No arms deliveries: Switzerland is hiding behind its neutrality

The west is annoyed by Switzerland. Referring to their centuries-old neutrality, the Confederates are blocking arms and ammunition supplies that NATO countries want to pass on to Ukraine. And even in the event of a reform, Swiss war material will only reach Kiev in a few years.

Switzerland is famous for many things: its mountains, its chocolate, its punctual trains – but also for its neutrality. For centuries, the Swiss have kept their distance from wars and conflicts. The Alpine country is currently at least partially participating in the sanctions against Russia. However, Switzerland continues to refuse arms and ammunition deliveries to Ukraine. The government repeatedly refers to the neutrality enshrined in the constitution.

People in Switzerland like their country’s neutral attitude. A poll in January showed that 91 percent want to remain neutral. That’s 5 percent less than last year, but still an overwhelming majority. “The problem, however, is that the vast majority of Swiss do not even know what neutrality law requires and what our constitution says about it. Neutrality is only mentioned there in passing, as one of several instruments for safeguarding Swiss independence,” explains Mauro Mantovani, lecturer at the ETH Zurich Military Academyin the ntv podcast “Learned something again”.

The expert assumes that most Swiss people “just associate positive feelings” with neutrality – Switzerland’s non-membership of the EU and NATO, for example. “But neutrality is also credited with the fact that modern Switzerland has never been attacked militarily and has been able to develop into a prosperous country,” reports Mantovani.

Domestic dispute over neutrality

The topic of neutrality is currently being discussed more agitatedly in Switzerland than it has been for a long time. Because while Switzerland happily manufactures ammunition and delivers it all over the world in times of peace, in times of war it reflects on its peace mission – and thus also abandons the attacked Ukraine. The accusation that Switzerland is hiding behind a vaguely formulated claim to neutrality instead of supporting a country under attack weighs heavily, but can hardly be refuted.

Switzerland has a strict war material law that prohibits arms deals with foreign countries without exception if the country in question is at war. Since the last tightening at the end of 2021, the law has left practically no leeway for the export of war weapons or ammunition. It doesn’t matter if a country is waging aggressive war or being attacked. “With the law, which has been repeatedly adapted, Switzerland is seeking a balance between economic interests, security policy considerations and the country’s humanitarian tradition,” Mantovani describes in the “Learned again” podcast.

Switzerland’s image could suffer as a result. A dispute over neutrality has long since flared up in domestic politics as well. The Swiss FDP wants to relax the export ban to such an extent that countries that share the democratic values ​​of the Confederates can resell or give away Swiss-made armaments. However, the Swiss People’s Party SVP, the largest force in parliament, rejected the bill.

At an event organized by the University of Zurich last autumn, Ukrainian President Selenskyj called on Switzerland to give up its neutrality. There are also increasing critical voices from Germany because weapons or ammunition, for example from the Rheinmetall plant in Zurich, are not being delivered.

Switzerland as a buffer zone

Switzerland’s neutrality is reflected in Article 185 of the Swiss constitution. “The Federal Council takes measures to safeguard Switzerland’s external security, independence and neutrality” – that is the exact wording. Traces of this phrase go back centuries. “The origins of Swiss neutrality lie in the late Middle Ages, when the Confederation grew and became more and more diverse, religiously and culturally. In order not to break apart in this process, the country held back in foreign policy,” explains Mantovani in the podcast.

At the Congress of Vienna in 1814/1815, Switzerland was finally committed to permanent neutrality. That was in the interests of the great powers of the time. “France and Austria in particular did not want the other power to control the Swiss Alpine crossings,” said Mantovani.

Switzerland should form a buffer between the European regional powers. In 1907, the Hague Convention on Land Warfare laid down concrete rights and obligations resulting from neutrality. Accordingly, neutral states may not wage war and may not join a military alliance. You must not take sides in a war – regardless of who is the aggressor and who is being attacked.

The people of Switzerland value their neutral role, as the survey results mentioned above show. At the same time, however, the Confederates are significantly less happy with the consequences of neutrality. In January, a slim majority in a poll was in favor of Switzerland moving closer to NATO. In other surveys, around half of the respondents had also spoken out in favor of arms deliveries to Ukraine.

Rheinmetall threatens to leave

The armaments industry would of course welcome such a move. “The industry has always been clear in favor of a liberal export policy and against delivery restrictions and bans,” says Mantovani.

An important armaments group in Switzerland is Rheinmetall, whose subsidiary Rheinmetall Air Defense in Zurich mainly produces anti-aircraft systems. “Rheinmetall has expansion plans, but not in Switzerland because of these political restrictions,” adds Mantovani.

Rheinmetall boss Armin Papperger does not yet see Switzerland as an endangered location, but it will “not grow as we had hoped,” he said in an interview with the company in the middle of the month “New Zurich Newspaper”: “If we could only produce there for Switzerland, it would no longer be profitable because Switzerland does not need as much ammunition.” In this case, the site could even shrink. “That depends entirely on what other restrictions there are.”

Military expert Mantovani also sees difficult times ahead for the Swiss armaments industry. “In general, there is a fear in this country that, for political reasons, armaments production could be relocated from Switzerland to other countries in the next few years.”

In the next two to three years, old contracts would still be fulfilled, the cites “New York Times” a spokesman for the Swiss armaments industry, but after that the industry was doomed. There were simply no more new orders. According to the New York Times, Europeans and the most important players in the defense industry are “more and more suspicious when it comes to the manufacture of weapons in Switzerland”.

Even mini-reform has failed

How complicated cooperation with Switzerland is is shown particularly impressively by the example of the Gepard anti-aircraft tank, dozens of which Germany has sent to Ukraine. The ammunition is manufactured in Switzerland by Rheinmetall Air Defense. Before the Russian invasion, the German authorities had no problem ordering ammunition from Switzerland. But because the buyer – Germany – now wants to send the missiles to a warring party – the Ukraine – Switzerland is blocking the project.

That shouldn’t change at first. In any case, Mauro Mantovani does not assume that Swiss neutrality law will be adjusted in the short term. “The debate continues, obviously also because of the pressure from abroad. But given the decisions that have already been made and the political majority in our country, I don’t see how an easing could succeed in the foreseeable future.”

So far, Swiss parliamentarians have not even been able to agree on a mini-reform of the War Material Act. The Security Policy Commission (SiK) had proposed that Swiss arms may be delivered to countries in the future if they have become the victims of a war of aggression and the UN Security Council has condemned this accordingly. That wouldn’t help Ukraine in the slightest, because Russia, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, can use its veto to block all decisions and there will therefore be no such vote. In this case, however, a two-thirds majority in the UN General Assembly should justify the re-export of Swiss arms. However, the National Council could not agree on this addition.

Mantovani draws attention to the possibility that the topic will be discussed again in Parliament and that arms deliveries will be made easier – often only a handful of votes are missing for the proposed amendments – “but even if the law were made more flexible, Swiss war material would only get into the country in a few years Ukraine because it would only affect future exports of arms or ammunition.” This means that a change in the law would have no effect on material that has already been produced.