Spectacular turn? Ironically, the SVP paves the way for the transfer of war material Iran blames Kurdish groups for the attack in Isfahan

German politicians and representatives have repeatedly denounced Switzerland for preventing aid to Ukraine with its strict war material law. Specifically: You block the transfer of 12,400 rounds for the anti-aircraft tank Gepard in the war zone. This ammunition was produced in Switzerland years ago and delivered to Germany – provided it was not re-exported.

The Bundesrat crushed German requests, as well as requests from other countries, to hand over war material. His hands are tied. In fact, the war material law was not tightened until 2021, with parliament expressly insisting that the Bundesrat should not be given any derogation right. That was, of course, before the war.

FDP and Mitte quickly changed their position after the Russian attack: neutral Switzerland should continue to supply neither arms nor ammunition directly to Ukraine. However, Swiss-produced weapons may be transferred from their stockpiles by other states. Last week, the SP also changed its mind: if a military attack is condemned by a two-thirds majority of the UN General Assembly as being contrary to international law, war material must be passed on. In the case of Ukraine, the criterion has been met.

The paradox of armed neutrality

However, the SVP maintained its position of strict neutrality. On Wednesday morning, she issued a communiqué criticizing proposals from the Center and the SP to pass on arms, which were approved last week in the Security Committee of the National Council, as a threat to the country’s security.

But behind the scenes, change is on the horizon: Werner Salzmann, Bernese SVP Council of States and chairman of the Security Policy Committee of the Council of States, will submit two motions during Thursday’s committee meeting. These amount to the fact that war materials from Swiss production may be passed on.

However, Salzmann’s advances, agreed with the party, are not intended to help Ukraine. “It’s important to me that we abide by the law of neutrality,” he says, “and as long as we don’t supply weapons directly to the war zone, we will.” The blockade is not based on the law of neutrality, but on the War Materials Act. “We have to change that,” explains Salzmann, “in the interest of the Swiss defense industry.”

Apparently, Salzmann (military rank: colonel) realized what became clear soon after the outbreak of war: that an absolute no from Switzerland to the issue of arms supplies would sooner or later endanger the Swiss arms industry. And with it the upheld principle of armed neutrality – which the SVP of all people wants to write into the constitution with their latest initiative.

The role of the arms industry in Switzerland, which employs between 15,000 and 30,000 people (some companies are not officially allowed to count themselves among them), is less of an economic one than of a military one. It is intended to ensure “that the exploitation and maintenance of war material can be ensured domestically,” says Salzmann: “Our militia army is based on the domestic arms industry.”

In addition, as experts say, it should integrate with specialized products into international production chains – especially those of NATO. Thanks to interdependencies, the idea was that Switzerland would also be supplied with foreign war material in case of need.

But the strategy now has the catch that the Swiss suppliers pull out at the decisive moment: in time of war. According to media reports, the arms group Rheinmetall has already started moving production lines from Switzerland to other countries. And at a meeting of the arms companies with Federal Councilor Parmelin last week, “all twelve participants named an example from their product range for which they are under international pressure because of the supply ban,” says Matthias Zoller of the Security and Defense Technology Working Group, the lobby organization for arms manufacturers.

5 years: Personal use obligation prevents direct transfer

In terms of content, Salzmann’s application is an addition to an initiative by FDP chairman Thierry Burkart. It wants to abolish non-re-export declarations for those countries that represent values ​​comparable to those of Switzerland and have a comparable export control regime. The 25 countries are already listed by the War Material Ordinance; they are mainly European countries, plus the US, Japan and Australia, among others.

The abolition of the non-re-export restriction should also affect purchases that have already taken place in the past, such as cheetah ammunition: “It can,” says Burkart, “Switzerland can waive the non-re-export condition of its own volition. “

Salzmann’s application substantiates Burkart’s proposal on one point: “War material obtained in Switzerland may be passed on after five years at the earliest.” This ensures that the neutrality-based ban on direct deliveries to a war zone is not circumvented, says Salzmann. Neutrality has been maintained.

With his second application, Salzmann wants to give the Federal Council back the leeway that parliament expressly refused in the autumn of 2021 when approving arms exports. This after the government had relaxed export criteria for years: even countries where human rights were seriously and systematically violated were able to import weapons from Switzerland.

There was great distrust in Parliament towards the Federal Council on this issue. In addition, strict regulation was a precondition for withdrawing the correction initiative, which was aimed at severely restricting arms exports. It will become clear on Thursday whether the councils will return to it. (aargauerzeitung.ch)