BERN. A month before Switzerland votes on its arms export rules, the two campaigns cannot agree on what the ballot paper does. One side’s slogan is “Arms exports out of control”. The other’s is “Reliable rules for a secure Switzerland”. Early opinion polls put Yes and No neck and neck. The vote is on 29 November.
The law today refuses an export licence if the destination country is in an armed conflict or systematically commits serious human rights violations. The same bar applies if there is a risk the weapons will be used against civilians, or re-exported without Switzerland’s prior consent. Parliament’s majority decided those limits had become too tight for the current map, and voted to loosen them. The campaign that followed has been about a war the posters often decline to name.
What would actually change
The largest change would let war materiel be supplied to a partner country that is itself in an armed conflict, if the sale fits Swiss neutrality and Swiss foreign or security interests. The partner list sits in an ordinance, so the Federal Council can amend it. It includes most European countries, plus Argentina, Canada, the United States, Japan, Australia and New Zealand.
The Federal Council would also be able to step outside the usual criteria for any country, in exceptional cases, where that was necessary to protect foreign policy or security interests. On re-exports, buyers would no longer need Swiss permission as an automatic rule. Bern would still demand a non-re-export declaration when neutrality, foreign policy or security made it necessary.
Monday’s press conference
Opponents put their case to reporters on Monday: the Greens, the Social Democrats and the Evangelical People’s Party, with non-governmental organisations and the Swiss Bishops’ Conference. Their fear is that Swiss weapons would again be cleared for use in war, and that a buyer could pass them on. They name Sudan, and they name Gaza. They also warn that Switzerland would be left with some of the most permissive export rules in Europe.
Alicia Giraudel of Amnesty International framed the vote as a test of reputation rather than of industry. “This vote is not just about arms exports,” she said. “It is about Switzerland’s credibility when it claims to defend human rights, the rule of law and international law.” The inclusion of the United States and Argentina on the partner list is part of that argument: the list is not a neutral roll of democracies frozen in time, and the Federal Council can change it.
The Yes camp answers that a country which will not supply its partners cannot expect those partners to supply it, and that the neutrality test stays in the law. Business groups and the right say the present rules have become a blunt instrument in a sharper neighbourhood. Both descriptions can be read out of the same articles. That is why the polls have not broken.
Voters who want the mechanics before the slogans have one useful question. Not whether Switzerland should export arms in the abstract, but whether a partner at war may receive them, and who decides the list of partners after the referendum is over. The answer on 29 November will not end that argument. It will decide which side writes the next ordinance.