Prime Minister about Swiss Leopard decision: ‘I am very disappointed’ Ex-minister accused: Ousman Sonko demands dismissal judges criminal court

In the margins of the EU summit in Brussels, Mark Rutte speaks frankly: “To be honest, I was very disappointed.” This is what the Dutch Prime Minister said about the decision of the Bundesrat to block the export of 96 Leopard 1 tanks stored in Italy by the weapons group Ruag. The Netherlands had officially asked Switzerland to do so and offered to pay the bill.

After a detour via Germany, the lifted tanks should have been sent to Ukraine for use in the war. Now nothing will come of it. Rutte: “I had close contact with the Swiss president and had really hoped for a different result.” The Swiss attitude is difficult to understand and raises questions. According to the Dutchman, whose country actively supports Ukraine in its defense against the Russian attack, people now want to look for alternative solutions.

When asked if the affair would strain relations between Bern and The Hague, Rutte said he hoped not and would try to avoid it. But it shouldn’t be particularly useful. In Switzerland’s complicated relationship with the EU, its government is often one of the few allies of the Federal Council in Brussels. In addition to Germany, it was mainly the Netherlands that had always pushed for the release of the blocked research collaboration.

But the Federal Council’s decision on the Leopard tanks also made international headlines. An article in the British “Financial Times” reached a large audience on the short message service Twitter. “The end of Swiss arms exports and production,” wrote the head of the Center for Security and Defense of the “German Association for Foreign Policy.” The Brussels correspondent of the business magazine The Economist described Switzerland’s policy of neutrality in the face of the war as “hopelessly naive”.

Amherd warned the government school about reputational damage

Defense Secretary Viola Amherd fought for the sale in the Federal Council itself, with the support of Secretary of State Ignazio Cassis, according to two independent sources. In a joint report, Amherd would have warned of reputational damage if the federal government were to block the tank trade. This is not just a security issue. The question also has implications for Switzerland’s relationship with its European partner countries.

She alluded to the ongoing exploratory talks with the EU. In addition, Bern wants closer cooperation with NATO’s military alliance. During her visit to NATO headquarters in Brussels in March, Amherd had to explain several times why Switzerland blocked the transfer of Swiss war material. While members of the Federal Council never tire of declaring Swiss neutrality at their international meetings, the lack of understanding has not lessened since then.

The Bundesrat, as it now stands in Bern, could not have decided otherwise because of the applicable laws. A confidential legal opinion from the Federal Bureau of Justice states that the sale was only made possible by an emergency law decision by the Federal Council. On the other hand, those close to the Bundesrat are confident that another tank deal will soon be possible: the sale of 25 Leopard 2 tanks to Germany. However, these must not reach Ukraine, but must fill gaps in the German armed forces.

There are also problems with the next aid package for Ukraine

Now it would have been elegant if the Federal Council could have offset its rejection of the Leopard 1 tank deal on Wednesday with another deal: the long-heralded aid package for reconstruction in Ukraine. In addition to the approximately CHF 1.8 billion already planned for 2024-2028, this is intended to ensure a long-term, strong commitment from Switzerland in Ukraine. It is also important that Switzerland does not fall behind in a global comparison in terms of willingness to help.

It was recently said that the package would be on the Bundesrat’s agenda before the summer holidays. That has now failed because Secretary of State Ignazio Cassis rejected the pact’s draft, it is said. The paper already contained concrete proposals and strategies; the talk was about 2 billion Swiss francs. Cassis now wants another fundamental debate.

The background to the maneuver may, of course, be financial policy issues. According to reports, funds from development cooperation (IZA) would be channeled to Ukraine. According to this, up to 80 percent of Ukrainian funds could be diverted from IC. In the long term, aid in Ukraine would therefore be at the expense of the poor countries in the south. In February, Cassis said of such a scenario: “If we were to withdraw from regions and countries where our support is needed and greatly appreciated, it would not be understood.” (aargauerzeitung.ch)