Each era sees its social organization evolve. The growing strength of new non-governmental organisations (the NGOs andvirtual communities) is now part of our modernity. Civil society itself is changing. Although the importance of civil society in theorganization of our societies has never ceased to grow, having taken centre stage during the democratic revolutions in England,Holland and then in France in the 18th century, this notion has today assumed a very different dimension. During the 1920s, Antonio Gramsci (1) developed an in-depth analysis of the emergence of civil society as an independentpower and focusing on its opposition to the state and its institutions, especially the judiciary. He saw two levels in the structureof nation-states: political society and civil society. He developed a relatively coherent concept for civil society built around thefamily, religious communities, the unions, school, universities, citizen societies and associations (sports, musical, cultural,etc.). He placed civil society in a position of strength between the economic structure and the state (with its legislative, executiveand judicial power). He also made a clear distinction between civil society and elected political power, i.e. the members of

parliament and the political parties.

The elected political power is to some extent an outgrowth of civil society, but dissociates from it as soon as the nation state becomes stronger. He differentiated representative political organizations, whose members have been elected, from a broader civil society of a more participatory nature. Since then society’s organization has considerably evolved, particularly with the emergence of new categories of actors such associal movements (feminists, ecologists, etc.), NGOs, think tanks, virtual communities, internet forums and lobbyists. These newplayers have fundamentally restructured modes of behaviour and the equilibrium in force between the social partners.While deliberately placing the perspective on the emergence of these new social elements and their participation in globalgovernance, this booklet also recognises that this is just one element involved in overall social change. These civil stakeholders in governance sometimes seem like a  nebula of independent and relatively unstructured players, a kind of overlay superimposed on more or less autonomous social blocs. What differentiates them is that they defend specific causes. What they have in common is their capacity to influence political procedures  and agendas. And what motivates them is the desire to go beyond borders and the political divisions. But this collection of organizations has recently invested in powerful communication tools,resulting in an often surprising degree of overall efficiency. For now, a rough topology of the actors can help us to understandthis participatory ecosystem.  Civil society can be defined as the sum total of the groups, associations or organisations in society, which are independentof or to some extent autonomous from the state. To begin with, individuals constitute the first independent entity(the targeted approach used in marketing in our consumer society makes this perfectly clear). Then comes the family, thebedrock of our social constitution and a highly active part of our society.

But there are also the various kinds of social organizations involved in the areas of work (guilds, unions…), of education(student societies, alumni…), of culture (choirs, bands, literature societies…), of religion, of leisure activities (sports clubs, holidayclubs…), of the local area (the neighbourhood, the village …). All this generates a sense of belonging, creates a social tissue forindividuals and for society as a whole.

In this way, the tighter the social network the greater the cohesion, depending on the countries, territories and cultures.State structures remain on the sidelines of this process. Beyond this clearly perfunctory description, two influential contemporarymovements need to be mentioned, as they are changing the image of civil society.  (1) Italian writer, an intellectual reference for the Italian communist party. During his long imprisonment he wrote «30 Pamphlets from Prison»(Quaderni del Carcere) between 1928-1934. He notably developed the idea that there is a political society (political institutions and controlling authoritiessuch as the police, the army, the judicial system) and a civil society (private or non-state sphere, the economy). The former is regulated byforce, the latter by consent.

On 31 July 1969, the American astronauts Neil Amstrong and Edwin Aldrin walked on the moon. They sent us superb pictures of the Earth, both blue and small at the same time. These photos made the headlines of the papers, and the message was clear: «One planet for One humanity». And it would stay that way.

The wave of globalisation that followed is undoubtedly struck with this same symbol, even though it is not directly linked with the conquest of space.

Thus prior to lunar exploration, the following phenomena or issues had not been identified:

- The question of the environment and of preserving the Earth and Nature, subsequently developed under the concept of sustainability.

- The acceleration of the globalisation of financial markets driven by the digitization of transactions.

- Concern about health and pandemic diseases (AIDS, H5N1) sweeping into the daily lives of billions of people.

- Telecommunications bringing the inhabitants of this planet closer to each other, through the internet and mobile phones.

Since then our very existence has undergone fundamental change, our daily lives have been transformed. By changing people’s behaviour, globalisation has also changed relationships between the various authorities and particularly those involved in the management of world affairs.

