National interest and domain reservé have been at the center of international relations since the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648. Since then, state sovereignty has been based on the right of each country to determine its internal affairs and the obligation of all states not to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries.
The Westphalian doctrine of absolute state sovereignty has been eroded by many factors since 1648. New actors such as the United Nations, multinational corporations and powerful individuals like Bill Gates as well as new subjects such as human rights, migration and the climate have changed the nature of rigid state walls.
In a world of complex interdependence and advanced technology, the distinction between domestic and foreign affairs has been blurred, if not eliminated. Dealing with outside pressures, such as by China in forcing the cancellation of the visit of the Dalai Lama to the White House, are part of the daily lives of all political leaders today. A country’s image is no longer a domestic creation; state walls are more and more permeable.
The recent attacks on Switzerland’s banking secrecy by France, Germany and Italy follow on the UBS case and the United States demands for the names of Americans with suspect accounts in Switzerland.
With the United States, the question was whether there was undue pressure to humiliate Switzerland by its powerful Sister Republic. In the case of France, Germany and Italy, we are talking about immediate neighbours, and one cannot argue that this is merely an Anglo-Saxon attack on Switzerland for national interests. The question is larger than that.
Two recent articles in the major press in English are illuminating concerning how others see Switzerland. The first, by Dennis MacShane, appeared in Newsweek on Feb. 5 and is entitled “The End of Switzerland”.
Mr. MacShane is not a jealous City banker from London. He is a Labour M.P. and former U.K. Minister for Europe who has lived and worked in Geneva. He begins by extolling Switzerland’s history as a refuge for those fleeing persecution, its openness represented by International Geneva, and as a neutral venue for multilateral discussions.
That history, according to him, has ended. He describes Switzerland today as physically unkempt, governed by provincial politicians, with a population that has turned xenophobic.
He argues that Swiss exceptionalism is fading, and that it looks more and more like other small, struggling European countries. Worse, he proposes that Swiss myths, especially the original, altruistic reasons for banking secrecy, are no longer valid, just as its role as a moral authority in international diplomacy has disappeared.
Granted that the economic situation in Switzerland is not as bad as other countries in Europe, he says, but he concludes with a singular lament about Switzerland’s demise caused by structural paralysis and lack of dynamic political leadership.
Celestine Bohlen, daughter of the famous U.S. diplomat Chip Bohlen, wrote in Bloomberg News an article that was reprinted in the New York Times and later the International Herald Tribune on February 10. Her article, entitled “New Inroads on Swiss Bank Secrecy,” focuses on the German decision to pay for the list of potential tax evaders.
She begins by criticizing the Swiss for impugning the Germans since she says Switzerland is a country that has for centuries “relied on banking-secrecy laws to benefit from the dishonesty of others”. Her argument, quite simply, is that governments, in one form or another, do pay for information, and that once the names are available, there is no reason to argue about how the information was obtained.
In her conclusion, Bohlen points to Switzerland’s neighbours and friends, including the United States and Canada, who have joined in attacking the laws of banking secrecy and finishes by asking, isn’t it time for the Swiss to get the message?
(I will not include this brief press review with a tongue in cheek editorial by Linda Greenhouse in the February 11 New York Times entitled “Saved by the Swiss” which begins by asking if President Obama promised to outfit the Swiss navy in return for taking the two Uighur detainees from Guantanamo Bay.)
An image is a projection; it is something that can be worked on and polished. One hires public relations firms to be better presented. A reputation is not the same. It is developed over time and cannot be polished, although public relations firms may have some influence on how it is presented. An image can be created, a reputation is earned. Both of the articles presented above go the heart of Switzerland’s reputation. Mr. MacShane has lived in Switzerland; Ms. Bohlen has lived for many years in Europe. They are neither irresponsible journalists nor self-interested aggressors. For those who are concerned only with domestic problems in Switzerland and think that Switzerland’s image is a question of domestic rearranging and domain reservé, I call their attention to these comments. We are, after all, as others see us, and the others live beyond our borders in this post-Westphalian era.