About Us
Our Research Products
Switzerland
Cluster Munition Ban Policy
Commitment to the Convention on Cluster Munitions
|
Convention on Cluster Munitions status |
State Party as of 1 January 2013 |
|
National implementing legislation |
Federal Act on War Material (2012 amendment) |
|
Stockpile destruction |
Preparing for destruction |
|
Participation in Convention on Cluster Munitions meetings |
Attended Second Meeting of States Parties in Beirut, Lebanon in September 2011 and intersessional meetings in Geneva in April 2012 |
|
Key developments |
Ratified on 17 July 2012 following parliamentary approval on 16 March 2012 |
Policy
The Swiss Confederation signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions on 3 December 2008 and ratified on 17 July 2012. The convention will enter into force for Switzerland on 1 January 2013.
On 16 March 2012, the two chambers of the Swiss parliament, the National Council and Council of States, approved Switzerland ratification of the Convention on Cluster Munitions and approved amendments to the Federal Law on War Material to ensure implementation and compliance with the ban convention[1] (see the Implementation legislation section below).
Switzerland’s initial Article 7 transparency report for the Convention on Cluster Munitions is due by 28 June 2013.
Ratification
Switzerland’s ratification of the Convention on Cluster Munitions began in 2010 and was accompanied by a process to amend the Federal Act on War Material of 13 December 1996. On 6 June 2011, the Federal Council, the executive body, approved ratification of the convention.[2] On 4 July 2011, the Security Policy Committee of the Council of States unanimously agreed to recommend ratification of the convention and the amendment of the Federal Act on War Material to the Council of States.[3] On 15 September 2011, the Council of States approved the ratification and the amendments to the Federal Act on War Material.[4]
On 18 October 2011, the Security Policy Committee of the National Council recommended that Switzerland not ratify the Convention on Cluster Munitions in a majority decision that cited several concerns, including that a ban on cluster munitions would “dangerously weaken” the Swiss armed forces’ defensive capabilities.[5] In December 2011, the recommendation was overturned in the National Council by a vote of 143 to 37 in favor of ratifying the convention; the Security Policy Committee gave its approval to recommend ratification of the ban convention on 24 January 2012, reversing the earlier recommendation.[6] On 5 March 2012, the plenary of the National Council agreed to recommend ratification.
On 16 March 2012, the National Council and Council of States gave their final approval on ratification of the Convention on Cluster Munitions and on the amendments to the Federal Act on War Material. The National Council approved the amendment to the Law on War Material by a vote of 152 in favor and 31 against and approved ratification of the Convention on Cluster Munitions by a vote of 151 in favor and 32 against.[7] The Council of States unanimously approved both the amendment to the Law on War Material and ratification of the Convention on Cluster Munitions.[8]
Switzerland’s ratification was then subject to a mandatory 100-day waiting period during which time a public referendum could be called for under the country’s direct democracy procedures.[9] No requests for a national referendum on ratification of the ban convention were received by the 5 July 2012 deadline. Switzerland deposited the instrument of ratification with the UN in New York on 17 July, becoming the 75th State Party to the Convention on Cluster Munitions.
Promotion of the convention
Switzerland was among the first countries to propose international action on cluster munitions. During the Oslo Process that produced the convention, Switzerland’s position shifted to fully endorse the comprehensive prohibition of cluster munitions.[10]
Switzerland has continued to actively engage in the work of the Convention on Cluster Munitions in 2011 and the first half of 2012. Switzerland participated in the convention’s Second Meeting of States Parties in Beirut, Lebanon in September 2011, where it made several statements, including on victim assistance, international cooperation and assistance, and clearance. Switzerland also attended the second intersessional meetings of the convention in Geneva in April 2012, where it presented its revised Mine Action Strategy (2012–2015) and made statements on transparency measures, universalization, and clearance.
