For Americans, this notion of being special is multiplied by the historical story of the City on the Hill, the extraordinary combination of a geographic New World and the Pilgrims’ Promised Land. Many cities in the United States are named after Biblical references; the Geneva Bible travelled to Plymouth Rock on the Mayflower in 1620.

There are over 30 cities in the U.S. named Geneva. The attachment of the United States for Israel is part of a feeling of being more than just special; there are analogous emotions of religious exceptionalism, of being chosen people on chosen land.

Switzerland, like all countries, thinks it is special. From the founding story of William Tell and the swearing of the sermon at the Grütli, histories are written about that specificity, myths are created. While the histories can have religious undertones, they are, in the least, central features of national identity. Here in Geneva, the story of Catherine Cheynel, the Mere Royaume, is celebrated every December during Escalade.

Revisionist historians often go back to revisit the original myths. In the United States, it was proven that Thomas Jefferson had an illicit relationship with a slave and several out of wedlock offspring. In Switzerland, questions are being raised about the story of William Tell, even his actual existence.

Demythologizing is painful. The recent confrontation between UBS and Switzerland, with its challenges to banking secrecy, adds to a list of questions concerning fundamental identity. The Bergier Report on “Switzerland and the Refugees in the Nazi Era” on the activities of a neutral Switzerland raised fundamental issues about that neutrality during World War II.

The collapse of Swissair raised questions about the Swiss reputation for efficiency. The vote on the minarets raised questions about the Swiss tradition of tolerance and welcoming strangers. And, today, quarrels among the Swiss Federal Counsellors over the handling of the Libyan crisis raise fundamental questions about the collegiality of the executive branch of government.

In most countries, political leaks to the media are part and parcel of the daily process of government. Different ministries compete with one another to further their advantages. To an outsider, the collegiality of the Swiss Federal Council is a true exception to domestic politics in all other countries.

Once the Council decides among itself on a position, we are told, the entire Council follows, no matter what each actor thinks. Collegiality is a fundamental part of the Swiss political system and a building block of national identity and exceptionalism.

To see the acrimony among the members of the Council following the return of Max Goldi is politics as normal, for an outside observer. But, I understand, that domestically, it is a true exception. But, in another sense, it may be seen as part of the demise of Swiss exceptionalism.

For just as the myths of neutrality were questioned by the Bergier Report, the myth of efficiency was questioned by the collapse of Swissair and the myth of tolerance was questioned by the referendum on minarets, the quarrels among the Federal Counsellors highlights the lack of collegiality among the executives.

It is not surprising to an outsider, but for those prideful of the exceptional concept of collegiality, it is one more example of Switzerland’s myths and specificity being called into question.

Is this another part of a painful process of demythologizing and the end of Swiss exceptionalism? In a sense, the debate about Switzerland’s entering the European Union is tied to the question of being exceptional, just as the United States considers its national laws superior to international law and is often against multilateralism.

“Neutrality,” I was told, “is the foreign policy of a small country surrounded by large neighbours”. On the other hand, within Switzerland, neutrality is part of the fundamental identity of modern Switzerland and intertwined with its humanitarian tradition and the ICRC.

No one likes to see dirty laundry hung out to dry. Quarrels among political leaders are unseemly, and not a dignified example of what leadership should be. On the other hand, politics, for most of the world, is usually unseemly. We would all rather see Swiss identity tied to someone like Roger Federer. But, perhaps, the petty quarrels are part of a process of political integration and a move away from isolation.

Goldi’s liberation was dramatically helped by outside intervention. For, as we can observe with Israel today and often with the United States, an unrealistic exceptional national identity can have extremely negative consequences.

Behind all of the above, there was the general feeling that a reasonable U.S. leadership on the world’s stage was returning. Although the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) were rising, there was recognition that the United States was still the dominant force in international relations and that having a responsible leader was in everyone’s interest.

Barack Obama is being heavily criticized for his actions concerning the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. While part of the criticism may be well-founded because of his lack of immediate response as well as failure to communicate compassion, he is the focal point for anger and frustration at the environmental damage over which he has little control. Even if he sent the entire U.S. armed forces, the oil would continue gushing.

But not only is President Obama unable to stop the oil spill, he is also unable to stop Israel from boarding ships on the high seas and killing peace activists. He is also unable to stop North Korea from sinking a South Korean ship. He is also unable to stop Iran from developing its nuclear program. He is also unable to stop the rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan and suicide bombings in Pakistan and Iraq.
Should we blame of all this on Barack Obama? Should we conclude that the United States is in decline? Or should we say that the world is extremely complex, and that even the President of the most powerful country in the world cannot control all that happens. While we certainly should not pity Mr. Obama and recognize that several of the world’s situations are related to U.S. policies, we should recognize that a little humility goes a long way, and that power in the 21st century cannot be localized in one man’s hands.

Mr. Obama has his responsibilities, perhaps more than he realized when he took office, and the time of his seeming in control and pushing his agenda seems to be fading. Health care reform and financial regulation are being swept away on the beaches of Louisiana and Florida. We are well past the euphoria of his Cairo speech one year ago. The audacity of hope seems more and more audacious, and less and less hopeful.

June 5, 2010