Amherd winks at the cannon barrel

class=”sc-3778e872-0 gWjAEa”>

Defense Minister Viola Amherd (60) stepped in front of the cameras after the meeting with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg (64) last Wednesday and said amazing things: “It is not understood that Switzerland bans the re-export of war materials.”

This is astonishing because the Central Federal Council had already made this statement practically word for word a few days earlier – at the delegates’ meeting of the Officers’ Association. It rained criticism from the SVP at the time. State Councilor David Zuberbühler (44, AR) accused Amherd of violating the principle of collegiality.

Zuberbühler is angry that the DDPS boss is now even doubling down: “It is unbelievable that Amherd is apologizing abroad for Switzerland’s position.” Switzerland must under no circumstances bow to the pressure. Because the attitude of the entire Bundesrat is clear: no re-exports to war zones. “If we give up neutrality, it will endanger Switzerland’s security.”

Good sign for discussion

Only: why did Amherd repeat her statement at all? The VBS is covered. Spokesperson Lorenz Frischknecht simply says: “The boss’s statements speak for themselves; We will not comment further on this.”

However, it is clear why for SP Reichsraadslid Franziska Roth (56, SO): “It was not just a wink with the fence post, but a wink with the cannon barrel.” With her statements, Amherd indirectly calls on parliament to finally show a way out of the impasse.

The omens were already worse. Roth thinks it is a good sign that the Security Policy Committee of the Council of States has invited experts to discuss the international legal aspects of indirect arms aid to Ukraine.

If the small chamber gives the green light to a parliamentary initiative demanding just that, the sister committee in the National Council would be asked to draft a bill of law. Work on a corresponding proposal is well advanced, says Franziska Roth.

Switzerland’s hands are tied

A key to understanding is provided by United Nations Resolution 377(V), entitled “Uniting for Peace”. It was passed in 1950 to give the UN General Assembly the power to act if the Security Council were blocked by a veto. If a country attacks another in violation of international law, the General Assembly can recommend measures to restore peace.

The problem: Resolution 377(V) lacks legal clout. The Swiss diplomat and publicist Paul Widmer (74) on Sundays Blick: “’Uniting for Peace’ changes nothing. The General Assembly can express a majority opinion, but only the Security Council makes legally binding decisions.” So it was just a political manifestation. “A country might use this to legitimize a decision – the resolution has no legal basis.”

Widmer notes that Switzerland’s hands are currently tied. You must not allow the re-export of weapons from your own production because the War Material Act prohibits it.

Argument doesn’t count for Roth

To arrive at a better solution for the future, parliament should scrap the non-re-export clause, says Widmer. “What the gun buyers in Switzerland do later with the guns they acquired in peacetime is their responsibility.”

For Social Democrat Roth, however, the legal argument in the event that Russia attacks Ukraine does not count: “Since the Hague Agreement on the Neutrality Act does not regulate re-exports, it does not prohibit them either.” Therefore, the resolution of the General Assembly need not be legally binding. “It’s not about overriding the law of neutrality with a UN resolution.” NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg has repeatedly stressed that neutrality is not the problem, says Roth: “A re-export would be absolutely correct under international law.”

Source:Blick