Swiss might yet join U.N.

Press, 18 February 1986, Page 12

Swiss might yet join U.N.

By

Anthony Curnow

The Swiss are a ; deliberate people, not given to hasty decisions, but, even by their standards, 40 years is a long while to make up one’s mind. That is the time it has taken theip to get to the point of deciding whether they want to belong to-the United Nations or not. |

On March 16, the Swiss — who settle important natibnal questions as well as many local ones by popular vote — will go to the polls to cast their ballots for or against United Nations membership. The Federal Government and Parliament have come down in favour, but the constitution gives the final say onj such issues to the people. It is anything but certain that they will go along with the proposal. •' Switzerland was aimember of the League of Nations between the two World Wars, and provided it with a home in Geneva. As a neutral country, Switzerland was not obliged to take part in any military sanctions the league might have When the United;Nations was founded, the Swiss decided on a “wait and see” policy. They agreed in 1946 to follow United Nation activities clbsely, to become a party to the-statute of the International Court of Justice and to join the specialised agencies of the United Nations, such as the World Health Organisation and the Food and Agriculture Organisation. It was also decided to put out the weldome mat: the United Nations would be helped to establish itself dn Swiss territory; but “no" to ifull membership for the time being. Three times since then — in 1969, 1971 and 11977 — the Federal Council ((cabinet) has reported to Parliament on Switerland’s relations with the United Nations. On! the last occasion, the commissilon which prepared the report [recommended that Switzerland should join the United Nations. In December, 1981, the long-awaited “message” from the Federal .Council giving the reasons for Switzerland to take the step was sent to the two houses of Parliament, which duly voted for it. ; Then time had [to be allowed for the people' tjo debate the issues thoroughly: and for the political parties to take positions before a date could be settled for the popular vote 4- not too soon, not too far ahead] not at a time when other problems might affect the issue, and in its proper place in the queqe of questions to be voted. Suchfare the workings of Swiss democracy. As an exercise dn the meaning of the United Nations in today’s world, the campaign for Switzerland’s entry has been instinctive. The United Nations, the Government’s argument runs, is the basis of internatic nal order in a world still torn]by conflict and tension. As sucl, the United Nations is irreplaceable, in spite of its shortcomings. The character of the United Nations has changed since 1945 from a club of victors in the Second World Wai to a universal organisation, a ,-process which came to a head with the admission of the two Germanies in

1973. Other neutral states, such as Finland, Sweden and Austria have long been members. The United Nations is at the heart of world co-operation and the distinction between its political activities — where Switzerland sits on the sidelines — and its economic and social work no

longer exists. Nor should the political and economic force of the developing countries in the United Nations be under estimated, in questions concerning Switzerland as much as the other industrialised nations. “What Switzerland needs, and what the United Nations alone can give it, is full participation in the permanent process of negotiation taking place there, and in which she is only partly engaged today,"states the message to Parliament, adding: “We run the risk of an isolation which cannot but damage our interests.”

To New Zealanders whose country is a founder member of the United Nations, it may seem strange that the citizens of one of the most highly-developed and prosperous nations of the world should be weighing these arguments in 1986. Yet Switzerland, four decades after the founding of the United Nations, remains one of the little band of observer states, in the company of Liechtenstein, Monaco, Nauru, North and South Korea, San Marino, Tonga and the Vatican. It may still be there on March 17 if opinion polls and a gut-feeling for the Swiss electorate are anything to go by.

The stumbling block in 1945 as now is Swiss neutrality. In the minds of many Swiss citizens their country’s reputation as an honest broker and peacemaker hangs on its ability to defend itself while remaining strictly outside other nations’ quarrels. Permanent armed neutrality has been the cornerstone of Swiss foreign policy since the fall of Napoleon in 1815, but the tradition of non-belligerence goes back nearly 500 years. The other feature of foreign policy is solidarity with other peoples, which the Swiss demonstrate through various forms of international cooperation. The Swiss Government has convinced itself that membership of the United Nations is compatible with Swiss neutrality. It says there would be no question of Switzerland taking part in United Nation peacekeeping operations (other neutral nations do) and that non-mllitary sanctions voted by the United Nations, which are in principle mandatory for all members, can be applied at the discretion of neutral states. Opponents of membership are haunted by the feeling that in taking political positions at the United Nations, Switzerland would be seen as partisan, expose itself to criticism from which it is now protected, and put as risk the traditional Swiss vocation of mediator, seen in its best known form in the work of the International Committee of the Red Cross. The opponents also point out that Switzerland is already deeply involved in United Nations activities. It is a full

member of all the specialised agencies of the United Nations, except those of the World Bank group, it belongs to the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, U.N.1.C.E.F., the High Commission for Refugees, the United Nations Development Programme, the United Nations Environment Programme, and the United Nations Industrial Development Programme.