For example, although «multilateralism» remains the preferred approach of states for the management of international affairs, one is obliged to recognise that, out in the field, a strong tendency towards participatory management of global matters has emerged, and one which simultaneously involves the NGOs, business, the various unions and corporations as well as the different elements of civil society.

The spirit of one humanity is driving all these players, henceforth all stakeholders in the shared, though often conflictual, management of world affairs. But we should not be naïve.

The emergence of a joint management process [1]

Under our very eyes, nation states, business enterprises and civil society are inventing a new way of managing global, regional or local affairs.

What was formerly the exclusive domain of nation states is now open to anyone. We all take an interest in matters that formerly only business enterprise used to handle. Issues that were previously the responsibility of the civil authorities have now become «public domain».

Going on from these upheavals in the organisation of our societies, in this booklet we shall try to highlight the possible consequences for the management of world affairs. All these changes will have an effect on other areas of the social organisation of society, but we will limit ourselves to the changes affecting international relations.

More specifically we will consider the behaviour of the main players in governance and the interaction of their relationships, without dwelling on the consequences for the existing structures. We will focus our interest on the dynamics of the processes set in motion rather than looking at reforms of the existing institutions.

The transformations underway in the global system are still in their infancy, so it is more useful to observe and describe these changes rather than to imagine an alternative institutional structure. Let us not forget that legitimate action always precedes the legislative decisions that formally establish regulations.

Let us concentrate on what changes are taking place. And even more so because the roles in global governance of the three key players – the state, business enterprises and civil society - are themselves rapidly evolving. In the following pages we will look at the evolution of these three actors individually before reaching some conclusions as regards their collective future.

[1] Wolfgang H. Reinicke, « Global Public Policy : Governing without Government ? », Brookings Institution Press, Washington D.C. (1998)

How exactly should a business enterprise established in different places manage its relationships with the local stakeholders involved one way or the other in its management? Such was the question on which Klaus Schwab invited the business enterprises present at Davos as of 1971 to reflect. 

His vision was that enterprises would from then on evolve in a complex and non-linear environment. Primarily the unions and the local, national or even international political authorities are the ones concerned, but nowadays so-called civil society, the media and other partners play an increasing part in business enterprise decision processes.

These new partners have become essential to the mechanism; they cannot be ignored. Thus, for example on questions on the environment or sustainable development, NGOs active in these fields will question business enterprises on their production choices, their construction plans and even their strategic choices.

This group of stakeholders, with their varying degrees of involvement in business life, has received crucial support in recent years from inter-state organisations such as the UN. Viewing the international scene, it may be observed that certain programmes like the Rio Declaration (1992), Kyoto (1997), the Global Compact (1999) or the Millennium Development Goal (2000) have not only persuaded nation states to work together, but have also encouraged business enterprises to do the same.  

This paradigm shift is not evident for the business community. Its concern for social responsibility holds firm, but the business is being run in an environment with multiple, complicated and often divergent interests. This entirely new situation calls business enterprises to a new form of action, largely based on a «soft governance» approach.

A grey zone, shaped and influenced by a host of players, has grown up alongside laws, agreements and contracts, and the rights and obligations of a defined legal framework. Thus, in this environment that is no longer only based on formal constraints («hard laws»), but also on moral limitations («soft laws»), business enterprises find themselves obliged to evolve. However the combination of these two forms of control, «hard laws» and «soft laws», places business enterprises in a new quandary that is often difficult to handle. To achieve a balance between harmonious and profitable development, business enterprises have no choice but to build up a new and detailed savoir-faire in «soft governance», namely the influence brought to bear by stakeholders on the management of the enterprise’s own business. Separating «soft» from «hard» allows business enterprises to do this, and at the same time to open up to the sophisticated and complex world taking shape around them.

This new duality in the evolution of the world requires business enterprises to look beyond their previous horizons. Certainly enterprises have in the past set up public affairs and/or public relations departments and have been able to assume some of the changes, above all in the context of their partnership with public authorities and the media.

But nowadays these represent only one element in the cohort of multi-stakeholders, since what is really new today emanates from a civil society aiming to augment its influence in the management of public affairs. Consumer protection organisations are typical examples. For several decades, Anglo-Saxon business enterprises have looked at various options for dialogue via «think tanks» (research and communication centres which base their strategies on the influence they bring to bear).

