The Swiss are proud of their neutrality. They believe that remaining neutral when foreign countries are at war with each other, is essential for the survival of Switzerland as a small but independent country. They believe that it was their neutral stand during World Wars I and II that allowed them to survive these earth-shattering traumas relatively unscathed.

Sounds great – in theory. In practice, however, Switzerland always had to find arrangements with the large powers surrounding it. During World war I, the Swiss parliament elected Ulrich Wille, born in Hamburg to Swiss parents and educated in Germany, as General of the Swiss armed forces precisely because he had good personal relations with the German officer corps. Early during World War II there probably were at least some informal contingency agreements between the Swiss general, Henry Guisan, and the French army in case the Germans should try to circumvent the French defensive line, the “Maginot” line, by invading through Switzerland. Ultimately, the Germans invaded France by going though the low lands, Belgium and the Netherlands. Only after France fell, did Switzerland pivot to a resistance strategy of withdrawing the bulk of its army into a redout in the alps. But even then, arrangements had to be found with the surrounding powers, i.e. Germany and Italy, to allow for the importation of foodstuffs into Switzerland.

Switzerland, in its own self interest, has always taken a pragmatic stance when it comes to neutrality. This is not necessarily a badge of honour. It completely blends out the moral side of the equation. It was the South African civil rights leader Desmond Tutu who said: “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.” This moral position has been echoed by other notable advocates for the persecuted and oppressed, such as Ellie Wiesel, the holocaust survivor who in his speech when accepting the Nobel Peace price said: “We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.”

Should Switzerland re-think it’s position on neutrality on moral grounds? Russia’s aggression against Ukraine poses such a dilemma. Can Switzerland remain neutral in the face of such a blatant attack on the norms of civilization let alone international law?

So far Switzerland has again pursued a pragmatic line, participating in the economic sanctions that the West imposed on Russia, primarily because it economically depends on the West and could not afford to abstain from the concerted actions of the civilized World. I believe that this stance has broad support in the Swiss population as it can be justified on moral, as well as economic grounds.

But now, this position has come under attack from the right flank of Swiss politics. The Swiss Popular Party (“Schweizerische Volkpartei” SVP) has launched an initiative that would enshrine an absolutist position on neutrality in the constitution. Among other things it would prohibit Switzerland participating in sanctions, even against the worst attackers.

This is neutrality fetishism. It would prevent Switzerland not only from making moral judgements and act accordingly. It would also, and arguably more importantly, prevent the Swiss government from taking the pragmatic steps a small country often must take to survive. So far, “Neutrality” has not been defined in the Swiss constitution. This has left some ambiguity which has served Switzerland well during the various crises it had to endure since the constitution was adopted in 1848.

Enshrining an absolutist definition of neutrality in the constitution gravely endangers Switzerland’s independence, it’s moral standing and its pragmatic foreign policy, especially in times of conflict abroad. In fact, it may endanger Switzerland’s very survival as an independent state.