Coalition attacks proposed easing of Swiss arms-export rules

Switzerland’s November 29 vote will decide how much political control remains over the export of military equipment. A coalition of 28 parties and organisations opened its campaign in Bern on October 12, branding the proposed amendments to the War Material Act “immoral” and “anti-Ukraine”.

The alliance brings together left-wing parties, the Evangelical People’s Party, Caritas, the Group for a Switzerland without an Army, Justitia et Pax and the Commission of the Swiss Bishops’ Conference. Its members say the bill would weaken safeguards that parliament and civil society fought to establish.

The referendum follows a political dispute over Switzerland’s defence industry, neutrality and its position in Europe’s security system. Supporters of the amendments argue that existing rules have made Swiss manufacturers less competitive and restricted cooperation with foreign partners. Opponents say the proposed remedy would give the executive excessive room to approve exports.

The coalition’s campaign will now move from Bern’s press rooms into the country’s cantons. Voters will assess a measure that could affect arms sales, weapons transfers and Switzerland’s claims to uphold international law. The result will also test public confidence in the compromise reached after an earlier civil society initiative was withdrawn in 2021.

The proposed law would restore direct exports to countries caught in civil wars, according to its opponents. The coalition says the changes would remove export criteria for 36 countries, including the United States and Argentina. It described the measure as a “blank cheque” for governments it accuses of disregarding democracy and human rights.

Under the proposal, the Swiss government could waive authorisation requirements in “exceptional circumstances” or when exports served “Switzerland’s interests”. Social Democratic parliamentarian Fabian Molina said those grounds were too vague and would reduce parliament’s ability to scrutinise sensitive decisions.

The coalition also objects to a transfer rule that would allow a customer buying weapons in Switzerland to send them on to another country. Molina said Switzerland would be the only country in Europe to adopt such a practice. The source material does not detail the bill’s full legal text or the government’s interpretation of every provision, leaving the referendum campaign to focus heavily on the safeguards that would disappear.

Alicia Giraudel of Amnesty International said the dispute reached beyond commercial licences. She linked the vote to Switzerland’s credibility on human rights, the rule of law and international law, placing export decisions within the country’s wider foreign policy debate.

Opponents say Swiss weapons could reach Sudan or Israel and be used in Gaza under the proposed transfer rules. Martina Weber, a member of the Caritas executive board, said export decisions carry consequences for civilians, forced displacement and refugee movements.

The coalition’s argument rests on the possible chain between a Swiss authorisation and later battlefield use. Once a buyer can transfer equipment to another country, campaigners say Swiss authorities would have less control over where weapons end up and how they are deployed. They cite Sudan and the conflict in Gaza as examples of the risks they believe the bill creates.

Lisa Mazzone, president of the Green Party, said companies should not profit from civil wars and the persecution of populations. She also accused the arms industry of returning to its campaign for looser rules after the withdrawal of the so-called correction initiative.

The debate carries particular weight in Switzerland, where neutrality has traditionally shaped decisions on military exports. The government eased rules earlier in 2026 to support an industry facing exclusion from parts of the European defence market. The November vote will determine whether that approach gains a broader legal foundation.