These institutions are the very essence of «soft power» and many of them have built up experience with civil society, governments, the media and business enterprises. In the vanguard of this new governance, the think tanks have shown considerable skill in «navigating» between the various stakeholders while still maintaining their status as powerful independent thinkers. Thus in their role as «conveyors of ideas» or as centres of influence they are much in demand, even in the international forums where the multi-stakeholders gather.

Klaus Schwab and the «World Economic Forum» draw on their skills continuously. The same is true for the Social Forum of Porto Alegre, though from a different perspective. In this way the various stakeholders in the management of world affairs have over time equipped themselves with ad hoc tools and organisations to jointly manage their interests. Public authorities have created task forces, civil society has witnessed the emergence of numerous NGOs and business enterprises have financed think tanks.

All these partners represent a kind of soft governance, where currents of thought flow and the search for consensus takes place. This recent evolution has given birth to a new concept, that of multi-stakeholder affairs, which is the joint management of local, national and international affairs by a gathering of very different players who are all stakeholders in the process.

The role of this plethora of players is to find solutions which reflect a global consensus. The business enterprise is only one, albeit essential, element of this ecosystem. 

Moral constraints are driving business enterprise to seek stakeholder value.

The term «intellectual diplomacy» has gathered fresh momentum on the international scene. While still referring to the process of developing strategic thinking in international politics, pressure from civil society (NGOs, Foundations, Think Tanks, Universities) has pushed this expression into the forefront of the debate. The vision behind preventing a H5N1 pandemic, «the Geneva initiative», the idea of «sustainable development» all constitute examples of these new ways of approaching problems that are initiated more by civil society or individuals than by states. However, this «intellectual diplomacy» does not necessarily mean the same thing in Washington, Brussels or Geneva, where views differ radically as regards the process of deliberation and action. 

Let us quickly review the current situation. First of all, states do recognise the value of these propositions. Proof of this may be found in the recent attitude of France. A report produced at the end of 2005 by the Foreign Affairs Committee of the French National Assembly put forward the resolution (N^° 2338) proposing «intellectual diplomacy». Noting the influence of American intellectuals from universities, think tanks and non-governmental organisations, Jean-Louis Bianco (PS) expressed concern about France’s weakness in this area. He proposed facing up to the problem by involving both France and Europe in a creative process aimed at developing «intellectual diplomacy». Furthermore, while links have always existed between diplomacy and intellectuals (especially through training and research establishments such as the Kennedy School, the London School or the HEI in Geneva), traditional diplomacy is now confronted with the emergence of independent thinking from think tanks and NGOs making their contribution to the debate. And the initiative seems to be changing sides. 

Washington

 American think tank proposals can thus be directly sensed in White House policy ^-           In 1980, the Heritage Foundation in Washington published the Mandate for leadership, a kind of manual on governance for use by the White House.Ronald Reagan, United States president from 1981 to 1989, applied the basic principles of this work, particularly to foreign policy in the context of the arms race with the Strategic Defense Initiative, better known as “star wars”.  It contributed to putting an end to the cold war.  In 1997, a neo-conservative group presented the Project for the New American Century, of which certain foreign policy elements such as “preventive strikes” or “rogue states” were adopted by the Bush administration in the Iraq conflict.  In North America these practices have undergone considerable expansion, particularly since the 70s with the burgeoning conservative think tanks, but other driving forces were behind the movement. As regards environmental issues, Rio then Kyoto witnessed the extensive involvement of civil society in the global political discussion. Since then, civil society’s influence, the positions it has adopted and also the intellectual contributions it has made have constantly grown. James Mac Gann (1) , the leading specialist in Think Tanks, estimates their number at more than 1′500 in the United States and as many again in the rest of the world.  Looking more closely at the contribution of American intellectuals, their focus on the question of American leadership is evident. With this one-sided approach, they promote the vision of separate worlds and neglect more contemporary kinds of relationship such as soft governance or multistakeholders. 

