Swiss Federal Councillor Ignazio Cassis addresses parliament on the Nagorno Karabakh question on 15 June 2026. Source: parlament.ch
Last Wednesday, Erich Vontobel, a member of the Swiss parliament, deposited a formal question to Switzerland’s Federal Council. Fifteen months ago, the parliament mandated the Council to organize a peace forum between the Armenians of Nagorno Karabakh and Azerbaijan. “What measures has it taken to facilitate the talks with the representatives of the Armenians of Nagorno Karabakh as required by the motion?” Vontobel asked.
Speaking in the parliament on Monday, Swiss Foreign Minister Ignazio Cassis replied that it was impossible for the Swiss government even to speak with those representatives.
“Switzerland does not recognize Nagorno Karabakh as a state entity,” he said. “Accordingly, it does not maintain official contacts with representatives of Nagorno Karabakh.”
Cassis’ claim contradicts Switzerland’s long and storied history of engaging with non-state actors as part of its diplomatic mission.
Ethnic cleansing and a way to peace
Nagorno Karabakh, or Artsakh, is part of the ancient homeland of the Armenian people, the world’s first Christian nation. Between 1991 and 2023, the Armenians of Nagorno Karabakh ruled themselves in an independent, democratic republic, although the neighboring country of Azerbaijan claimed the region as part of its own territory.
In September 2023, Azerbaijan invaded Nagorno Karabakh after blockading it for nine months. The entire Armenian population – nearly 120,000 people – was forced to flee, in what has been widely recognized as an act of ethnic cleansing or genocide.
In March 2025, both houses of the Swiss parliament passed Motion 24.4259, for a peace forum for Nagorno Karabakh.
The motion mandated the Swiss Federal Council – Switzerland’s top executive body – to organize, within one year, a peace forum where the “safe and collective return” of the Armenians to their homeland could be negotiated. The motion mandated that this forum involve “Azerbaijan and the representatives of the Nagorno Karabakh Armenians,” dialoging under international supervision.
The Federal Council refuses to act
One year came and went. 19 members of the parliament formed a committee called the Swiss Peace Initiative for Nagorno Karabakh, which is campaigning for the motion to be implemented.
But whenever the Federal Council was asked what steps it had taken to organize the peace forum, its representatives would reply that they had spoken to the governments of Armenia and Azerbaijan, and as neither of them supported the idea, it was not possible to organize the forum.
The reference to the government of the Republic of Armenia was mystifying – Motion 24.4259 says nothing about a role for the Republic of Armenia in the peace forum. Armenia’s prime minister, Nikol Pashinyan, has called talk of the Nagorno Karabakh Armenians’ right to return “dangerous to peace.” During his recent re-election campaign, Pashinyan on several occasions verbally accosted refugees from Nagorno Karabakh on the campaign trail, including one man, Artur Osipyan, who was subsequently arrested.
What Motion 24.4259 requires is for the Federal Council to organize a peace forum involving “the representatives of the Nagorno Karabakh Armenians.” On April 30, a delegation of such representatives, led by Acting President Ashot Danielyan, visited the Swiss parliament house in Bern, Switzerland, to dialogue with members of parliament. But no one from the Federal Council or the Foreign Ministry would meet with them, despite the mandate.
On June 5, the Armenian newspaper Aravot asked Guy Parmelin, the president of the Swiss Federal Council, about his government’s work on the motion. Mr. Parmelin replied again, “The authorities of the two countries” – Armenia and Azerbaijan – “have indicated that they do not want such a forum to be held.”
Exchange on the floor of parliament
On June 10, Mr. Vontobel, one of the initiators of the motion, put the question directly to Foreign Minister Cassis.
“Motion 24.4259 obliges the Federal Council to organize a peace forum between Azerbaijan and the representatives of the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh,” Vontobel noted in his interpellation. “However, the Federal Council states that Armenia and Azerbaijan reject such a forum. Why is the Federal Council departing from the clear wording of Parliament’s mandate in implementing the motion? What measures has it taken to facilitate the talks with the representatives of the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh as required by the motion?”
Speaking in the parliament on June 15, Cassis replied that organizing the peace forum “is currently not possible.” The government of Armenia, he said, had rejected the idea when they were last asked about it on April 9, as had the government of Azerbaijan when they were asked most recently on April 15.
Vontobel was not satisfied. “That Azerbaijan is unwilling is clear to me,” he told Cassis. “That the official Armenian authorities are not interested is clear enough. But what about those who are directly affected?” he asked, meaning the refugees from Nagorno Karabakh. “Do they want it, or do they not? That is what I would like to know from you. Surely, you must at least speak with them and ask whether they would be willing to participate. Why do you not engage at all with the people directly concerned, as the mandate actually requires?”
Cassis replied simply, “As you know, Switzerland is a state, and a state maintains relations with other states, not with segments of another state’s population. Such conduct would be regarded as interference in that country’s internal affairs, and that is not Switzerland’s approach.”
Switzerland’s long record of engaging with non-state actors
Cassis’ assertion that implementing a mandate from the Swiss parliament “is not Switzerland’s approach” is striking enough. But his claim that Switzerland cannot engage with non-state actors runs directly counter to a long record of Switzerland doing exactly that.
Switzerland engaged with the FARC rebel group in Colombia to try to mediate an end to Colombia’s decades-long civil war. CSI’s president, John Eibner, recalls working with Swiss diplomats during the second Sudanese civil war (1983-2005) who were deeply engaged with the Sudanese People’s Liberation Movement, as part of efforts to reach a peace agreement.
Switzerland also recognizes Kosovo and East Timor as independent states, although both Serbia and Indonesia view these countries, respectively, as part of their territory, and relations with these countries as interference in their internal affairs.
Switzerland does not recognize Palestine as a state, a position that was reaffirmed on April 28, when the Swiss National Council voted against recognition.
Yet Bern offers its good offices to facilitate Israeli-Palestinian dialogue, hosts talks in Geneva, and treats non-recognition as no barrier whatsoever to peacemaking.
Last June, Cassis himself flew to Ramallah and met the Palestinian Authority’s prime minister and foreign minister, Mohammad Mustafa, by name.
The Swiss foreign ministry billed the trip as part of Switzerland’s efforts to promote dialogue, peace and respect for international law.
“CSI is deeply concerned by the Swiss Foreign Minister’s refusal to execute in good faith the parliamentary mandate to provide a forum for peaceful dialogue between Azerbaijan and the forcibly displaced population of Nagorno Karabakh,” commented John Eibner, the president of Christian Solidarity International. “Swiss parliamentarians and the public are entitled to know why Cassis has abandoned the long-standing Swiss tradition of engaging with all manner of non-state actors in the search for peace.”
