On the evening of April 22, 2026, Geneva Center for Neutrality (GCN) organized a high-level conference on Swiss Financial Center and Neutrality with a group of leading financiers, federal members of parliament, diplomats, and academics gathered at the Société de Lecture. Nicolas Ramseier – president of the GCN opened the conference and invited speakers to discuss Swiss Financial Sovereignty in a Fragmented World.

Among the panellists were: Peter Nathaniel - former Global Chief Risk Officer, Citigroup, Prof. Ludo Van der Heyden - former Dean, INSEAD, Raoul Würgler - Secretary General, Association of Foreign Banks in Switzerland (AFBS), Daniel Cotti - former Head of Global Trade Finance, ABN AMRO, RBS, JPMorgan, Nicholas Niggli - Executive Chairman, ON Venture Studio (Switzerland); former Chairman of the Government Procurement Agreement (GPA), WTO.

Moderated by Frédéric Lelièvre - Editor-in-Chief of AGEFI, the duscussion was held under Chatham House rules and lead it to the heart of a changing global order.

Redefining Swiss neutrality in a polypolar world

The conference started with a stark observation: in today’s hyper-connected world, no conflict remains local. Recent geopolitical shocks - particularly the escalation around Iran earlier this year demonstrated how rapidly military actions cascade across borders. Energy markets surged, supply chains fractured, and financial systems absorbed shocks in real time. Farmers in North Africa, industrial firms in Europe, and pension funds in Asia all felt the consequences of decisions taken thousands of kilometres away. The lesson was not new - but its scale was.

What is emerging is no longer a world that fits traditional models. The post-Cold War narrative of a unipolar order has faded. The idea of a bipolar contest between the United States and China also appears increasingly inadequate. Instead, the world operates as a “polypolar web,”: multi-layered, multi-speed, and fundamentally unpredictable, where power is distributed across multiple actors and alliances are fluid. In this environment, middle powers such as India, Turkey, and Switzerland play a growing role by balancing relationships rather than choosing sides.

At the same time, Switzerland faces structural tensions that challenge its traditional neutrality: dependence on foreign defence systems versus legal neutrality, economic integration without political influence, inconsistent application of neutrality rules, tension between financial benefits from instability and commitment to peace. These contradictions risk undermining Switzerland’s credibility as a neutral actor. Panelists argued neutrality must be redefined as an active, institutional policy, rather than a passive position. This includes: clearer and more consistent rules, stronger investment in Geneva as a global mediation hub, alignment between economic interests and political principles.

The central question is no longer whether Switzerland should remain neutral, but whether it can maintain credible neutrality in the XXIst century: or Switzerland proactively redefine its role, or risk being shaped by global transformations rather than influencing them.

“Active neutrality” - not as a slogan

For Switzerland, this transformation poses a structural challenge. Neutrality has long been one of the country’s defining principles: both a legal doctrine and a cornerstone of its international identity. Yet the discussion made clear that neutrality today is no longer a static condition. It is increasingly contested, externally judged, and internally inconsistent. One recurring point was that neutrality cannot simply be declared - it must be recognized. That recognition depends on credibility, and credibility depends on consistency. Here lies the problem.

Switzerland finds itself navigating competing pressures: deep economic integration with the European Union without formal membership; participation in sanctions regimes while maintaining a claim to neutrality; a historic role as mediator alongside growing doubts about its perceived independence. These tensions are not temporary, they are structural. The risk, as several participants suggested, is not that Switzerland chooses the “wrong” position, but that it appears to shift positions -  selectively applying principles depending on context. In a fragmented system, such inconsistency can erode the very trust that neutrality depends upon. Neutrality becomes not only a political question today, but an operational one. A country may declare neutrality, yet its financial system behaves differently under external pressure. Sovereignty, in this sense, is no longer absolute. It is negotiated, and sometimes diluted.

If neutrality can no longer survive as a passive stance, what replaces it? One of the most compelling ideas to emerge from the discussion was the notion of “active neutrality”, but not as a slogan, as a strategic framework which has proven its effectiveness in the past. In this view, neutrality is not about staying outside conflicts. It is about enabling interaction between those within them. Switzerland’s potential role, therefore, is not to withdraw, but to facilitate.

Participants pointed to several areas where this could take concrete form: the development of trusted digital infrastructures, frameworks for verifiable data exchange, and neutral platforms for financial and economic coordination. In an increasingly fragmented system, the ability to provide trusted interfaces between competing actors becomes a strategic asset. Trust, in this context, is not abstract. It is infrastructure.

What once made Switzerland “boring” is now in demand

Despite the challenges, speakers underlined the opportunities - fragmentation may create space for new forms of influence. As major powers struggle to maintain coherent global frameworks, smaller and medium-sized actors can play a more significant role - not by competing directly, but by connecting others. Neutrality, if redefined, could become a tool of relevance rather than a symbol of distance. This would require a shift in mindset: «From neutrality as identity to neutrality as capability». «From neutrality as restraint to neutrality as contribution». Such a transformation would not be without cost. It would require clearer principles, greater transparency, and, perhaps most difficult of all, a domestic consensus on what neutrality should mean in the XXIst century.

If there was one striking undercurrent throughout the evening, it was a sense that Switzerland’s greatest challenge may not be external. It may be internal. Several speakers suggested that Switzerland underestimates its own strategic value - that it sees its model as ordinary precisely because it is so deeply embedded in its political culture. Yet from the outside, that model remains exceptional. In a world where trust is increasingly scarce, stability - once dismissed as “boring”, has become a competitive advantage. The question is whether Switzerland recognizes this in time to act on it.

The discussion in Geneva clarified the stakes: neutrality, as it was understood in the XXth century, is no longer sufficient. The global system has changed too fundamentally. Interdependence has deepened. Power has fragmented. Expectations have shifted. In this environment, neutrality cannot be passive. It must be defined, defended, and, above all, operationalized. The real question facing Switzerland is not whether it should remain neutral. It is whether it can redefine neutrality in a way that remains credible and relevant in a world that no longer follows familiar rules.