Brussels  

Although the European Union in its current form is the legacy of several outstanding politicians like Winston Churchill or Robert Schumann, it was first envisioned by intellectuals. Jean Monnet is often quoted as the founding father, the man who conceived modern Europe. His method was clearly a forerunner to the current approach to «intellectual diplomacy» in Brussels.  In a recent work, Stephen Boucher and Jacques Delors’ think tank team “Notre Europe”(2), paint a clear portrait of the emergence of the intellectual contribution to thinking in Europe. Of the 149 European think tanks reviewed, representing no less than 3′000 researchers, most are involved in questions of the construction of Europe. Even if the majority are not based in Brussels, they are active contributors to the discussion and are beginning to exert significant influence. In the view of the authors of this study, the situation cannot be compared with Washington, neither in terms of the volume of propositions, nor in terms of the influence exerted. The reason most often put forward is that the movement is still young. Whereas the principle American think tanks were set up between the post-war years and the 70s, the same movement emerged much later in Europe (the first of them some 20 years later). On the other hand, according to the same sources these think tanks have been very well received in political circles, as it would seem that in Brussels there is a huge demand for an efficient market for ideas. Let us take two examples: - In Brussels during the 80s, the “Kangaroo Group” helped instil a new dynamism into the debate on the four founding principles of the European Union, namely free movement of goods, services, people and capital. All this gave a certain impetus to the debate following the 1985 publication of the “white book” on the interior market. The Swiss know this issue of the four freedoms well, as it led to the referendums on the bilateral agreements. - More recently, the Center for European Reform, no doubt the most influential think tank due to regular articles in the Anglo-Saxon press, has taken a view regarding the construction of Europe. With ideas close to those of Tony Blair on the national priority, on liberalism, on pro-Atlantist policy, this think tank has become most popular even among European institutions. It effectively proposes greater consolidation of the European institutions and less enlargement.  Henceforth, a wind of change is blowing in Brussels: the intellectuals have regained the initiative over the technocrats. Ideas are once again first debated, before being implemented by officials on a purely pragmatic basis. 

Geneva  

Historically, Geneva achieved growing recognition in the international context thanks to the initiatives of certain outstanding personalities. By their actions, Henri Dunand (Red Cross), Woodrow Wilson (League of Nations), William Rappard (Graduate Institute of International Studies), contributed to shape International Geneva as it is today. However, being too often limited to a political role of providing so-called “good offices”, Berne has always hesitated between the task of offering a venue for negotiations and that of developing Geneva as a centre of excellence for international initiatives. Nonetheless, despite this real ambiguity and in accordance with the tradition of taking initiatives on its own, Geneva has been able to play an original part in creative diplomacy. Let us mention just two characteristic examples:  

- The World Business Council for Sustainable Development was set up in 1991 on the initiative of Stephan Schmidheiny. This Think Tank, financed entirely by the private sector, not only advocated the term “substainable” but was also its principle initiator. Today, its rich intellectual output continues to influence worldwide debate, particularly though not only within the large companies that finance it. Its direct influence on deciders brings little exposure to the public at large, but the impact of its activities has repercussions on our everyday lives. This think tank, which is established in Meyrin, well reflects the paradigm shift of a diplomacy both open to private initiatives and focused on the key issues for managing world affairs.

 - In December 2003, the media spotlight falls on a young university graduate from Geneva, Alexis Keller, a partner in the “Geneva Initiative”, who proposes a different strategy for solving the Middle East crisis. It is a typical example of «intellectual diplomacy». Alexis Keller and his group proposed a political agenda with no real diplomatic power supporting them, and in the absence of a representative mandate from a state. Such major changes in the management of international affairs should lead Switzerland to set up a “think office” environment rather than one of “good offices”.  

These two examples show very well how the position of International Geneva has changed. Dependant on personal initiatives coming from outstanding people, Geneva takes form as the real venue for thinking about world governance. The way it is done and the players involved have changed, but the results are truly impressive. While there can be no doubt that Washington plays a leading role in terms of power politics, Geneva is little by little emerging as the stage for the politics of influence. While Brussels focuses its intellectual efforts on the construction of Europe, Geneva is differentiated by its more global approach, its orientation towards major world problems. Mainly thanks to the IRC, Geneva was the place to which people came for healing the world’s wounds; it may now be said that it is also the place for dealing with world issues. 

(1) Mc Gann, Think Tanks and Civil Societies, Catalysts for Ideas and Action, Transaction Publishers, 2000

(2) L’Europe et ses Think Tanks : un potentiel inaccompli, Oct. 2004, Notre Europe www.notre-europe.asso.fr

Daniel Vasella, President and CEO of Novartis * 

There can be no doubt that Geneva will be among those who benefit from globalisation. Globalisation will bring the city material benefits, but that is hardly what matters. Geneva is in an ideal position to strengthen its role as the place where the political future of the world is decided. Today more than ever, we need such forums for discussion, where different cultures can meet and world leaders can dialogue together. Just like we need this mentality which is so typical of Geneva, a cosmopolitan city marked by humanism together with a solid dose of pragmatism.

