Swiss politicians divided over F-35 inquiry

Swiss politicians are divided over calls for a parliamentary investigation into the F-35 fighter jet procurement after a 95-page report raised questions about how the aircraft deal was presented to Parliament. SRF reported that the National Council’s Audit Committee, known as GPK-N, found that Switzerland had negotiated a fixed-price clause, but not the flat fixed price that had been publicly communicated.

Several politicians have called for a parliamentary investigation committee, or PUK. Its precise mandate would still have to be defined. In addition to the disputed price arrangement, it could examine how the fighter jet was evaluated and selected.

Dispute over the fixed price

GPK-N said its assessment was based on contradictions within the contract, a report by the Swiss Federal Audit Office, a statement made by US authorities during negotiations and the legal framework governing US Foreign Military Sales. Under that framework, the United States is not permitted to make either a profit or a loss on such transactions.

At the same time, the committee acknowledged that US authorities had sent opposing signals, including through a statement by the US embassy in Switzerland. It also found that the fixed-price arrangement could not be challenged in court and could not be enforced through diplomatic channels.

GPK-N said it could not understand why the VBS had presented the fixed price so categorically to Parliament and the Swiss Federal Audit Office. A warning from the audit office in 2022 had also failed to prompt a review of the contractual price provisions.

The committee’s findings pointed not only to individual mistakes but also to institutional and structural failure, according to security policy specialist and Social Democratic member of the Council of States Franziska Roth of Solothurn.

Calls for further investigation

Roth told SRF that more thorough investigations were necessary. She said it was worth considering whether the PUK, Parliament’s strongest investigative instrument, was needed because politicians from across the political spectrum appeared to have been misled.

Former National Council member Pierre-Alain Fridez of Jura has also called for a PUK in an interview with the Tages-Anzeiger. He said he suspected that the disputed statements about the fixed price involved more than a misunderstanding. Fridez had already questioned the government’s presentation of the price in a book published in 2022.

Fridez defended former Defence Minister Viola Amherd, saying she had relied too heavily on her experts. He said her responsibility was that she had apparently dealt with the issue only to a limited extent and had accepted much of what she was told.

Opposition to a PUK

Werner Salzmann, a security policy specialist and Swiss People’s Party member of the Council of States from Bern, said a PUK was unnecessary. He said the key question was whether Switzerland would have chosen a different aircraft. Salzmann firmly rejected that possibility, saying the selected aircraft was superior in quality.

FDP security policy specialist Josef Dittli, a member of the Council of States from Uri, also said there was no need for a PUK. He described the situation as a debacle that must have consequences and said the Federal Council must implement all the recommendations in the GPK-N report.

What the Federal Council says

SRF parliamentary correspondent Andy Müller said the Federal Council had stated last year that legal action would of course be taken if indications of unlawful conduct were found in connection with the F-35 procurement. GPK-N said it had found no criminal acts.

Legal opinion on the price

A 2024 legal opinion commissioned by Armasuisse to determine whether a fixed price had been agreed concluded that some provisions indicated the United States could pass price increases on to Switzerland. However, the law firm responsible said the specially negotiated fixed-price clause took precedence.