The chief executives of two important United Nations agencies are Swiss: Arthur Dunkel, Director-General of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (G.A.T.T.) and Jean-Pierre Hocke, High Commissioner for Refugees (U.N.H.C.R.). In the professional ranks of the United Nations, Switzerland is already quite well represented.

Why should Switzerland go further, ask the opponents, when it is a member of so many bodies where it can state its policies, provide a wealth of experience, and offer humanitarian and other forms of assistance to peoples in need of them? Not enough, say the advocates of full membership, and they point out that Switzerland has no direct voice or vote in the General Assembly on political matters which affects its interests. Nor can it take a full part in — to take a few examples — the United Nation’s work on disarmament, human rights, racialdiscrimination, or transnational corporations, of which Switzerland has not a few.

Behind all these arguments is another which is peculiarly Swiss. Some wag once remarked that the Swiss think of their national Government as a convenience, not a necessity. They keep as many of their functions of government as they can at the level of the canton, or better still, in the commune (borough). That is why, among other things, Switzerland has 23 systems of education and 23 police forces.

Moves to increase the powers of the Federal Government, by transferring them from the cantons to the centre, or by writing new blank cheques for authorities in Berne, the capital, are regarded by the average Swiss with the deepest suspicion.

The see-saw of debate has been moving up and down in a polite fashion for years —- too long in the view of many of the people involved. All that can be said on the subject has been talked over thoroughly a dozen times. Fatigue has set in and this is not seen as a good omen by those who would like to see Switzerland join the United Nations. The Swiss have not been much moved by the argument that if their country does not join the United Nations, the world organisation will take some of its business elsewhere. There seemed to be a risk that this might happen in the 1970 s when the United Nations was looking for tenants to fill the giant international centre built by the Austrian Government in Vienna. Switzerland was sufficiently agitated at the prospect that the Economic Commission for Europe or some other major United States body might be taken away from Geneva that it made known its concern — rather firmly — both to the United Nations and to Austria. In the end, only some 60 international civil servants left Geneva for Vienna.

Switzerland is in fact a kindly and patient host to the offices and agencies of the United Nations family on its territory, most of them, though not all, in Geneva. Outsiders are inclined only to see that the Swiss do handsomely out of the United Nations; it means an annual inflow of, more than SNZ 800 million to Geneva alone without counting the money spent by over 100 diplomatic missions in the city and the tens of thousands of delegates who come to

conferences and meetings and fill the hotels each year. They do not see the effort and money that do, on the Swiss side, into building for the agencies, making it easier in a hundred different ways for them to go about their business, and bending over backwards to ensure that relations between the inhabitants of a rather small and conservative city and its thousands of international civil servants and foreign diplomats remain on an even keel.

Providing protection alone is a major job, especially when leading world figures visit the United Nations or sensitive conferences are being held. The Swiss accept the inconvenience and pay the bills; for them it is the price of offering what is still the most uncontroversial and comfortable territory in the world for Governments to discuss their business with one another. It is to the credit of the Swiss that the debate on United Nation membership has stayed with questions of principle and has not become a subject of penny pinching. The fact remains that Switzerland is now paying out about SNZ 140 million a year to the United Nations institutions of which it is already a member; taking the final step of joining the United Nations itself would cost some $l9 million more. The main deciding factor in the March 16 poll will be whether, by becoming a member of the United Nations, Switzerland runs the slightest risk of compromising its special form of neutrality. The proposal will not pass unless there is a majority of voters nationwide in favour and also a majority of the cantons and half-cantons (26 in all) in which more than 50 per cent have voted “yes.”

The double obstacle is a formidable one. If the Swiss voters balk at the fence, it is fairly certain that it will be a long time before their Government leads them back for another try.