At the UN General Assembly First Committee on Disarmament and International Security in October 2011, Switzerland pledged to continue to contribute actively to the implementation and universalization of the convention.[11] In August 2011, Switzerland helped to organize a workshop on the Convention on Cluster Munitions in Bangkok to promote accession by Thailand and Cambodia.
In 2011 and the first half of 2012, Handicap International (HI) Switzerland continued to campaign for swift ratification of the convention and strong implementation legislation.[12] The NGO has also taken several actions in support of a ban on both direct and indirect financing of cluster munitions.
Implementation legislation
On 16 March 2012, the National Council and Council of States approved amendments to revise the Federal Law on War Material of 13 December 1996 to incorporate cluster munitions in its provisions.[13]
The amendments to the Federal Law on War Material prohibit the development, manufacture, purchase, acquisition, transfer, import, export, transport, and stockpiling or possession in any other manner, of cluster munitions, and also the assistance or encouragement of any of the above acts.[14] These prohibitions apply to explosive bomblets as well as cluster munitions. The amendments include penal sanctions for violations of the convention of up to 10 years imprisonment and/or a fine for intentional violations and up to one year and/or a fine for negligence.[15] Penal sanctions for violations of the prohibitions on financing are also included, including a prison sentence of up to five years and/or a fine.[16]
The amendments to the Law on War Material allow for the retention of cluster munitions for training and research purposes, but state that the number retained should not exceed that absolutely necessary for these purposes.[17]
The amendments prohibit the direct financing of the development, manufacture, or acquisition of cluster munitions.[18] The indirect financing of these activities is also prohibited, but with a clause stipulating “if the intention is to bypass the prohibition on direct financing.”[19] The amendments on disinvestment came about after HI Switzerland and others warned that the proposed legislation would fail to completely prohibit investment.[20] HI Switzerland viewed the draft provisions on indirect financing as likely unworkable in practice as it would be impossible to prove that any financial assistance had been undertaken with the purpose of bypassing the prohibition on direct financing.[21]
In their June 2012 report on worldwide investments in cluster munitions, NGOs IKV Pax Christi and FairFin welcomed the amendments to the Federal Law on War Material and noted their potential impact on the large number of financial institutions based in Switzerland, but expressed concern that the wording of the amendment prohibiting indirect investment would “constitute a major exception to the prohibition” and noted that the amendments did not set criteria to identify which companies are involved in the development, manufacturing of acquisition of cluster munitions.[22]
Interpretive issues
In April 2010, Switzerland informed the Monitor that its position on a number of important issues relating to the implementation and interpretation of the convention would be decided during the ratification process and provided “in due course.”[23]
During the Dublin negotiations of the ban convention, Switzerland chaired challenging informal sessions on “interoperability” (joint military operations with states not party) that resulted in Article 21, a provision that the CMC criticized as the worst element of the new convention.[24]
In an October 2010 explanatory report on the convention, the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs noted that the concepts of assistance or encouragement that are contained in the Convention on Cluster Munitions are not defined in Swiss or other international law.[25] On the prohibition on assistance with prohibited acts in joint military operations, the report stated the Federal Council’s view that, under the convention, Switzerland cannot ask its allies to use cluster munitions in the framework of joint military operations, provided that the choice of munitions used is under its exclusive control.[26]
Prohibition on investment in production
In February 2011, Credit Suisse announced the enactment of a new policy that excludes companies producing cluster munitions and mines from its credit, investment banking, and asset management activities.[27] Previously, in May 2010, the Swiss bank UBS announced its decision to exclude cluster munitions producers from its funds managed in Switzerland and Luxembourg.[28]
In June 2012, IKV Pax Christi and FairFin listed several Swiss financial institutions that they identified as investing in cluster munitions producers, including Credit Suisse and UBS, which the NGOs report still possess investment assets in companies producing cluster munitions. [29]
