Federal Council sticks to ban on re-export of Swiss weapons – against domestic and foreign forces

On 10 March 2023, the Federal Council published a media release entitled “Ukraine: Federal Council reaffirms its position on the re-export of war material by third countries”. In it, it backs the recent decisions of Parliament against weakening the ban on re-exports, justifying this with the words: “In doing so, it relies, on the one hand, on the War Material Act and, on the other hand, on the values represented by Switzerland, its neutrality, its tradition of humanitarian aid, its commitment to international humanitarian law and the Geneva Conventions, as well as its international practice in the field of peace mediation.”

In addition, the Federal Council reiterates its rejection of the requests by Germany, Denmark and Spain for the transfer of war material purchased from Switzerland to Ukraine. In doing so, it refers to Article 22a of the War Material Act, according to which “applications for the export of war material [are] not approved if the country of destination is involved in an internal or international armed conflict. This is the case with Ukraine and Russia.” Switzerland also applies the law of neutrality vis-à-vis Ukraine and Russia, the Federal Council continues: according to this, “in accordance with Article 7 in conjunction with Article 9 of the Fifth Hague Convention of 1907”, Switzerland “must observe the principle of equal treatment in arms exports”.
  A clear and generally understandable statement.

President of the Swiss Confederation Alain Berset (SP) explains
in the NZZ am Sonntag the position of the Federal Council

Since the interview with President Berset on 12 March¹, the indignant reactions of certain Swiss politicians – and foreign politicians who want to tell Switzerland what to do! – as well as the mainstream media from Zurich to New York do not end any more. The term “war frenzy” is used as a distraction from the other issues. In fact, Berset explains the Federal Council’s position of 10 March in the interview, of course with his own personal touch. The Swiss Federal Council is a concordance government, which means that its members have to represent the jointly taken majority decisions to the outside world. This is what President Berset does and adds: this is the position of the Federal Council and also his personal stance, and this stance is also supported by parliament.
  What the SP politician is particularly resented for in many quarters is his conviction that the Ukraine crisis cannot be solved with weapons: “There will have to be negotiations with Russia one day. The sooner, the better.” Two days later, Berset received support from the world-famous former SP National Councillor Jean Ziegler: With his statements, Berset “absolutely credibly embodies a traditional pacifist, anti-militarist basic attitude, which is still strong in the socialist movement today”. For historical reasons, the SP in French-speaking Switzerland was much more strongly characterised by “a socialist-libertarian pacifism” than in German-speaking Switzerland, said Ziegler². This is probably why there was much less criticism from French-speaking Switzerland.

What some party leaders are really angry about

From the flood of media products whose authors copied each other’s distortions of Berset’s statements, we merely pick up the Swiss Tagesschau of 13 March 2023. Contrary to the legal obligation to present the facts in a factual manner (“Federal Law on Radio and Television”, Art. 4 Para. 2), the editorial staff eagerly stirred things up against Federal President Berset. First, FDP President Thierry Burkart – who had recently outed himself as a transatlanticist in an interview and announced that he would love to bring Switzerland closer to NATO and the EU – added fuel to the fire against neutrality itself and the Federal President in particular. By “war frenzy”, he did not mean Russia, but the Western states “in their efforts for Ukraine”. That is “anything but neutral”. Moreover, it damages Switzerland’s reputation. – The latter is certainly true for the NATO centres, but not for the “rest of the world”. – Gerhard Pfister, President of the Centre, followed suit, as did Roger Nordmann, President of the SP parliamentary group.
  In all the hubbub, one should not forget what the above-mentioned party leaders are really angry about: Burkart, Pfister and Nordmann fell flat on their faces at the beginning of March in the Council of States and the National Council respectively with their proposals for the de facto lifting of the arm’s re-export ban for deliveries to Ukraine: Both Councils voted to uphold neutrality and the ban in the War Material Act. Only SVP President Marco Chiesa spoke positively about the decisions of Parliament and the Federal Council in the SRF programme in question. On the other hand, the Green Party, the SP members of the Council of States and the majority of the FDP members of the National Council, who had voted no, were simply left out.

