Swiss War Materiel and Arms Exports

Back to the list

Oerlikon production abroad for the apartheid regime

Goods category: War materiel

Oerlikon GDF-003 35 mm twin gun, Taiwan, 13.08.2011.

CC BY-SA 3.0

Oerlikon-Bührle enabled licensed manufacture of gun barrels and ammunition in South Africa from 1964 and later of complete guns. In the 1980s, the group provided technical and organisational support for further development of 35 mm air defence under the Sleeve and Skavot projects. On 13 November 2002, a US civil lawsuit by Ed Fagan in Florida against Unaxis, formerly Oerlikon-Bührle, announced for that day, became known. It concerned Oerlikon-Contraves arms and licence sales during apartheid. Fagan sought to hold Unaxis responsible for transactions before the arms division was sold to Rheinmetall in 1999. The subsequent outcome of this specific announced lawsuit is not documented. In 1974, Oerlikon-Bührle confirmed to Swiss authorities a contract for 36 DCA-type 35 mm anti-aircraft guns with ammunition for South Africa. The guns were to be manufactured at Oerlikon Italiana in Milan and some ammunition in Singapore. The delivery schedule ran until 1979. The case concerns production abroad and is distinct from the Swiss Bührle smuggling cases of the 1960s. In the US class action known as the South African Apartheid Litigation, Khulumani plaintiffs also cited arms deliveries by the Oerlikon-Bührle Group. On 8 April 2009, the federal court in New York allowed parts of the aiding-and-abetting allegations against Rheinmetall to survive the motion-to-dismiss stage. On 26 December 2013, the case against Rheinmetall was dismissed because of its insufficient connection to the United States and the limits on extraterritorial application of the Alien Tort Statute. The 2014 decision records this conclusion of the proceedings.

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

Licensed production from 1964; contract in 1974; technical assistance into the 1980s; lawsuit announcement in 2002; Rheinmetall civil proceedings in 2009–2013

Sources