final military operation of Swiss forces abroad, the powers in Paris recognise Switzerland’s permanent neutrality and guarantee its territorial integrity.

In the Franco-Prussian War, Switzerland declared its willingness in 1871 to intern General Charles Bourbaki’s defeated French eastern army (93,000 men). Switzerland’s credible application of armed neutrality and other Swiss initiatives (founding of the Red Cross in 1863) led to widespread international recognition of its neutrality. In 1907 Switzerland signed the Hague Conventions on Rights and Duties of Neutral States.

After 1915, Switzerland was completely surrounded by war. The warring parties were convinced that Switzerland will not tolerate outflanking manoeuvres by any of the respective opponents through its territory. They therefore respected Swiss neutrality and Switzerland’s borders. The traces of defences then built at Hauenstein und on Mont Vully are a reminder of how credible neutrality was practised during the First World War.

At the beginning of the Second World War, the Federal Council confirms Switzerland’s neutrality and this is recognised by the belligerents. Switzerland mobilises its forces to assert its independence and neutrality. To make its neutrality credible, Switzerland mobilised up to 450,000 men and women for national service. It was thus made perfectly clear that there would be a dear price to pay for anyone wishing to enter the country by force. In retrospect, Switzerland’s refugee policy should have been more generous.

Federal Councillor Max Petitpierre coins the leitmotif of Swiss foreign relations in the post-war period “Neutrality and solidarity”. He thereby re-establishes greater recognition of neutrality. In its dispatch the Federal Council explains that accession “will be considered only, if Switzerland is able to retain its existing permanent neutrality”. The Federal Decree on Switzerland’s Accession to the UN, lays down that in the event of Swiss accession to the UN, the Federal Council will give a “solemn statement explicitly confirming that Switzerland will retain its permanent and armed neutrality”. In 1986, a majority of 75% of the Swiss people voted against joining the UN.

In its 1993 neutrality report, the Federal Council set out how it intended to operate neutrality under the changed geo-political situation. According to the report, neutrality alone cannot protect the country against new dangers such as terrorism, organised crime and destruction of the environment. Switzerland was, therefore, obliged to extend its foreign and security policy without compromising its neutrality. Switzerland “will exercise its neutrality in a way that allows it to take the necessary military precautions for its own defence, also with respect to new threats. Depending on the threat, this could also entail international cooperation in the preparation of defensive measures.”

Partnership for Peace (PfP) is a NATO initiative launched in 1994. Switzerland has been participating in this programme since 1996. PfP seeks to intensify security policy and military cooperation in Europe. Switzerland’s participation in PfP is compatible with neutrality as there is no requirement for NATO membership and no obligation to provide military support in the event of armed conflict. Therefore, the following is maintained in Switzerland’s presentation document of 30 November 1996: “Switzerland is committed to permanent and armed neutrality. It does not intend to abandon its neutrality. It does not wish to join NATO.”

In its Security Policy Report 2000 the Federal Council stated: “For the future it is important that neutrality does not become an obstacle to ensuring our security. Even under most stringent application of neutrality law, we have considerable scope which must be used more than in the past in the sense of a participative foreign and security policy.”

On 1 September 2001, the partial revision of the Military Act accepted by plebiscite enters into force. The revised Military Act regulates Swiss participation in peace support operations of the UN and the OSCE and provides the basis for arming Swiss peace support forces abroad for self-protection. Switzerland’s involvement is “compatible with neutrality law and Switzerland’s policy of neutrality” (Federal Council dispatch relating to the partial revision of the Swiss Military Act, p. 485). Swiss participation in combat operations for peace enforcement is, however, excluded by the Military Act.

On 3 March 2002, 54.6% of the Swiss people voted for Switzerland’s accession to the UN which takes place accordingly on 10 September. Switzerland is the first country whose membership of the UN was decided directly by its people. In its accession statement Switzerland affirms: “Switzerland is a neutral state whose status is based on international law. Even as a member of the UN, Switzerland remains neutral.” Switzerland is called upon to participate in UN economic sanctions and may not obstruct military sanctions decided by the UN Security Council. Switzerland is free to decide whether and to what extent it wants to provide the UN with resources and forces for respective humanitarian and military operations. Switzerland and the UN pursue the same objective: to promote and guarantee peace and security in the world. It is therefore in the country’s interests to support the UN through its policy of active neutrality and practical solidarity.

The law provides neutral states with a good deal of scope in peacetime. Measures aimed at peace promotion give no cause for concern and military cooperation with foreign partners is possible. The limit of what is legally permissible is exceeded when the neutral state undertakes to provide assistance for another in the event of war. The law of neutrality of 1907 still applies. The situation today, however, is characterised mainly by internal conflicts. The law of neutrality is not applicable to these cases.

European Union (EU) membership is compatible with neutrality as long as the EU has no binding mutual military assistance obligation for all members. NATO membership is incompatible with neutrality because NATO membership includes the obligation to provide mutual assistance in the event of war.