Double standards: breach of the principle of collegiality
and further breaches by DDPS head Viola Amherd

The press is more lenient towards Viola Amherd (Centre Party), head of the Department of Defence, Civil Protection and Sport (DDPS). Before the Swiss Officers’ Association (SOG) in Brugg-Windisch on 11 March 2023, she openly distanced herself from the Federal Council as a whole, thus breaking the principle of collegiality: “In the context of the war in Ukraine, Switzerland’s position on the re-export of war material from countries that procured from us is not helpful. […] None of my counterparts understands that we are preventing other countries from supplying Ukraine with urgently needed weapons and ammunition.”³
  Instead of explaining the position of neutral Switzerland to her colleagues in NATO, Amherd demands that Switzerland should use “its room for manoeuvre in terms of neutrality policy”. She recently demonstrated what she means by this. In response to an official request from the German government for the sale of Leopard 2 tanks – with which Germany intends to replenish its reserves after supplying its own tanks to Ukraine – Amherd replied on 4 March that she (Queen Amherd?) “would be prepared to hand over some tanks to Germany. However, they would have to be formally ‘decommissioned’ by parliament.” In this way, Amherd not only bypassed the decision of the Federal Council of 10 March, but also tried to anticipate the necessary parliamentary decision. To hold out the prospect of something for the German neighbours that she is not even competent for – this stirs up a negative mood towards Switzerland! But there is hardly anything about this in the media.

Interference from abroad
in Swiss affairs must be rejected

Just two examples of vociferous but ignorant accusations from abroad.

• The German FDP politician Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann – an arms lobbyist – was rolled out the red carpet in the “Neue Zürcher Zeitung” on 17 March for her warmongering and accusations against Switzerland. Among other things, she claims that because Switzerland does not supply ammunition for the Gepard tanks, the export of grain from Odessa is at risk – a multipack of lies that have already been refuted umpteen times. Since Switzerland is “unreliable”, “in a few months [...] the Gepard ammunition will be produced in Germany”. (Strack-Zimmermann obviously knows the plans of the German arms industry). Her Russia-baiting culminates in the words: “At the latest with the Russian attack it should have become clear that we are also exposed to Russia’s aggression. Russian tanks say ‘to Berlin’ […]”⁴. A Swiss man reminded Germany’s neighbours in the Weltwoche of 14 March: “Actually, because of its past, no country has a greater responsibility than Germany to help European states live together peacefully. Since 1945, generations of German politicians have acted in this sense and ensured that Germany reconciles with other nations.”⁵
• The “New York Times” sent a pamphlet about Switzerland around the globe on 12 March 2023⁶, which was not only notable for its lack of factual knowledge, but also confirmed the desire that had been nurtured for decades in US financial circles to bring the independent and capable small state under the thumb of the USA, and above all to weaken its financial centre, which cannot be killed, wherever possible. That’s all you need to have with you to be able to put this thing in geopolitical terms.

Conclusion: Despite the fiercest headwinds from within and without, a gratifyingly large number of Swiss people are sticking to our unique peace model. Let’s stick to it!  •

¹ Kučera, Andrea; Cassidy, Alan. “Ich spüre heute in gewissen Kreisen einen Kriegsrausch” (I sense a war frenzy in certain circles today); interview with Federal Councillor Alain Berset; in: NZZ am Sonntag of 12 March 2023
² Städler, Iwan; Loser, Philipp; Häfliger, Markus; Gafner, Beni. “Kritik am Bundespräsidenten. Alain Berset und der Rausch des Krieges” (Criticism of the President of the Swiss Confederation. Alain Berset and the frenzy of war); in: Tages-Anzeiger of 14 March 2023.
³ https://www.vbs.admin.ch/de/home.detail.nsb.html/93639.html
⁴ Schwartz, Claudia; Neff, Benedict. “Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann: Auf russischen Panzern steht ‘nach Berlin’. Und Kadyrow droht mit der Besetzung Ostdeutschlands” (Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann: Russian tanks say ‘to Berlin’. And Kadyrov threatens to occupy East Germany”. In: Neue Zürcher Zeitung of 17 March 2023.
⁵ Odermatt, Marcel. “Deutsche Politikerin beleidigt die Schweiz: Weil die Eidgenossenschaft keine Waffen liefern will, könne man sich ‹nicht auf die Schweiz verlassen›. Geht’s noch?” (German politician insults Switzerland: because the Swiss Confederation does not want to supply weapons, one can ‘not rely on Switzerland’. Are you mad?” in: Weltwoche online of 14 March 2023.
⁶ Solomon, Erika. “War in Ukraine puts centuries of Swiss neutrality to the test”; in: The New York Times of 12 March 2023