April 26, 2010 
There are two discussions ongoing in Switzerland that deserve our attention. The first one is about the importance of public international law, the second one relates to the cooperation with great powers. I argue that the core of both these discussions is misguided.
Two recent decisions in Switzerland should spark our interest: First, the ban on the construction of minarets hints at important discussions about the role of public international law. Second, Switzerland’s decision to enable two Uighurs, both former inmates at Guantanamo, to move to Switzerland reveals important questions about the cooperation with great powers.
The discussion about the importance of public international law is, at least in Switzerland, a strange one. An argument commonly heard implies that following public international law is restricting Switzerland’s sovereignty and hindering its well-being. Only “the wish to do good” could lead one to hold to international rules. The opposite is true. Minor powers such as Switzerland have a limited ability to protect themselves. Since they can not tackle any great power, neither by joining an alliance coalition nor by their own means (read more here), avoiding or mitigating great power politics becomes vital for them. This can best be done through international law and international institutions. Following and developing public international law is thus not just “good”, but serves Swiss national interests. Switzerland, in short, has to be interested in a civilization of international politics.
Similarly, many argue in Switzerland that cooperating with great powers does not serve our interests. Only “trying to be nice” could lead one to do so. Again this is wrong. Sure, minor powers’ preferred strategy is non-alignment. But ultimately, small states such as Switzerland are bound to bond with the strongest state in the system (again more here). Cooperating with the United States, in this case by accepting two former Guantanamo detainees, very well serves this cause. It is true that there is an ongoing transition of power towards China – but for now, the United States is still much more important. Helping the US to solve its problems is not just “nice”, but serves Swiss national interests.
Remarkably, my arguments, although targeted at international cooperation and public international law, fall short of any morality. It is pure (small state) power politics that lies behind them. It is a common misunderstanding that power politics and acting “good” or “nice” are exclusive claims. Subsequently, it is also wrong to believe that minor powers in general act “better” than great powers, thus that their behavior is more substantially targeted at positive outcomes, because they are morally superior to great powers. They simply do so because it serves their interests. Funnily, those conservative and right parties refusing to cooperate and to engage in international law bring forth arguments of national interest and those who want to engage in these activities resort to arguments about being good and nice. It does not need to be like that. These claims are not exclusive. Switzerland is in urgent need of a consistent and relevant foreign policy. Therefore, it has to go beyond the ideological dazzlement the country’s political parties engage in.
Perhaps I am wrong here, but Switzerland’s decision to take the Guantanamo inmates is not a break-through event (vis a vis cooperating with foreign powers). Even though the country has a policy of non-alignment, that does not mean it does not cooperate with stronger powers. It can be argued that the acceptance of GBay prisoners is an example of more than just cooperation, but to my knowledge this is the first example of Switzerland reaching out to Washington. It can be easily argued that Switzerland has only cooperated with the US because of the economic interweaving of the world and any moral or ethical decisions were made due to common ground.
If Switzerland were really moving towards the US (or the EU or China) you would expect to have more telling examples of cooperation. Besides for GBay prisoners, has Switzerland made any significant moves to push towards the stronger power? Taking in prisoners seems more like the exception than the rule.
hey there!
Thanks much for your comment. My argument is less about the extent to which Switzerland is cooperating with the US. I agree that taking these prisoners does not represent a substantial move of cooperation. I just wanted to point out that doing so is a smart move considering “small states power politics”. The background is that in Switzerland, such policies as cooperation are seen, by some groups, as stupid foreign policy strategies.
I for one disagree with your argument.
International Law – or at least the kind which is actually applicable (forget Mine Ban Treaties, UNGA resolutions and such) – is forged by the great powers and smaller states do not usually benefit much from the results of these rules.
Take the Decolonisation process, which was forged by the US and the SU and which was intended to subvert the European empires without damaging the American and Russian ones.
Perhaps a more convincing point to be made is that it is often best to concede something in order to have a voice, rather than to concede nothing and become isolated.
Hey there!
You are absolutely right in your arguments. Nonetheless, I think you forget the minor power perspective. Note that I do not argue that small states should follow international law because it necessarily helps them to reach their targets. I argue that they do so because they hope that it does. Minor power politics is about acting without the independent ability to decisively influence the result of any process.
Small states can only try to avoid or mitigate great power politics, and one way to do so is international law.
Thus my argument essentially reflects your last sentence; it is better to try, to be heard, to lobby, maybe to establish an identity in the sphere of international law and cooperation – than just to stand by and do nothing.