Zum Inhalt
Verein in Gründung
Pilotbetrieb

Diese Plattform befindet sich im Pilotbetrieb. Trotz sorgfältiger Prüfung können Inhalte und Funktionen Fehler enthalten. Bitte überprüfe wichtige Angaben anhand der verlinkten Originalquellen.

SW-Version alpha 0.41
Darstellung: System
Sprache: DE

Security Policy Risks

Summary: Critics warn that the initiative restricts security policy cooperation and makes Switzerland a European "free rider". The constitutional codification could also hamper indirect defence cooperation. Supporters counter: the initiative prohibits alliances, not national defence.

1. NATO Protective Umbrella and Switzerland

Roger de Weck put it pointedly: "Switzerland was the free rider of free riders. Where Europeans must provide for their own security, they will not tolerate Swiss parasitism forever." [1]

The ETH study shows: 53% support NATO rapprochement, 32% membership [2].

2. Finland and Sweden as Counter-example

Both countries abandoned their neutrality after the Russian attack and joined NATO. This shows: in the current security situation, non-alignment is increasingly perceived as a risk [3].

3. Counter-arguments of the Supporters

  • The initiative prohibits alliances, not national defence (Art. 54a para. 2: exception in case of direct attack) [4]. Note: Position paper of the initiative committee
  • Armed neutrality does not preclude a strong army
  • 87% support neutrality as a fundamental principle [2]

References

[1] NZZ (2022). Roger de Weck on neutrality. [Open Access]
[2] DDPS (2025). Security Study 2025. [Open Access]
[3] swissinfo.ch (2022). Neutral states and NATO. [Open Access]
[4] neutralitaet-ja.ch (2024). Argumentarium. Note: Position paper of the initiative committee

Last updated: March 2026