Swiss War Materiel and Arms Exports

Back to the list

Ems fuze-system licence for the apartheid regime

Goods category: War materiel

Racial segregation sign on Muizenberg beach, Cape Town, June 1985.

CC BY-SA 3.0

In spring 1984, Ems-Patvag granted Armscor in South Africa a licence for a military initiation system. Board member Rudolf Blocher signed the agreement accompanied by director Konrad Deutsch. The company trained South African technicians in Ems and Oberweningen and helped procure production machinery. Employees also reported components and samples allegedly delivered through Portugal. Cooperation continued until at least 1991. Ems-Patvag said the transactions were legal. Licence transfers were not covered by Swiss war materiel law at the time; the alleged goods deliveries must be assessed separately. On 13 November 2002, a US civil lawsuit by lawyer Ed Fagan against Ems-Chemie in South Carolina, announced for that day, became known. It concerned support for Armscor and the 1984 licence.

Effect of the proposed War Materiel Act revision

Under the new Article 22b, the Federal Council could depart from all the licensing criteria in Article 22a under vaguely defined ‘exceptional circumstances’. The public would not have to be informed. The Federal Council could add South Africa to Annex 2 by amending the War Materiel Ordinance. This would remove the exclusion criterion based on participation in an armed conflict and make approval the rule. The Federal Council could refuse a licence only in exceptional cases. Article 18 paragraph 1 would abolish non-re-export declarations in the vast majority of cases. Weapons for South Africa could thus easily be supplied through a subsidiary or intermediary in a third country. The Netherlands could serve as a third country, having, according to SIPRI, supplied substantial quantities of war materiel to South Africa in recent years (90 million TIV).

Countries

Conflicts

Companies

Time period

Licence concluded in spring 1984; cooperation until at least 1991

Sources