Council of States and National Council reject neutrality-impaired watering down of the arms export ban

“I will reject the Burkart motion, as well as the other corresponding motions that will probably come back to us sooner or later, for the following three reasons:

1. Neutrality is really at the centre here. Therefore, it must be treated accordingly. Armed neutrality, as it is known in our constitution today, was established by the major European powers at the Congress of Vienna. At that time, Switzerland was at the centre of international conflicts. Napoleon had just been overcome; the task now was to create a new order in Europe. In this context, Switzerland was given the position of a neutral country. If I understand correctly from the history books, not everyone in Switzerland liked this at the time. In the long run, however, armed neutrality proved to be a successful model in Switzerland. On the one hand, it enabled Switzerland not to become involved in international conflicts over the last 200 years – especially in the First and Second World Wars. In addition, Switzerland was able to establish itself internationally as a bridge-building nation due to its neutrality. It became possible for it to become the location of very many international organisations, but also to mediate between individual states that were in conflict. It is no coincidence that Switzerland looked after the interests of the USA in Cuba, and it is no coincidence that it looks after the interests of the USA in Iran. It has also on several occasions been a haven and birthplace for the resolution of international conflicts. All this has been made possible by Switzerland’s neutrality.
  After all, we are also proud of neutrality. We enjoy travelling the world with our Swiss passport. We are warmly welcomed everywhere; we are appreciated everywhere.
  Neutrality – as Mr Minder said – is not only nice in times of peace. It is especially effective in times of war. Something has changed here since the time of the Congress of Vienna. In the past, until about the Second World War, there was the so-called ius ad bellum, the right to wage war. A state could declare war on another state, and that was fine, that was the law.
  Since the Second World War at the latest, however, this ius ad bellum no longer exists. Every war is wrong. Of course, there are sometimes discussions about who attacked whom. Ultimately, someone attacked someone. Since the Second World War, every war is wrong, every war is a crime, a violation of international law. This, of course, has given neutrality a different meaning. As a neutral state, one finds oneself in a different situation. In the past, when war was just, as a neutral you were welcome by everyone. It was no problem at all.
  Now you are in fact not on the side of the attacked. So enduring neutrality is more difficult. That means that in peacetime, when you invoke our neutrality at August 1 celebrations or travel the world and let yourself be celebrated as a neutral Swiss, that’s fine. But neutrality comes into its own in wartime. Then you have to be able to endure it. Yes, Mr Burkart, you are right, if you are not on the side of the good, then you are helping, if you like, the bad, the aggressor. But you have to put up with that if you are neutral, that’s the way it is, it’s unpleasant.
  If you say you don’t want that: here you go, then change the Federal Constitution, hold a referendum! Perhaps the majority will then say that they no longer want this, that they find it too unpleasant that they cannot help Ukraine and that they cannot help the attacked in future conflicts. Make such a referendum – I doubt, however, that you will win this referendum.
  On the contrary, I am convinced that the majority of the Swiss would stick to neutrality. But then you also have to remain neutral.
  Now you can argue legally, but I’ll tell you this as a lawyer: neutrality is not what we define here in this beautiful building, but neutrality depends on how the warring parties – not the European states – perceive Switzerland’s position. One thing is clear: if a bullet comes flying at you with ‘Swiss made’ written on it, you don’t think Switzerland is neutral. You said that you are no longer neutral if you send troops. Of course, that is the case, but today support, entry into the conflict does not only mean – as you can clearly see – that you send troops. The Americans don’t send troops, the Germans don’t send troops; today, weapons are supplied and thus influence is exerted on the course of the war. Therefore, one cannot be neutral if one allows Swiss armaments – whether directly or indirectly – to be led into the war zone. From this point of view, I am simply of the opinion that you must, if anything, name your horses and riders. If you want to give up neutrality, then try to do that, but do it the right way, by trying to change the constitution.

2. You said that the rules could be changed during the game; they would apply for the future, so to speak. Yes, but the contracts were made in the past. And then – this is the second point – you are no longer credible. What you want to pursue is what we in the Commission have called ‘ad hoc neutrality’ – and that’s what it would be. You cannot say: We are neutral, but depending on the situation, we will then see how we can somehow get around it; we will change the regulation right away for the existing contracts.
  What you want to put at risk is Switzerland’s credibility. You have now admitted it, and Mr Salzmann has also said it: the motion is not actually about supporting Ukraine, but above all about maintaining our arms industry. I have to tell you, I even understand you against this background. When we made the last tightening up of the export and re-export of weapons, you were against it. At that time, you said you wanted to support our arms industry. In this respect, I even understand that you are now trying to take advantage of the political wind to reverse what we have already decided. But I would like to argue in the direction of the centre, which supported these tightening measures at the time. At the time, you came under pressure because weapons from Switzerland suddenly appeared somewhere in the world. There were major media reports and you said that something had to be done –- together with us. We have always said that something had to be done. You said: Yes, we will help. Now, two years later, it’s a little less comfortable to take that position again. Now you want to change it again. We can’t legislate like that! We can’t let the media dictate to us whether we feel comfortable or uncomfortable with our decisions, and then simply make them or reverse them, depending on how we want them. This is a way of making ourselves untrustworthy.

The last point, and this seems to me to be the essential thing that we have to take into account: you asked what the image is that we present to the outside world. Do the other European states like it or not? Is that the essential thing now? Do we have to please everyone in the world? Do we have to make policy in this way and jeopardise our fundamental values as the case may be?
  Just think about what is actually at stake: the war material that is now to enter a war zone indirectly through the softening of the non-re-export regulation is not even decisive for the war. It is not even the case that we are now deciding that Ukraine has a real chance to defend itself. Thank God others are doing that, such as the USA in particular. So itʼs just a question of making ourselves look good vis-à-vis the rest of Europe. That is not the decisive question – as I told you: Neutrality is also unpleasant at times, but that’s simply the way it is, and we can put up with that, and we have to put up with that.
  Therefore, I ask you here to reject the motion Burkart 22.3557.“

(Translation Current Concerns)