Geneva is rightly known throughout the world for the first two characteristics. In this 21st century where global competition exists not only between companies, but also between cities, pragmatism could well prove to be the key asset enabling the former citadel of Calvin to take its place as one of the major political centres of the planet.

Why pragmatism? The answer seems paradoxical, but in the end it speaks for itself: because idealism is never as effective as when it is also pragmatic. Today, «soft governance» is fashionable, but make no mistake about the meaning of the word «soft» in this expression. Joseph Nye, who invented it, is anything but the dreamer that some of his critics would have him be. Quite to the contrary: he is pragmatic, well aware that only trans-national synergy will make it possible to stamp out the miseries of our time, which are famine, disease, human rights abuse and damage to the environment.

In other words, let us not confuse the idea of «soft governance» with a group of friends chatting about how they are going to «change the world»; advocating «soft governance» is accepting that the different actors debate their ideas, fiercely defending them if necessary, but always driven by a true shared desire to behave responsibly towards the underprivileged. Even if they cannot always agree on how to achieve their common objectives, they defend the same fundamental values.

During the euphoria of the 90’s, people forgot how much «soft governance» meant sometimes hard, but necessary debates on what to do. Faced with a world that seems to have become more brutal, conflictual and problematical, nobody can overlook that fact today. Be that as it may, the only thing that matters is the direction finally taken. It seems to me that nowadays the emerging forces capable of gaining the upper hand are just the ones which, taking a pragmatic view, use their energy to find realistic solutions to the world’s main problems. They are also the ones who have adopted the idea that to get things moving it is usually best to have everyone working together: governments, international organisations, NGOs and companies.

* This contribution of Daniel Vasella was published in the first booklet of Fondation pour Genève on “Soft Governance”. For a free copy go to www.fondationpourgeneve.ch

Ranking of Global Cities*

This Ranking was established by GaWC (Globalization and World Cities Studies Group and Network). GaWC is a consortium of Universities including Virginia Tech (USA), Loughborough (UK) including also the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (Beijing/CHINA). Two categories of « Global Cities » were taken in account: « Global » and « World » cities, based on several characteristics (see below) and focusing on five issues: finance, social, political, cultural and economic. Geneva (5) as well as Zurich (9) and Basle (10) belong to this ranking in a prominent position.

1) The 2004’s Ranking:

A) Global Cities

Well rounded global cities

1 Very large contribution: London and New York City.
2 Smaller contribution and with cultural strengths: Los Angeles, Paris, and San Francisco.
3 Incipient global cities: Amsterdam, Boston, Chicago, Madrid, Milan, Moscow, Toronto.

Global niche cities - specialized global contributions

4 Financial: Hong Kong, Singapore and Tokyo.
5 Political and social: Brussels, Geneva and Washington, D.C.

b) World Cities

Subnet articulator cities

6 Cultural: Berlin, Copenhagen, Melbourne, Munich, Oslo, Rome, Stockholm.
7 Political: Bangkok, Beijing, Vienna.
8 Social: Manila, Nairobi, Ottawa.

Worldwide leading cities

9 Primarily economic global contributions: Frankfurt, Miami, Munich, Osaka, Singapore, Sydney, Zurich
10 Primarily non-economic global contributions: Abidjan, Addis Ababa, Atlanta, Basel, Barcelona, Cairo, Denver, Harare, Lyon, Manila, Mexico City, Mumbai, New Delhi, Shanghai.

