The winter session is coming to an end with cuts of millions in the 2025-2028 payment framework (CHF -151 million) and in the 2025 development cooperation budget (CHF -110 million). Parliament's decisions will have dramatic consequences at the expense of the poorest countries and were characterized by many false arguments, criticizes Andreas Missbach, Managing Director of Alliance Sud.
Media release of the development policy competence center Alliance Sud, which is supported by terre des hommes schweiz and other Swiss NGOs.
The haggling over the army was characterized by freely interpreted figures, false arguments and a procedural trick. For a few minutes on December 9, both Councils had spoken out against cuts to the payment framework of the IC Strategy 2025-2028. The National Council, with the support of the centrist majority, had followed the Council of States by 95 votes to 94 and rejected all cuts. But then something happened that had never happened before. The spending brake was not released. This is because for budget decisions over 20 million, Parliament must always resolve this in a separate resolution, which is normally a routine matter. This decision also requires an absolute majority, i.e. 101 votes in favour in the National Council, abstentions count as no votes. Only two votes were missing. This gave the FDP the opportunity to propose cuts once again. These were only accepted with the casting vote of the FDP National Council President, by 96 votes to 95.
In addition to 151 million in bilateral development cooperation from the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC), humanitarian aid for Ukraine, of all things, was to be cut (-200 million). This was after the members of the lower house had repeatedly emphasized during the debate that they were not heartless and would certainly not cut back on humanitarian aid. The Council of States corrected the -151 million for the SDC and prevented a total embarrassment for Switzerland and cold rooms in Ukraine.
In general, facts played no role in the debate. For example, the scientifically clear effectiveness of development cooperation or the fact that there is no area in the federal administration where more evaluations are carried out and there is more transparency, meaning that we know exactly "what is happening with all the money abroad". Free invented figures on international cooperation (IC) were also juggled around, with two thirds too much being allowed. Equally fact-free is the often-heard statement that the army has been "starved in recent years" in favor of IC. Since 2015, the growth in IC has always been lower (1.7% on average) than the growth in the federal budget (2.6%), while the growth in army expenditure has already been significantly higher (3.9%). Hunger looks different and takes place elsewhere.
It did not help that the (binding) IC budget for 2025 was negotiated at the same time as the 2025-2028 payment framework. International cooperation will now be cut by CHF 110 million for the coming year. This clearly shows that payment frameworks are simply the framework within which parliamentarians can present themselves in a better light (or in a less bad light). In the budget, cuts were also made to multilateral IC and SECO's development cooperation, which had been spared in the payment framework. And the SDC has less money at its disposal than the payment framework would suggest.
The CHF 30 million missing from multilateral aid is roughly equivalent to Switzerland's entire commitment to date in the fight against AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. The money missing from bilateral cooperation will mean that fewer pupils can be taught in refugee camps, farming families will lack a secure water supply in the fight against the climate crisis, young people will lack an apprenticeship and more children will go to bed hungry. Christmas looks different.
Further information:
Andreas Missbach, Managing Director Alliance Sud, Tel. 031 390 93 30, andreas.missbach@alliancesud.ch
