Germany only wants to buy limited quantities of weapons and ammunition made in Switzerland. The desire to be one of the good guys is endangering Switzerland’s sovereignty.
The claim is uncontradicted in the parliamentary documents: “Even Saddam Hussein’s poison gas attacks on the Kurds in northern Iraq were flown with Pilatus military aircraft.” With this and other arguments, the Group for a Switzerland without an Army (GSoA) fought for an export ban on Swiss military equipment in 2009.
The Pilatus statement was based on a single article in the French-speaking Swiss daily newspaper “24 heures” from 1988. It quoted a Swiss chemical weapons expert who had spent several trips on behalf of the UN investigating the Iraqi dictator’s crimes against the civilian population. He did not mention the word Pilatus, but spoke of eyewitnesses who saw an aircraft in the shape of a helix – like a PC-7 or a PC-9.
A Pilatus PC-7 from the Swiss aircraft manufacturer Pilatus stands in front of the Pilatus factory in Stans.
Extensive research in the Federal Archives and conversations with contemporary witnesses have shown that the story remains a rumor. The Iraqi attacks on the Kurdish cities of Halabja and Oshnaviyeh in March 1988 were carried out using fighter jets and helicopters from which barrel bombs containing poison gas were dropped. Without any evidence, Swiss political activists used the story as an argument in their fight against the arms industry.
Direct consequences for an innovative Swiss company
The people rejected the initiative with 57.5 percent of the vote, but opposition to the export of weapons and ammunition was considered good form in parliament. In times of relative peace, the issue offered opportunities to be on the right side of morality, seemingly without consequences. The arms industry contributes little to Switzerland’s economic success. Jobs are also of little importance.
Switzerland thus received one of the strictest military equipment laws in the world: since 2021, Swiss military equipment may not reach warring states under any circumstances. But this noble claim failed just a few months later due to the bitter reality: with the attack on Ukraine on February 24, 2022, the military equipment was to be used for its actual purpose.
The Federal Council had to reject all requests from its partner countries for the re-export of Swiss military equipment to Ukraine – including the request from the German federal government to pass on 12,400 rounds of 35 mm ammunition for the Swiss-made “Gepard” anti-aircraft tank.
Now the tough legislation has direct consequences for the Swiss arms industry. The German Federal Office of Bundeswehr Equipment, Information Technology and In-Service Support (BAAINBw) does not want to allow companies from the EFTA area to order the most modern camouflage nets. This free trade zone, which was founded in 1960 as a counter-concept to the EU, includes Switzerland, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein.
«Challenges to neutrality»
The German Federal Office’s ruling is aimed directly at Switzerland and thus at an SME with an innovative technology, which, however, does not want to be named. There is no other company in the entire EFTA area that produces comparable camouflage nets. The Federal Office’s argument is technocratic: the “public contracting authority” deliberately opted for a geographical limitation with regard to the production site, which cannot be assumed to make it difficult to pass on the product.
In plain language: A Swiss manufacturer is out of the question because the German army would not be able to pass on the camouflage nets to a partner country in the event of war. This does not just mean Ukraine, but possibly another NATO or EU country. The essence of Western alliances is based on mutual solidarity. A key criterion in procurement is therefore the so-called “interchangeability”, the exchangeability of military equipment.
A year ago, the Dutch parliament decided to avoid Swiss military equipment. Now Germany also seems to be turning away. The German army and other German security forces have been among the best customers of Swiss military equipment in recent years. Urs Loher, the director of the procurement agency Armasuisse, therefore asked for a written explanation as to why the camouflage net company was excluded from the procurement.
In August, Loher received the answer from Berlin – and with it a confirmation: The German side initially referred to various discussions about “the challenges in relation to neutrality” – and then became more specific: The aim was to avoid a “35mm cheetah ammunition effect”. The camouflage nets, according to the statement from Berlin, must be able to be procured “regardless of the purpose and geographical use”.
Referendum at the earliest in late 2025
When it comes to key technologies, the German Federal Ministry of Defense apparently follows the principle of “Swiss free” – “without Switzerland”, as it is called internally: a conscious reference to de-risking in the case of Chinese technologies, but for different reasons. While “China free” minimizes any security risks, “Swiss free” is intended to ensure that war material, once acquired, can really be used freely in war.
The French-speaking Swiss daily newspaper “Le Temps” reported last week that Germany wants to do without Swiss military equipment. Most security politicians in parliament reacted with outrage. “That would mean that Germany no longer understands our neutrality and is behaving like a henchman of the USA in this war,” said National Councilor Jean-Luc Addor, a member of the SVP, the largest Swiss party. Center-leaning National Councilor Martin Candinas expressed similar views: He was not impressed by such a letter. Switzerland determines its own laws.
The Thun ammunition factory has long been sold: Switzerland has maneuvered itself into a rather unpleasant situation.
In fact, the Swiss War Material Act is currently being revised as a direct result of the Russian attack on Ukraine: On the one hand, the Federal Council is to be given more leeway in approving arms deals “if exceptional circumstances exist”, and on the other hand, Parliament is working on a compromise on re-export – with the aim of at least not denying self-defense assistance with the rigid legislation.
More than a year of political work has gone into the current wording: States “that are committed to our values and have an export control regime comparable to ours” should be able to pass on Swiss military equipment to warring parties who exercise the right of self-defense under the UN Charter. The proposal is now being discussed in both chambers of parliament. It is highly likely that a referendum will be held. A vote will be possible at the end of 2025 at the earliest.
Switzerland is exposed to a threefold field of tension:
- Rule of law: Even the worst law must be changed within the framework of the proper processes. At least when it comes to re-export, there is a narrow majority in parliament who are willing to correct past mistakes. But the issue is being pursued only hesitantly. The self-defense aid for Ukraine could come too late.
- Neutrality: The Federal Council has elevated the issue to a fundamental problem of Switzerland’s foreign policy. In its Ukraine ordinance, it mentions both warring parties in the same breath when it comes to military equipment. The federal government refers to the neutrality provision of the Hague Convention on Land Warfare of 1907. Internally, this fuels an identity debate, while externally damaging the understanding of Swiss neutrality.
- National defense: Switzerland needs its own arms industry in order to be able to equip at least part of the Swiss army. The current situation shows that supply chains are quickly overstretched in the event of war. Switzerland has a low priority among foreign companies behind Ukraine and the NATO states. The army will have to wait longer for the PAC-3 guided missiles for the Patriot air defense system – or for the ordered NLAW anti-tank guided missiles. Switzerland is urgently dependent on niche products that could serve as collateral – similar to the innovative camouflage nets.
There is no sugarcoating the situation: up until the turn of the millennium, the Swiss arms industry also served some questionable customers. This includes the delivery of Pilatus aircraft to civil war-torn countries such as Guatemala, Chad and Iraq. There is therefore nothing wrong with controlling exports and re-exports. However, if the unrealistic law cannot be adapted, the end of an independent arms industry is threatened.
Those most affected would be medium-sized defense companies that produce excellent products in a niche – from multi-spectral camouflage nets to innovations in the field of drones and robotics. The large companies, on the other hand, are in foreign hands or, like Ruag MRO, belong to the federal government.
Switzerland has maneuvered itself into an uncomfortable position. The unconditional will to make all decisions independently and without consideration for partners could drastically limit the ability to defend the country – the core of sovereignty.