2) The general characteristics

Global City status is seen as beneficial, and because of this many groups have tried to classify and rank which cities are seen as “global cities” or “non-global cities”. Although there is a general consensus upon leading world cities, the criteria upon which a classification is made can affect which other cities are included.
• International, first-name familiarity; whereby a city is recognized without the need for a political subdivision. For example, although there are numerous cities and other political entities with the name Paris or variations on it, one would say “Paris”, not “Paris, France”.
• Active influence on and participation in international events and world affairs; for example, New York City is home to the United Nations headquarters complex and consequently contains a vast majority of the permanent missions to the UN.
• A fairly large population (the centre of a metropolitan area with a population of at least one million, typically several million).
• A major international airport that serves as an established hub for several international airlines.
• An advanced transportation system that includes several freeways and/or a large mass transit network offering multiple modes of transportation (rapid transit, light rail, regional rail, ferry, or bus).
• In the West, several international cultures and communities (such as a Chinatown, a Little Italy, or other immigrant communities). In other parts of the world, cities which attract large foreign businesses and related expatriate communities; for example, Singapore, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Tokyo, and Moscow.
• International financial institutions, law firms, corporate headquarters, international conglomerates, and stock exchanges (for example the World Bank, or the London Stock Exchange) that have influence over the world economy.
• An advanced communications infrastructure on which modern trans-national corporations rely, such as fiberoptics, Wi-Fi networks, cellular phone services, and other high-speed lines of communications.
• World-renowned cultural institutions, such as museums and universities.
• A lively cultural scene, including film festivals, premieres, a thriving music or theatre scene (for example, West End theatre and Broadway); an orchestra, an opera company, art galleries, and street performers.
• Several powerful and influential media outlets with an international reach, such as the BBC, Reuters, The New York Times, or Agence France-Presse.
• A strong sporting community, including major sports facilities, home teams in major league sports, and the ability and historical experience to host international sporting events such as the Olympic Games, Football World Cup, or Grand Slam tennis events.

(*) Information from Wikipedia and GaWC WebSite

Interview with Professor Joseph Nye, Kennedy School, Harvard, Boston 

While governmental negotiations struggle to relaunch the WTO, to rethink the UN and to restructure the WIPO, civil society, the NGOs and the large companies are taking action in the governance of world affairs. This shake-up now has a name: «soft governance». One man was the originator of this new concept: Professor Joseph Nye. In our interview (below) he reveals the pertinence of the change and makes a unique proposal: the world used to come to Geneva just to lick its wounds; it should now be the venue for considering world issues.  

Who are the new actors in international relations? 

In the past, diplomats conducted international relations between governments. What we now see is that the current model where governments control events outside territorial borders has failed, and this has changed everything. It is not that the state as such has become obsolete. It is a new phase where the state is still an actor, but the political stage has become overcrowded with actors playing secondary roles; this changes the nature of world politics. Look at the impact of the IT revolution and the acceleration of globalisation. One can see that non-governmental players have seized power and are doing things that were generally the prerogatives of governments. For example there are several multinationals with annual sales well in excess of the GNP of the majority of countries in the world. Obviously, there are NGOs like «Médecins sans frontières» or «OXFAM» which are doing a good job, which have power and in several cases have helped governments to implement programmes and provide aid. But there are also non-governmental actors who have seized power in a disastrous way, as is the case with trans-national terrorism (between countries). It is terrifying to see that Al Quaeda, a non-governmental organisation with sleeping cells in 50-60 countries, was capable of killing more Americans on 11^th September 2001 than at Pearl Harbor on 7^th December 1941. As such, it is a typical illustration of a world in transformation.It isn’t that Al Quaeda is more important than the Japanese government, but Al Quaeda was capable of committing acts that until then represented an option only available to governments. In this way countries, previously accustomed to close relationships through their diplomats and high level civil servants, find themselves in a much more complex situation as regards international political processes: they still have a leading part to play, but the stage on which they are playing their parts is becoming overcrowded. It is difficult for them to disregard these non-governmental players.  

What do we know about this model? How is the agenda set? 

Traditionally, things were managed in the context of international policy. You worked to an agenda that was strictly laid down by the leading governments who were primarily concerned with questions of power and security, and military defence. Looking at the world today, you will see that the agenda is partly set by non-governmental players and, except for security issues, many subjects are treated, such as climate change, pandemic disease, organised crime and of course questions of international terrorism. There can be no doubt that the government agenda in Washington was decided to a greater extent by non-governmental players, and those more associated with international terrorism. This new model does not represent a well-organised structure. It is a network organisation with considerable influence on «soft governance», and has an easy task to attract people around the world. After all, Ben Laden never obliged anyone to crash into the towers of the World Trade Centre, but he used «soft power» to encourage them to do so. He or his co-founders or successors quite simply pushed people in London, Madrid or elsewhere into acts that are traditionally undertaken by governments. It was usually the case that whoever had the biggest army won, but on the stage of international politics today, we need to be aware that the winners are those with the best arguments. In this era of readily available information, it means that «soft power» has as much talent to persuade, attract or convince people as «hard power» has to force them. 

Why does the process take so long? 