Convention on Conventional Weapons
Switzerland is party to the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW). In October 2011, Switzerland stated that despite efforts in the CCW to negotiate a new protocol on cluster munitions in recent years, it had “grounds to fear that the end result will not sufficiently meet the humanitarian concerns at stake and…will not meet the requirements for an effective arms control and disarmament instrument.” Switzerland emphasized that any CCW protocol on cluster munitions “must be consistent with existing norms of international humanitarian law and have an immediate effect on the ground.” Switzerland “strongly encouraged” users and producers to “increase transparency in the negotiation process and to provide information on the qualitative and quantitative impact on their stockpiles of the draft protocol” so that the practical implications of the provisions of the draft protocol could be better understood.[30]
From the outset of the CCW’s Fourth Review Conference in November 2011, Switzerland expressed concern about the chair’s draft text of the proposed CCW protocol on cluster munitions, which it said “would leave a very open door for use of cluster munitions that have been shown to have an unacceptable humanitarian impact” and “risks undermining the credibility of the CCW.”[31]
Switzerland was not one of 50 countries that endorsed a joint statement on the final day of the Review Conference declaring that there was no consensus on adopting a proposed CCW protocol that would permit continued use of cluster munitions. After the statement was delivered, Switzerland intervened to say that it shared the concerns expressed on the draft chair’s text, including the “weakness of its humanitarian provisions” and its “negative impact” on international humanitarian law, but said that it was “not in a position” to support the text.[32]
The Review Conference concluded with no agreement and with no proposals to continue negotiations in 2012, thus ending the CCW’s work on cluster munitions.
Use, production, and transfer
Switzerland has never used or exported cluster munitions.[33] It imported cluster munitions from Israel and the United Kingdom, and has a stockpile of cannon artillery and mortar projectiles with submunitions. Switzerland destroyed its air-dropped cluster bombs from 1997–2000.[34]
In 2007, Switzerland stated that it “stopped the production of cluster munitions in 2003.”[35] However in 2009, Switzerland clarified that it “did never per se produce cluster munitions. Indeed, according to a license agreement with the manufacturer, the munitions were purchased abroad and enterprises based in Switzerland, after adding specific features to increase the reliability of the ammunitions, reassembled them (exclusively for the Swiss Armed Forces).”[36] According to the clarification, “This process ended in the last quarter of 2004. Since then, no further treatment or assembly of cluster munitions has taken place in Switzerland.”[37]
Swiss military officials have informed Human Rights Watch that Switzerland imported 155mm artillery projectiles and 120mm mortar projectiles with M85-type[38] submunitions from Israel Military Industries; Swiss firms then modified (“Helveticized”) the submunitions’ safeguards and reassembled the weapons.[39]
Switzerland purchased DM702 SMArt-155 Sensor Fuzed Weapons from Germany as part of its 2001 Armament Program.[40] The SMArt 155 artillery round contains two submunitions, but it is not considered a cluster munition under the Convention on Cluster Munitions because it meets the five technical criteria set out by negotiators as necessary to avoid the negative effects of cluster munitions.[41]
Stockpiling
In June 2011, the Federal Council listed the various types of cluster munitions stockpiled by the Swiss Army, but not their quantities.[42] Switzerland stockpiles cluster munitions (projectiles cargos pour l’artillerie à tube) for 155mm M-109 and M-109 Kawest self-propelled howitzers, 155mm Bison fortress cannons, and 120mm fortress mortars. The following projectiles for these delivery systems all possess modified M85-type self-destructing submunitions:[43]
· 155mm KaG-88 (containing 63 submunitions)
· 155mm KaG-90 (containing 49 submunitions)
· 155mm KaG-88/99 (containing 84 submunitions)
· 120mm MP-98 (containing 32 submunitions)
Switzerland possesses no air-launched cluster munitions. A stockpile of 300kg cluster bombs ("Fliegerbombe 79") held by the Swiss Air Force was destroyed between 1997 and 2000.[44]
In February 2011, the Social Democratic Party (SP/PS) stated that the Swiss Army stockpile of cluster munitions totaled an estimated 200,000 munitions.[45]
Stockpile destruction
Under Article 3 of the Convention on Cluster Munitions, Switzerland is required to declare and destroy all stockpiled cluster munitions under its jurisdiction or control as soon as possible, but no later than 1 January 2021.
