FDP National Council breaks down FDP proposal

Sometimes, when a deal is really important, politicians get together and compromise. This happened early last week in Bundesbern. After a night of deliberation, a solution was suddenly found, the way out of a very confused situation.

It concerned the re-export of Swiss-made weapons by third countries. The war material law, which was tightened shortly before Russia attacked Ukraine, prohibits this – which is not only causing misunderstanding and annoyance abroad.

The compromise that security politicians from the FDP and SP are now presenting can win a majority, but it is also complicated. Countries such as Germany and Spain would in future be allowed to pass on weapons purchased in Switzerland to Ukraine.

The regulation would also apply to arms and ammunition exported more than five years before the law change took effect – provided the UN first determines that the attacker has violated international law and the countries wanting to export make a request at the Federal Council.

Applause from the FDP and the Greens

The fact that politicians want to bring about this amendment to the War Materials Act via a parliamentary initiative is a smart move. Drafting the law is the responsibility of the responsible committees – outside the Bundesrat. He has repeatedly made it clear that he wants to stick to the old practice: no relaxations in re-exports. For this attitude he receives only applause from the SVP and the Greens. The pool parties oppose any relaxation of the War Materials Act, albeit for various reasons.

Still, the Bundesrat found a way to comment on the compromise on Thursday by commenting on a motion essentially similar to the SP and FDP proposal. The vote is sobering for the authors of the initiative: According to the state government, the alleged way out of the impasse violates the law of neutrality and is therefore inappropriate.

Harsh criticism now also comes from within our own ranks. FDP national councilor Hans-Peter Portmann (60) described the compromise with Sunday’s vision as unworkable. To his knowledge, the restrictions contained therein violate the law of neutrality. According to the resident of Zurich, there are only two options: either the parliamentary initiative is left untouched, or all conditions – apart from the five-year non-re-export obligation of a purchasing nation – are scrapped.

Not willing to compromise

This includes the passage according to which there must be no risk that the war material will be used against the civilian population. “That’s unrealistic,” says Portmann. “Civilians also died in the Donbass in this war.” Accordingly, Ukraine should not be equipped with Swiss-made weapons of war. Moreover, the liberal went on, the compromise would be of no benefit to the local arms industry. There are simply too many requirements. “Each country will say to itself, ‘We’re not going to do that.'”

Portmann is not holding out too much hope. Apart from individual requests, which are likely to be rejected by links, there is nothing more that can be done. “This train has probably left, the problem remains unsolved.”

The FDP does not like to comment on the outlier. Portmann has his own views, which is nothing new, says FDP leader Thierry Burkart (47). However, the parliamentary initiative does not in any way conflict with the law of neutrality: “The Hague Agreement does not regulate re-export.”

Maja Riniker (44), FDP National Council member and co-initiator of the compromise, emphatically invites her fellow party member Portmann to participate in the legislative process: “Suggestions are always welcome.”

SP Volksraad member Franziska Roth (56) is little impressed, neither by the attitude of the Bundesrat, nor by Portmann’s resistance. The government is caught in contradictions, says the second initiator of the compromise, but: “The Bundesrat does not want to move.” For example, the Federal Council’s 1993 Neutrality Report states that the system always requires active action against a person who breaks the peace.

According to Roth, Portmann, on the other hand, is only concerned with strengthening the local arms industry. “But we don’t budge an inch.”

Roth emphasizes that the compromise is a good solution. Portmann’s objection that civilians in Donbass are under fire is not valid: “Ukraine is exercising its UN-recognized right of self-defense.”

It is now a matter of showing solidarity with the Ukrainians and the European countries, the Social Democrat said. “Even if it’s just a few thousand cartridges, we shouldn’t put any obstacles on our partners.”

Source:Blick