I think it will take a long time, because nowadays with our international laws there are two mutually opposed principles, namely state sovereignty and compliance with international regulations. Thus the failure of peacekeeping forces, a supranational concept, is at odds with state sovereignty which, in the view of the UN constitution, considers each state as having sovereign rights and control over its own territory. The second principle is based on international humanitarian laws, enacted after the Second World War, which prohibit governments from threatening their own subjects, as is the case in Dafour where the government has no authority to violate human rights or to order a genocide.In view of the dilemma created by these two rules, «soft power» will take at least a generation to find a solution.People are prisoners of this dilemma. On the one hand, they are not ready to abandon their sovereign rights under any circumstances, nor will they accept on the other hand that a government be permitted to violate human rights, whatever the reason may be. So they are torn between the desire as a state to protect the autonomy of their community, and their refusal to accept a government violating citizens’ rights.   

Does this lead us to «soft governance»?

 It is actually true that we see organisations such as the United Nations managed by delegates from individual governments, with instructions to defend the national interest as far as possible. But these government organisations have been replaced by unofficial networks meeting informally to discuss numerous problems such as security, exchange commissions, financial questions. They meet their counterparts from the different countries in Washington, bringing information for example about changes in rules or regulations in this or that country. Official representatives for agriculture talk to those handling public health, some are from non-governmental organisations while others come from intergovernmental organisations, yet all discuss matters of governance outside the rigid legislative framework of government. That is  «soft governance».For the future, I think we will be dealing with numerous international forces in the form of flexible organisations operating in networks, and which are able to find answers more quickly for their governments to the various questions posed. This would for example mean that informal circles would communicate with officials from the Finance Ministry to stop financial transactions associated with terrorism.It can also work with police border enforcement patrols or the secret service in the fight against international terrorism.In the same way, thinking now about pandemic disease, it would be helpful to have numerous contacts with informal networks and with those responsible for health, that is to say with the people best placed to organise local support, who communicate on an informal basis and in parallel to the procedures put in place by government health officials. So it will be very necessary to develop a whole series of networks suitable for dealing with these kinds of problems between countries. 

What type of organisation will these networks have? 

You will have noted that we have entered into the age of cheap communication where everybody can play a part; this makes coordination harder. Formerly, when communications between continents were inaccessible to most people, many of the actors did not participate at all; only the burocracy put in place by governments, the large companies or perhaps a few of the larger NGOs were there. Today anybody can communicate via the internet, all of us can take part in a discussion and have access to knowledge. More knowledge means that power is distributed more widely, but by the same token spread more thinly and hence diminished. It is harder to coordinate things and achieve improvements. 

What kind of a future do you see for Geneva? 

I think that Geneva has certain advantages, such as its past as an international forum, its relationships with leading nations and the UN, its cosmopolitan atmosphere. All these are well known advantages that Geneva can exploit. It needs to be seen as a focal point; this should be made known abroad and by telling the NGOs that they are welcome and that you would like to see them in Geneva gathered around the UN organisations. All this will strengthen the image of Geneva, so that it may be promoted as a place for people to meet. In this world of «hard power» it is interesting to imagine that a small country like Switzerland can play a key part in the exercise of «soft power», and is the only country having the opportunity to achieve its ends thanks to its power of persuasion. A small country or even a small Canton can stand out in the world by emphasizing its role in the context of «soft power». I would like to point to the example of Norway. Norway is a small country with 5 million inhabitants, with a language that is infrequently spoken outside the country. It is not a member of the European Union and yet has generated more interest than could every have been expected simply by acting as the mediator for the peace processes in Sri Lanka and the Middle East. This has stimulated interest in the country and given it greater standing on the international scene. And I can assure you that Norway has never been a military super-power! You are therefore quite capable of developing the same kind of policy for «soft governance». In the same way Switzerland in general and Geneva in particular can benefit from their standing in the world to become the purveyors of this «soft power», since Geneva has become the focal point for communications in this context. Thanks to its policy of openness and hospitality, both for new networks and with regard to the official organisations already there, I think that Geneva has extraordinary assets with which to encourage the promotion and expansion of «soft power». 

Xavier Comtesse

l’Observatoire, Fondation pour Genève.

Studies in mathematics and a doctorate in science from the University of Geneva.

Xavier has worked for ten years in the field of science, ten years for various startups and another ten for the Swiss Federal Government; seven of which were spent as a scientific diplomat in the United States. He became the first Swiss Scientific Consul in Boston where he began Swiss House.

Go to Global Cities blog