In 2011, the Federal Council confirmed that “Swiss stocks of artillery munitions that are subject to the Convention on Cluster Munitions ban will be destroyed” within eight years.[46] Switzerland has estimated the anticipated stockpile destruction cost at CHF20–60 million (US$19–58 million). It has noted that, regardless of its obligations under the Convention on Cluster Munitions, 70% of the cluster munitions in Switzerland’s stockpile will reach the end of their shelf life in the next 10 to 15 years and will have to be destroyed at the estimated cost of CHF42 million ($40 million). Therefore, the maximum estimated additional cost for destroying stockpiled cluster munitions within the deadlines established by the convention would be CHF18 million ($17 million).[47]
Retention
As of 31 July 2012, Switzerland had yet to make known how many cluster munitions or submunitions it intends to retain.
[1] On 16 March 2012, the Federal Council issued a federal order declaring that Switzerland will provisionally apply the prohibitions contained in Article 1 of the Convention on Cluster Munitions until its entry into force for Switzerland. “Arrêté fédéral portant approbation de la Convention sur les armes à sous-munitions” (“Federal order concerning approval of the Convention of Cluster Munitions”), 16 March 2012, http://www.admin.ch/ch/f/ff/2012/3271.pdf.
[2] Federal Authorities of the Swiss Confederation press release, “The Federal Council decides to ratify the Convention on Cluster Munitions,” 6 June 2011.
[3] Security Policy Committee of the Council of States press release, “La CPS-E propose de vendre des biens inutilisés pour financer l’acquisition des nouveaux avions de combats” (“SPC-E proposes to sell unused property to finance the acquisition of new fighter jets”), 5 July 2011, http://www.parlament.ch/f/mm/2011/Pages/mm-sik-s-2011-07-05.aspx.
[4] Council of States, Official Bulletin, Autumn Session, 4th Meeting, 15 September 2011, http://www.parlament.ch/ab/frameset/d/s/4820/362191/d_s_4820_362191_362249.htm?DisplayTextOid=362250.
[5] Original statement: “propose de ne pas entrer en matière sur le projet de ratification.” National Council Committee on Security Policy Press release, “La Suisse ne doit pas ratifier la convention” (“Switzerland does not have to ratify the convention”), 18 October 2012, http://www.parlament.ch/f/mm/2011/pages/mm-sik-n-2011-10-18.aspx.
[6] National Council Committee on Security Policy Press release, “Sous-munitions – le conseil national devrait se rallier à l’interdiction” (“Cluster munitions – the National Council is to endorse the ban”), 24 January 2012, http://www.parlament.ch/f/mm/2012/pages/mm-sda-2012-01-24.aspx.
[7] National Council, “Official Bulletin,” Spring Session, 6th Meeting, 5 March 2012, http://www.parlament.ch/ab/frameset/d/n/4902/374582/d_n_4902_374582_374788.htm.
[8] Council of States, Spring Session, 12th Session, 16 March 2012, http://www.parlament.ch/ab/frameset/d/s/4902/378454/d_s_4902_378454_378489.htm?DisplayTextOid=378490.
[9] In April 2012, Switzerland stated that if no referendum was called for then it would be able to deposit the instrument of ratification to the convention with the UN shortly after the expiry of the referendum deadline. Statement of Switzerland, Convention on Cluster Munitions Intersessional Meetings, Session on Universalization, Geneva, 16 April 2012, http://www.clusterconvention.org/files/2012/04/Switzerland_Universalization.pdf.
