[ad_1]
What specifically does the initiative require?
The war settlement initiative calls for, as its official title suggests, “a ban on financing war materiel producers.” This affects the Swiss National Bank (SNB), AHV and IV, as well as pension funds and labor benefit foundations. They should no longer be allowed to finance companies that generate more than five percent of their annual turnover from war material. Banks and insurance companies are not directly affected. However, the federal government must work nationally and internationally to ensure that the “applicable conditions” also apply to them.
What does that even mean: “Financing”?
The initiators understand that this means the granting of credit, loans, gifts or comparable financial benefits. Also, you cannot buy securities from manufacturers of war material; neither are the financial products that participate in the producers.
Are so-called dual-use goods also affected?
No. The five percent hurdle relates to construction assets or components that are used exclusively for war material. The text of the initiative says nothing about so-called dual-use goods, those that can also be used civilly, such as machine tools or certain chemical products.
Who are the initiators and what do they expect?
The group for a Switzerland without an army (GSoA) and the Young Greens are behind the project. So far, the SP, the Greens and the EPP have settled on the motto of yes. With the initiative, they want to ensure that Swiss money is not invested where humanity is harmed. They identify a credibility problem: as a neutral country with a humanitarian tradition, Switzerland is committed to human rights and peace, while at the same time money is being poured into wars. It’s about taking ethical responsibility when investing.
Who is fighting the initiative and what are the arguments?
The bourgeois majority in parliament and the Federal Council reject the initiative. So far, SVP, CVP, FDP and GLP have decided on the no-slogan. They warn that the initiative will have negative economic consequences, especially for the SNB and pension funds. Because a financing ban makes your investment opportunities more expensive and increases administrative costs. Furthermore, opponents criticize the “very broad definition of producers of war material.” Depending on how the initiative is organized, the machinery, electrical and metal industries would also be affected, making Switzerland less attractive as a location.
What is true today?
The financing of internationally prohibited war material, such as nuclear weapons, biological weapons and antipersonnel mines, is prohibited today. A special rule applies to indirect financing, such as holding shares: it is only prohibited if it circumvents the prohibition of direct financing. This rule allows institutions such as banks or pension funds to invest in internationally established equity funds despite the funding ban, as the federal government writes. Some of these funds also contain shares of companies that, in addition to civilian goods, also produce nuclear weapons, such as Airbus or Boeing.
Do some pension funds continue on a voluntary basis?
People do: the compensation fund Compenswiss AHV and eight pension funds, for example, are members of the Swiss Association for Responsible Investments. Currently, it is recommended to exclude about 20 companies from the portfolio, including Lockheed Martin for the manufacture of antipersonnel mines and cluster munitions. Pension funds such as those in the cities of Lucerne, Bern or Zurich also refrain from investing in certain companies. The Pension Fund of the City of Zurich currently has more than 200 companies on the exclusion list.
The initiators point to the Norwegian State Fund as a model. What’s it all about?
The Norwegian State Fund, the world’s largest, is committed to an ethical investment strategy. That is why it does not invest in certain companies, for example in Boeing and Lockheed Martin for the production of nuclear weapons. Tobacco companies like Philip Morris are also blacklisted, as is Glencore due to coal mining.
According to the Federal Council, the initiative would also indirectly affect the armed forces and weaken the security of Switzerland. Why?
The federal government assumes that acceptance of the initiative would weaken the competitiveness of Swiss arms manufacturers and their suppliers. Under certain circumstances, there could be relocations abroad, the federal government says. This would weaken the army’s security of supply.
