Polling stations opened on Sunday morning for in-person voting on those and other topics as part of Switzerland’s direct democracy system, although most people vote in advance by post.
The Swiss widely embrace their neutrality, but an initiative to enshrine a strict definition into the constitution has exposed deep disagreement over what that neutrality entails.
Switzerland’s traditional position is one of armed neutrality, but Russia’s war in Ukraine reopened questions over its non-engagement in foreign conflicts.
Concerned over Bern’s decision to back the European Union’s economic pressure on Russia, the pro-sovereignty Pro Switzerland organisation collected enough signatures to trigger a referendum under the country’s direct democracy system on better anchoring neutrality in its constitution.
The proposal has been roundly rejected by nearly the entire political establishment, with opinion polls indicating most voters will do the same.
Moscow, which has slammed Switzerland for joining the EU sanctions and accused Bern of abandoning its neutrality, has meanwhile praised the initiative — dubbed “pro-Russian” by some opponents.
The proposal calls for the constitution to guarantee that Swiss neutrality is “armed and perpetual”.
It would prevent Switzerland, whose neutrality dates back to 1516 and has been internationally recognised since 1815, from establishing closer ties with NATO and would rule out any military alliance except if the country were attacked.
And it would prohibit imposing sanctions unless called for by the United Nations.
All sides in the debate argue that they want to maintain Switzerland’s neutrality.
Both the Swiss government and parliament have rejected the proposal, arguing it is too dogmatic and would limit the country’s room for manoeuvre at a time of soaring geopolitical tensions.
“Neutrality has always been applied with a degree of flexibility,” Swiss Foreign Minister Ignazio Cassis said during a recent televised debate.
While Switzerland had no plans to lift a ban on selling arms to countries in conflict, including to Ukraine, he stressed that “neutrality does not mean indifference”.
The country, he said, would “not look away when we see violations of the very international rules that allow us to live in peace”.
Nearly all major political parties have also turned their nose up at the initiative, with the exception of the hard-right Swiss People’s Party (SVP), the country’s largest party.
“Our goal is to foster peace, diplomacy and dialogue,” SVP vice president Celine Amaudruz said during a televised debate.
“To achieve that, we must maintain credibility through perpetual armed neutrality,” she insisted.
While initial opinion polls had indicated that the vote might be tight, the final two surveys suggested a clear majority of voters — well above 60 per cent — would reject the initiative.
Polls also suggested voters would reject the other national initiative on Sunday’s ballot, put forward by a non-partisan citizens’ movement and calling for the country to raise its food self-sufficiency rate to 70pc, up from 42pc in 2024.
The government has warned that the target would be difficult, if not impossible, to reach, while most major parties also reject it as unrealistic.
Polling stations will close at 12:00pm (3:00pm PKT) at the latest.
]]>"Indias terrorist exports have gone from regional to global. From a serving Indian naval commander, Kulbhushan Jadhav, convicted in Pakistan on terrorism and espionage charges, to Nikhil Gupta, who pleaded guilty in the United States for plotting the murder of a Sikh leader at the direction of the Indian Government, and others implicated in assassinations carried out in Canada, Indias record speaks for itself.Right of Reply by Counsellor, Ms. Saima Saleem During the General Debate of High-Level Week of 81st Session in Response to Remarks of Indian Representative"
In recent years, allegations surrounding India's involvement in terrorism and espionage have gained momentum, drawing significant international scrutiny. Central to these accusations are cases such as that of Kulbhushan Jadhav, a former Indian naval officer sentenced in Pakistan for terrorism and espionage. His case has become emblematic of what many view as a broader pattern of India exporting its proxy conflicts beyond South Asia.
In addition to Jadhav, other incidents signal a troubling trend. Nikhil Gupta, who recently pleaded guilty in the United States for conspiring to assassinate a Sikh leader, reportedly acted under the direction of Indian officials, highlighting that tensions are escalating even in foreign territories. Furthermore, allegations involving the targeting of activists and dissidents in countries such as Canada have raised alarms about India's expanding covert operations abroad.
Supporters of these claims argue that India's actions are driven by a strategic imperative to counter its regional adversaries, especially Pakistan. However, critics contend that this approach jeopardizes international peace and security, contributing to a growing isolation for India. The link between national politics and international incidents reflects a dangerous merging of state power with shadowy movements aimed at influencing or eliminating opposition abroad.
The international community has reacted cautiously to these developments. While some countries have expressed solidarity with India, citing its contributions to regional stability and counterterrorism, others are increasingly concerned about the ethical implications of its actions. Reports of extrajudicial killings and espionage have led to calls from various human rights organizations for accountability and transparency.
The United Nations and several Western nations have issued statements urging all countries to adhere to international laws governing state-sponsored actions abroad. This growing discourse is indicative of an interplay between geopolitical alliances and a global accountability framework that countries like India may have to navigate more carefully moving forward.
As the record surrounding Indias alleged support for terrorism continues to unfold, it will be imperative for Indian policymakers to engage constructively with the international community. By fostering open dialogues and addressing these allegations head-on, India can not only improve its global standing but also enhance its diplomatic relationships.
The path forward should prioritize peace and mutual respect among nations, encouraging India to adopt more transparent and responsible approaches to addressing security concerns. The focus must shift from a regional to a global perspective, cultivating relationships that transcend narrow strategic calculations.