[10] For more details on Switzerland’s cluster munition policy and practice through early 2009, see Human Rights Watch and Landmine Action, Banning Cluster Munitions: Government Policy and Practice (Ottawa: Mines Action Canada, May 2009), pp. 165–169.
[11] Statement by Amb. Alexandre Fasel, Permanent Representative of Switzerland to the Conference on Disarmament, UNGA First Committee on Disarmament and International Security, New York, 7 October 2012; and statement by Amb. Alexandre Fasel, UNGA First Committee on Disarmament and International Security, New York, 18 October 2012.
[12] HI issued several press releases in relation to its campaign for swift ratification and for a complete prohibition of investment. See HI Switzerland website “Mediacorner” at, http://www.handicap-international.ch/fr/media-corner.html. Following the National Council’s Security Policy Committee’s advice not to enter the ratification process on 18 October 2011, HI Switzerland approached the members of the National Council in Bern to request their support for ratification.
[13] “Loi fédérale sur le matériel de guerre (LFMG). Modification du 16 mars 2012” (“Federal Law on War Materiel (LFMG). Amendment of 16 March 2012”), 16 March 2012, http://www.admin.ch/ch/f/ff/2012/3213.pdf.
[14] Ibid., Articles 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(2), http://www.admin.ch/ch/f/ff/2012/3213.pdf.
[15] A 2010 explanatory report on the convention published by the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs foresaw fines of up to CHF5 million ($4.8 million) for intentional violations and up to CHF500,000 ($479,294) for negligence. Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, “Ratification de la Convention du 30 mai 2008 sur les armes à sous-munitions et modification de la loi du 13 décembre 1996 sur le materiel de guerre: Rapport explicatif (projet) pour la procédure de consultation” (“Ratification of the Convention of 30 May 2008 on Cluster Munitions and the Amendment of the Law of 13 December 1996 on War Materials, Explanatory Report [Draft] for the Procedure on Consultation”), October 2010, Section 9.2.1 and Section 9.2.3. Average exchange rate for 2010: US$1=CHF1.0432. US Federal Reserve, “List of Exchange Rates (Annual),” 6 January 2011.
[16] Article 35(b)(3) however contains another qualifier that “If the offender only accommodates the possible violation of the prohibition of funding provided under art. 8b and 8c, he will not be punishable under the provisions.” According to NGOs IKV Pax Christi and FairFin, “Art. 35b addresses the problem of unintended investment: if an investor did not know he was investing in prohibited war materiel, he will not be pursued. However, it is unclear whether this refers to e.g. investments in funds that follow an index or to other forms of investments as well.” “Worldwide investments in cluster munitions: a shared responsibility, June 2012 update,” IKV Pax Christi and FairFin, June 2012, p. 137, http://www.stopexplosiveinvestments.org/uploads/pdf/5.%20Worldwide%20investments%20in%20cluster%20munitions;%20a%20shared%20responsibility%20June%202012.pdf. Translation by FairFin.
[17] “Loi fédérale sur le matériel de guerre (LFMG). Modification du 16 mars 2012” (“Federal Law on War Materiel (LFMG). Amendment of 16 March 2012”), 16 March 2012, Article 8(a)(3), http://www.admin.ch/ch/f/ff/2012/3213.pdf.
[18] Article 8(b)(2) states: “For the purposes of this Act [the] following acts are considered as direct financing: the direct extension of credits, loans and donations or comparable financial benefits to cover the costs of or to promote the development, manufacturing or the acquisition of prohibited war materiel.” Translation by FairFin. See also “Worldwide investments in cluster munitions: a shared responsibility, June 2012 update,” IKV Pax Christi and FairFin, June 2012, pp. 136-137, http://www.stopexplosiveinvestments.org/uploads/pdf/5.%20Worldwide%20investments%20in%20cluster%20munitions;%20a%20shared%20responsibility%20June%202012.pdf.
