Former Chairman of World Trade Organization Answers Questions on the Swiss Arms Industry and Neutrality

by Nadir Gerber

Nicholas Niggli, co-founder of On Ventures and a former Swiss diplomat and WTO Chair, sat down with the Graduate Press to answer our questions on the value of Switzerland’s neutral status, arms production, and the future of law. Read more about the future of Swiss neutrality here.

The Federal Council of Parliament has framed the amendment to the War Materiels Act as “[increasing] the capacity of our country, which is neutral, to defend itself in case of an attack.”Do you concur with the idea that a competitive arms industry bolsters Switzerland’s defensive capacity?

The world has changed fast. Geopolitical, technological, cyber and planetary risks now compound one another, and they can move extraordinarily fast. No planning or acquisition process was designed for that pace. A drought, a cyberattack and a regional conflict can arrive together and amplify each other in unpredictable ways. This is the shift from multicrisis to polycrisis. It demands sharp foresight, better preparedness and different training, and a move toward resilience, ideally antifragility. In that setting, a domestic defence industry becomes an adaptability asset rather than simply a volume asset. It lets Switzerland produce, repair and adjust quickly when a surprise arrives, including in civil protection and disaster response. Exports help sustain that base, within rules that protect our neutrality and our reputation. Without a strong national industry, dependencies grow, and our capacity to adapt may fall short of combined threats.

The proposed amendment to the War Materiels Act would remove obligations to ensure that Swiss arms would not be re-exported to states engaged in armed conflict. Given that this amendment has been positioned as arising from the security implications of the Russian war in Ukraine and that many European states have been explicit in their intent to deliver arms to Ukraine, do you think the passage of this amendment could amount to a de facto departure from Swiss neutrality?

I would separate law from perception. In law, neutrality binds the state, and the bill keeps exports to Ukraine prohibited. We control what we do. We cannot fully control what others do with what we make or sell, and in a globalised supply chain that has always been so. Impartiality means applying our own rules consistently within that reality. Others will draw their own conclusions, and we should expect it. Resilience includes absorbing that pressure without losing our course. Neutrality is protected by practice that is predictable and impartial.

The Swiss public recently voted against a referendum to harden the requirements of neutrality. Coupled with the push to amend the War Materiels Act, how do you think this reflects the Swiss public’s own understanding of Switzerland’s neutral status?

Caution is warranted. A clear majority declined to fix a stricter definition in the constitution. I read that as attachment to neutrality and to its flexibility. A rigid text can fail precisely when circumstances shift. Flexibility has a price, though. It asks more of decision makers and of citizens, and it makes losing our course easier. Scenario-based training for both would help us grasp the implications of our choices before we make them. The two votes address different questions, and the electorate appears divided on the amendment itself. I would let the 29 November result speak before drawing conclusions.

In your view, is there a benefit for Switzerland to retain neutrality as defined in the 1907 Hague Convention as opposed to adopting the more flexible “non-belligerent” position favored by other states?

I see real value in the Hague framework. It offers legal clarity, and that clarity is what lets Switzerland act as a host, a protecting power and an intermediary. But the legal status is only the licence. What Switzerland offers the world is craft: deep experience in complex negotiation, mediation and the design of processes that make agreement possible. That craft must keep renewing itself, with new methods, new tools and new people. Rehearsing one crisis at a time no longer prepares negotiators well enough for compounding risks. Having designed negotiation simulations for over a decade, I have seen how differently people decide once several pressures hit at once. We need a new generation of simulations built around combined, fast-moving scenarios. In times this volatile and uncertain, no single instrument will suffice. We will need an arsenal for peace: solutions, frameworks, technology and human talent. The legal core gives us stability. What we build around it will give us resilience at home and relevance abroad.