Representing Foreign Interests: Rebirth of a Swiss Tradition?
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
CSS Analysis in Security Policy CSS ETH Zurich No. 108 • February 2012 REPRESENTING FOREIGN INTERESTS: REBIRTH OF A SWISS TRADITION? The importance of Switzerland’s work as a protecting power, once a central element in its repertoire of good offices, has diminished. This general loss of significance contrasts with the great diplomatic relevance of individual mandates. One current example is the reciprocal representation of Russia’s and Georgia’s interests. A general trend reversal is not imminent, though. Switzerland should make use of advantageous opportunities without overestimating the strategic importance of protecting power activities for its foreign policy. Is this traditional instrument of Swiss for- eign policy about to experience a renais- sance? This is not to be expected, despite headlines to the contrary. The number of Swiss protecting power mandates has re- mained at a continuously low level for the past 15 years. The structural factors that brought about the demise of this instru- ment after 1989/91 remain in effect: De- clining demand and the decrease of the in- ter-state wars that necessitate protecting power activities. Nevertheless, this is not to say that Switzerland should not contin- ue to offer its services as a representative of other parties’ interests, provided circum- stances are promising. For such mandates not only benefit the countries in questions, but occasionally are also useful for Swit- Swiss Ambassador to Tehran Livia Leu Agosti successfully lobbied for the release of US citizens Shane Bauer zerland: Mandates as protecting power and Josh Fattal, who were being held in Iran. Tehran, 21 September 2011. REUTERS/Handout can be a starting point for further-reach- ing Swiss peace initiatives. Also, from time On a number of occasions in 2011, Swit- matic ties in the aftermath of their war in to time, this role gives Switzerland access zerland generated positive headlines with the summer of 2008. to the highest levels of power, such as in its activities as a protecting power. One the White House or the Kremlin. outstanding diplomatic success was the Switzerland was also actively involved in mediation between Russia and Georgia. the release of US citizens Shane Bauer The instrument of the Based on Swiss proposals, the remaining and Josh Fattal in 2011. The two had been protecting power stumbling blocks preventing Russia’s WTO arrested after crossing the border to Iran The instrument of engaging a protect- accession were removed. After agreement while hiking on the Iranian-Iraqi border ing power serves to ensure a minimum of had been reached, Russia was admitted in 2009. Because Washington has main- mutual contact between two states that to the organization on 16 December 2011. tained no official diplomatic relations with maintain no diplomatic and/or consu- Switzerland’s mediation efforts contrib- Tehran since the Iranian revolution and lar relations or have broken off relations. uted significantly to this breakthrough. Its the hostage crisis of 1978/79, Switzerland There are two basic types of mandate, the acceptance as a third party rested mainly as the representative of US interests had “Geneva Mandate” and the “Vienna Man- on its function as a protecting power rep- strongly lobbied for their release. The year date”. The “Geneva Mandate” is based on resenting the mutual interests of both 2011 also marked the 50th “anniversary” of international humanitarian law. The pri- Russia and Georgia in the respective coun- the longest mandate of a protecting pow- mary task of the protecting power is to tries. Switzerland had accepted this role er in history: Since 1961, Switzerland has ensure the correct application of the 1949 after the two states had broken off diplo- been representing US interests in Cuba. Geneva Conventions and the appropriate © 2012 Center for Security Studies (CSS), ETH Zurich 1 CSS Analysis in Security Policy No. 108 • February 2012 ment of its good offices that is of great Legal basis of protecting power engagements historical importance. The roots of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 18 April 1961 Swiss Confederation’s tradition as a pro- Art. 45 tecting power go back to the 19th century. If diplomatic relations are broken off between two States, or if a mission is permanently or However, Switzerland laid the main foun- temporarily recalled: dations of its reputation as a “protecting (a) The receiving State must, even in case of armed conflict, respect and protect the premises power par excellence” in the first half of of the mission, together with its property and archives; (b) The sending State may entrust the custody of the premises of the mission, together with the 20th century. During the First World its property and archives, to a third State acceptable to the receiving State; War, it accepted 36 mandates for repre- (c) The sending State may entrust the protection of its interests and those of its nationals to a senting interests. During the Second World third State acceptable to the receiving State. War, by 1943/44, Switzerland’s activities as Art. 46 a protecting power reached its apex with A sending State may with the prior consent of a receiving State, and at the request of a third 219 mandates for 35 states. After the end State not represented in the receiving State, undertake the temporary protection of the inter- of the Second World War, the number of ests of the third State and of its nationals. mandates rapidly dwindled. Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 24 April 1963 Art. 8 Exercise of consular functions on behalf of a third State During the Cold War, too, representation of Upon appropriate notification to the receiving State, a consular post of the sending State interests was a highly sought after Swiss may, unless the receiving State objects, exercise consular functions in the receiving State on service, even though the number of man- behalf of a third State. dates never again reached the high war- time numbers. Switzerland was by far the treatment of civilians, prisoners of war, provision, it may occasionally result in a country most frequently contacted about and injured persons. It is rare, however, for further-reaching mediation activity by the such mandates because of its experience, a state to serve as protecting power under protecting power, which will have estab- its neutral stance, its extensive network of the Geneva Mandate. This task is usually lished close contacts to both sides. representations, and Switzerland’s inter- taken on by the ICRC. Most contemporary est in signalling availability and demon- discussions of protecting power mandates The representation of interests by a third strating the usefulness of neutrality to a apply to the representation of interests state only takes effect if the governments sceptical environment. However, Switzer- under the “Vienna Mandate”. Such ar- of the protecting power, of the sending land never had a monopoly on the role of rangements refer to the diplomatic and state, and of the receiving state agree to protecting power: Between 1952 and 1991, consular relations between two states and the conferral of the mandate. These man- Sweden served 21 times as representative are based on Articles 45 and 46 of the 1961 dates may be more or less comprehensive, of foreign interests; while Austria took on Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Rela- depending to some extent on whether the the same role six times between 1960 and tions and Article 8 of the 1963 Vienna Con- protecting power also handles the con- 1991. A number of other countries such as vention on Consular Relations (see Box). sular activities of a state or whether an the UK, Czechoslovakia, Poland, or Brazil interest section is established. The precise accepted individual mandates for such ser- As far as the substance of a protecting scope and tasks of the protecting power vices during the Cold War and later. power engagement is concerned, we can are established in an agreement. Defining distinguish between more technical- the mandate and securing the required The high point during the Cold War was humanitarian and more political aspects. consent of all governments may be an ex- the year 1973, when Switzerland held 24 The technical-humanitarian side is mostly tended procedure. Occasionally, de-facto mandates (cf. illustration: Number of Swiss concerned with taking on traditional dip- mandates establish themselves. protecting power mandates, 1950 to 2011). lomatic and consular tasks on behalf of a The numerical development was influ- represented state, such as delivery of mes- In principle, a protecting power is entitled enced by several clearly identifiable events sages, providing care to citizens, protect- to reimbursement of its expenditures by and processes. For instance, the Suez Crisis ing the property of a represented state, the sending state. However, if the consular of 1956, the Cuban Revolution of 1956/60 handling passport and visa issues, and ex- work is handled by interest sections of the (with some delay), the Six-Day War of ecuting civil registry functions. In practice, sending states, the financial expenditures 1967, and the October War of 1973 brought consular tasks are today often handled by and personnel requirements of the protect- about a clear increase of interest represen- the “interest sections” of the represented ing power are usually limited. This is why tations. At the beginning of the 1980s, an- states. For example, as part of Switzer- Switzerland, for example, to some extent other increase resulted in particular from land’s mandate for the US in Cuba, a US waives its right to be reimbursed for its the Iran-Iraq War and the Falklands War. interests section attached to the Swiss mandates, for instance in the mutual repre- embassy has been handling the demand- sentation of interests of the US and Cuba or After the end of the Cold War, the instru- ing consular work since 1977.