[19] Article 8(c) states: “It is prohibited to finance indirectly the development, manufacturing or acquisition of forbidden war materiel if the intention is to bypass the prohibition on direct financing. For the purposes of this Act [the] following acts are considered as indirect financing: a. the participation in companies that develop, manufacture or acquire forbidden war materiel [and] b. the purchase of bonds or other investments products issued by such companies.” Translation by FairFin. See also “Worldwide investments in cluster munitions: a shared responsibility, June 2012 update,” IKV Pax Christi and FairFin, June 2012, pp. 136-137, http://www.stopexplosiveinvestments.org/uploads/pdf/5.%20Worldwide%20investments%20in%20cluster%20munitions;%20a%20shared%20responsibility%20June%202012.pdf.
[20] Previously, in September 2009 and June 2010, the Council of States and the National Council adopted motions on the prohibition of both direct and indirect financing of weapons banned under the Federal Law for War Materials, including cluster munitions once the law is amended to ratify the convention. See Motion by Maury Pasquier, “Against the financing of prohibited weapons,” Council of States, No. 09.3618, 11 June 2009, www.parlament.ch; and Motion by Hugue Hiltpold, “Against the financing of prohibited weapons,” Council of States, No, 09.3618, 11 June 2009, www.parliament.ch. In September 2009, the Federal Council issued its opinion on the motions, stating that the prohibition on financing would cover direct financing exclusively. The motion was adopted by the Council of States unanimously in September 2009, but was rejected by the Security Policy Committee of the National Council. The National Council passed the motion on 10 March 2010 and the Council of States approved the identical motion on 17 June 2010. In February 2011, HI Switzerland called on the Federal Council to honor the commitments contained in the motions to amend the Federal Law on War Materials to include a prohibition on both the direct and indirect financing of the production of cluster munitions. The Social Democratic Party (SP/PS) also called on the Federal Council and the Parliament to adopt a stronger stance against indirect financing and called for the implementation of the motions and a ban on direct and indirect financing as an imperative. See HI Switzerland Press release, “La Suisse pourrait continuer d’‘assister’ et d’‘encourager’ leur production” (“Switzerland would continue to ‘assist’ and ‘encourage’ their production”), 23 February 2011, www.handicap-international.ch; letter from Paul Vermeulen, HI Switzerland to the President of the Confederation and the Federal Councillor, “Procédure de consultation suite à la ratification par la Confédération helvétique de la Convention sur les armes à sous-munitions du 30 mai 2008” (“Consultation procedure on the ratification by the Swiss Confederation of the Convention on Cluster Munitions of 30 May 2008”), 21 February 2011; and letter from Christian Levrat, President, and Peter Hug, Political Secretary, SP/PS, to the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, 21 February 2011.
[21] Paul Vermeulen, “Armes illégales: écueils diaboliques” (“Illegal weapons: diabolical pitfalls”), Le Temps, 5 March 2012, www.letemps.ch/Page/Uuid/5585e32e-6642-11e1-a3b9-3de4c710e72f.
[22] “Worldwide investments in cluster munitions: a shared responsibility, June 2012 update,” IKV Pax Christi and FairFin, June 2012, pp. 136-137, http://www.stopexplosiveinvestments.org/uploads/pdf/5.%20Worldwide%20investments%20in%20cluster%20munitions;%20a%20shared%20responsibility%20June%202012.pdf.
[23] Letter from Jürg Lindenmann, Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, 18 April 2010.
