Joseph Deiss: we want an active and evolutionary neutrality (cross-border guide)

Context

In brief

• More than seven in ten voters reject the initiative
• The text limited sanctions and cooperation with NATO
• Joseph Deiss defends an active and evolving neutrality
• The Council of States opens the debate on Bilaterals III

Key facts

• Outcome → rejection of the neutrality initiative
• Subject → stricter definition of neutrality in the Constitution
• Appearance → Joseph Deiss, Monday on RTS's La Matinale
• Constitution → 1999 text
• Debate → Bilateral III agreements with the European Union
• Initiative cited → Bussola
• Expected majority → double majority of the people and the Cantons

More than seven in ten voters rejected on Sunday the initiative that sought to enshrine a stricter definition of Swiss neutrality in the Constitution. The text would have limited the adoption of sanctions and military cooperation with alliances such as NATO.

The vote and Deiss's reading

On Monday, a guest on RTS's La Matinale, Joseph Deiss reacted with irony to the breadth and uniformity of the result. The former federal councillor, who headed Foreign Affairs for four years, saw a political effect in Christoph Blocher's initiative: it would have united the country against the text and bridged the Röstigraben.

This initiative by Christoph Blocher had one merit: uniting the country against it. The Röstigraben was bridged, and it achieved a score that could even be described as Soviet.

For Deiss, the vote offers two lessons. The population would have understood that Switzerland cannot guarantee its own security alone by distancing itself from its European neighbors. Moreover, it would be tired of the country's sometimes overly timid stance in the face of international crises, particularly in Ukraine and Gaza.

An open-ended neutrality

The rejection maintains current policy, but Deiss does not consider it a blocking status quo. In his view, the result leaves the Federal Council, Parliament and citizens the possibility of shaping foreign policy.

The former minister recalled that the 1999 Constitution, in whose drafting he took part, does not precisely define neutrality. The choice, he explained, was deliberate: as in 1848, neutrality was to remain a tool of security and defense policy, not an end in itself.

The result confirms an evolving conception. Deiss speaks of an active and engaged neutrality, capable of evolving with international law and the institutions created after the Hague Conventions. His reasoning includes the Charter of the United Nations, the Geneva Conventions and the International Criminal Court, which, in his view, make it impossible to treat an aggressor and their victim in the same way.

Hence the call for the Federal Council to adopt a consistent line on violations of international law. Deiss invoked Switzerland's responsibility as depositary of the Geneva Conventions and warned that failing to condemn war crimes can make the country complicit. He also invoked the values of peace, solidarity and humanity that, in his view, his compatriots want to see defended by Switzerland.

Operational details

The result produces a precise institutional effect: the stricter definition proposed by the initiative does not enter the Constitution. The current policy is maintained and, according to Joseph Deiss's reading, the Federal Council, Parliament and the population retain room to shape foreign policy according to circumstances.

For those who live or work in Switzerland, the concrete consequence indicated by the source therefore concerns the level of federal decisions. No new sanction or new military cooperation is announced. Instead, the possibility of examining these instruments is left open without the constitutional constraint envisaged by the rejected text. The distinction matters: the vote closes off a proposal, but it does not close the debate on the country's security, relations with Europe and the response to international crises.

Three key points to keep separate

The first point concerns security and foreign policy. Deiss argues that active neutrality does not require treating aggressor and victim in the same way in every case. Hence his request to clearly condemn Israel's actions in the occupied territories and in the West Bank, without, however, indicating a specific sanction. His position is that any measures should be examined according to the circumstances.

The second and third points shift attention to European relations. The debate on Bilaterals III opens while the vote on neutrality has just been rejected. Deiss links the initiative to Pro Suisse, Azione per una Svizzera indipendente e neutrale and various figures from the UDC, arguing that its objective went beyond neutrality. The Bussola Initiative is thus presented as another step capable of shaping the country's relationship with its European neighbors.

The dossier remains institutional and related to foreign policy. For a separate in-depth look at everyday expenses, one can consult the costo della vita in Svizzera.

Useful tools to protect your net income

To reduce FX leakage, compare CHF-EUR exchange options and banks for cross-border workers.

Key points

To concretely follow developments after the vote, the reader can organize their attention around four steps, all connected to the dossiers cited in the source.

1. Separate the result from the rejected proposal

The first step consists in distinguishing what was decided from what the initiative would have introduced. The vote rejected the stricter definition of neutrality and the restriction envisaged on the resumption of sanctions and military cooperation with alliances such as NATO. Current policy therefore remains the framework from which to start.

2. Follow the federal level

The second step is to observe the role of the Federal Council and Parliament. In Deiss's reading, the rejection leaves these institutions, together with citizens, the possibility of shaping foreign policy. For the reader, this means assessing future decisions without considering the vote as giving up every choice regarding international crises.

3. Distinguish security from the European dossier

The third step concerns the political timetable indicated by the source. On Monday, the Council of States opens the debate on Bilateral Agreements III with the European Union. It is advisable to keep this dossier separate from the vote on neutrality, but to follow them together in order to understand how security and European policy are discussed at the national level.

4. Check the possible role of the double majority

The fourth step is to read the Compass initiative carefully. The proposal cited by Deiss seeks to subject the adoption of agreements with the European Union to the double majority of the people and the Cantons. This is the political criterion to monitor when the issue is taken up again in the public debate.

Deiss did not indicate a specific measure against Israel: he calls for a clear condemnation of the actions in the occupied territories and in the West Bank, but believes that sanctions should be examined according to the circumstances. Anyone wishing to complement the political reading with a personal verification can consult dichiarazione delle imposte and, as a final operational tool, calcolatore stipendio.

Source: rsi.ch