[24] A US Department of State cable dated 20 May 2008 that was released by Wikileaks on 1 September 2011, shows how US officials discussed interoperability concerns with Swiss Amb. Christine Schraner Burgener, who served as Friend of the President of the Dublin Diplomatic Conference on Cluster Munitions. According to the cable, “Schraner commented that, as a lawyer, she personally would prefer ‘very clear language’ in the convention, rather than a situation in which individual states would address the interoperability issue via national declarations.” See “Oslo Process: PM/WRA consultations with Amb. Schraner – “Friend of the Chair” for interoperability,” US Department of State cable 08BERN238 dated 20 May 2008, released by Wikileaks on 1 September 2011, http://www.cablegatesearch.net/cable.php?id=08BERN238&q=cluster%20munitions. The US later thanked Switzerland for its work in securing the ban convention’s interoperability provisions. According to a US cable dated 3 December 2008, a US official reportedly “noted the USG's appreciation for the inclusion of Article 21 in the Convention text, underlining that we especially appreciated the GOS's helpful role in that regard in its capacity as ‘Friend of the Chair’ for interoperability during the Dublin meeting.” See “Convention on Cluster Munitions and interoperability,” US Department of State cable 08BERN618 dated 3 December 2008, released by Wikileaks on 1 September 2011, http://www.cablegatesearch.net/cable.php?id=08BERN618&q=cluster%20munitions. Swiss officials note that Article 21 helped to secure support from major stockpilers for the adoption of the Convention on Cluster Munitions “and thereby that article contributed substantively to the establishment of the convention.” They also emphasized that Amb. Schraner regularly consulted with representatives of the Cluster Munition Coalition during the negotiation of Article 21. Email from François Garraux, Policy and Military Advisor Arms Control and Disarmament, Federal Department of Defence, to Mary Wareham, HRW, 11 July 2012.
[25] Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, “Ratification de la Convention du 30 mai 2008 sur les armes à sous-munitions et modification de la loi du 13 décembre 1996 sur la materiel de guerre: Rapport explicatif (projet) pour la procédure de consultation” (“Ratification of the Convention of 30 May 2008 on Cluster Munitions and the Amendment of the Law of 13 December 1996 on War Materials, Explanatory Report [Draft] for the Procedure on Consultation”), October 2010, Section 6.2.
[26] Ibid.
[27] Stop Explosive Investments Press release, “New Credit Suisse policy furthers Swiss disinvestment in cluster bombs,” 3 February 2011, www.stopexplosiveinvestments.org. According to Stop Explosive Investments, “the Credit Suisse policy is much stronger than a similar policy issued in May 2010 by another large Swiss bank, UBS…. The UBS policy only encompasses asset management and does not cover the bank's credit and investment banking activities, which campaigners say is a major loophole.”
[28] Stop Explosive Investments, “UBS Stops Funding Cluster Bomb Producers,” 13 May 2010, www.stopexplosiveinvestments.org; and “UBS fund takes stance against cluster bombs,” www.swissinfo.ch, 11 May 2010.
[29] IKV Pax Christi and FairFin, “Worldwide investments in cluster munitions: a shared responsibility, June 2012 update,” June 2012, pp. 57, 82 & 109, http://www.stopexplosiveinvestments.org/uploads/pdf/5.%20Worldwide%20investments%20in%20cluster%20munitions;%20a%20shared%20responsibility%20June%202012.pdf. The report lists UBS as holding investments in Lockheed Martin, Hanwha Corporation, Poongsan Corporation, and Textron and Credit Suisse as holding investments in Singapore Technologies, all companies known to produce cluster munitions.
[30] Statement by Amb. Alexandre Fasel, UNGA First Committee on Disarmament and International Security, New York, 18 October 2011.
[31] Switzerland stated that to “do justice to humanitarian concerns” the draft text would need to include a prohibition on use, stockpiling, and transfer of all cluster munitions with a more ambitious and pragmatic timeframe; a complete prohibition on transfers; a prohibition on the use of cluster munitions in populated areas; and appropriate measures to verify declarations of a failure rate of 1% or less. Statement of Switzerland, CCW Fourth Review Conference, Geneva, 16 November 2011. Translation by the Monitor.
[32] Statement of Switzerland, CCW Fourth Review Conference, Geneva, 25 November 2011. Notes by AOAV.
[33] Letter from Micheline Calmy-Rey, Minister of Foreign Affairs, 5 March 2009; and Statement by Amb. Christine Schraner Burgener, Oslo Conference on Cluster Munitions, 22 February 2007.
[34] Switzerland said that from 1997 to 2000, it destroyed the air force’s stockpile of just under 4,000 BL-755 cluster bombs, which had been acquired in the late 1970s and early 1980s; and Statement of Switzerland, Berlin Conference on the Destruction of Cluster Munitions, 25 June 2009.
[35] Statement by Amb. Christine Schraner Burgener, Oslo Conference on Cluster Munitions, 22 February 2007.
[36] Letter from Micheline Calmy-Rey, 5 March 2009. Most observers would judge that the activities engaged in constitute “production”: modifying the original manufacturer’s product for improved performance in combat, then re-loading, re-assembling, and re-packaging the projectiles into a condition suitable for storage.
[37] Letter from Micheline Calmy-Rey, 5 March 2009.
[38] The mortar projectiles contain M87 submunitions, which are dimensionally different than the M85, though they possess the same self-destructing fuze type. See Israel Military Industries Ltd “The Cargo Bomb,” undated, www.imi-israel.com.
[39] Interviews with members of the Swiss Delegation, CCW GGE on Cluster Munitions, Geneva, 16–20 February 2009. These weapons were also on display at the International Workshop on Preventive Technical Measures for Munitions in Thun in May 2004, attended by HRW, and representatives offered this same explanation.
[40] Department of Defense, Civil Protection and Sport, “Armament Program 2003−1990,” undated, www.ar.admin.ch. See also, Rheinmetall DeTec AG, “SMArt 155—Proven Reliability and Accuracy,” June 2005, www.rheinmetall-detec.de.
[41] Article 2.2(c) excludes munitions with submunitions if they have less than 10 submunitions, and each submunition weighs more than four kilograms, can detect and engage a single target object, and is equipped with electronic self-destruction and self-deactivation features.
[42] “Message relatif à l’approbation de la Convention sur les armes à sous-munitions ainsi qu’à la modification de la loi sur le matériel de guerre”, (“Message on the Ratification of the Convention of 30 May 2008 on Cluster Munitions and the Amendment of the Law of 13 December 1996 on War Materials”), June 2011, Section 1.5.1, http://www.parlament.ch/f/suche/pages/geschaefte.aspx?gesch_id=20110036.
[43] They were part of different arms procurement programmes (1988, 1991, 1993, & 1999), hence the numbers behind the abbreviation “KaG,” which stands for the German term “Kanistergeschoss.” Email from François Garraux, Policy and Military Advisor, Arms Control and Disarmament Policy, Federal Department of Defense, 23 August 2011.
[44] Email from François Garraux, Arms Control and Disarmament Policy, Federal Department of Defense, 23 August 2011.
[45] Letter to the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, from Christian Levrat and Peter Hug, SP/PS, 21 February 2011.
[46] Federal Authorities of the Swiss Confederation Press release, “The Federal Council decides to ratify the Convention on Cluster Munitions,” 6 June 2011, www.admin.ch. Average exchange rate for 2010: US$1=CHF1.0432. US Federal Reserve, “List of Exchange Rates (Annual),” 6 January 2011.
[47] Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, “Ratification de la Convention du 30 mai 2008 sur les armes à sous-munitions et modification de la loi du 13 décembre 1996 sur le materiel de guerre: Rapport explicatif (projet) pour la procédure de consultation” (“Ratification of the Convention of 30 May 2008 on Cluster Munitions and the Amendment of the Law of 13 December 1996 on War Materials, Explanatory Report [Draft] for the Procedure on Consultation”), October 2010, Section 7.2.2. Average exchange rate for 2010: US$1=CHF1.0432. US Federal Reserve, “List of Exchange Rates (Annual),” 6 January 2011.
Send us your feedback on this profile
Send the Monitor your feedback by filling out this form. Responses will be channeled to editors, but will not be available online. Click if you would like to send an attachment. If you are using webmail, send attachments to .