KARSANOVA E.S. Limits of Swiss Cooperation in the Field of Security
E.S. KARSANOVA Doctor of political sciences, Professor of the Department of state, municipal administration and social processes Odintsovo branch of MGIMO(University), Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia, Odintsovo, Moscow region, Russia
LIMITS OF SWISS COOPERATION IN THE FIELD OF SECURITY
The article gives a brief overview of the security policy in Switzerland after the end of the cold war, considers adjustments and changes in the approach to security. It is noted that the emergence of the concept of comprehensive security was the starting point for the transition from autonomous to more cooperation-oriented security policy. In addition, in general, such changes have led to a broader understanding of security in Switzerland, primarily due to a broader understanding of the threat spectrum. This comprehensive understanding of security has resulted in a fusion of security and foreign policy, which has led to an integrated approach in defining security and readiness to support international missions.
Key words: security, Switzerland, neutrality, international cooperation, peacekeeping missions, peacekeeping.
In the early 1970s, the Swiss concept of "comprehensive protection," which included a wide range of instruments for peace and independence. However, the focus was clearly on a realistic military approach to security. All security measures were restricted to Swiss territory, and the main perceived threat was a military attack on the country. It was a clear differentiation between the tasks assigned to armed forces and the duties assigned to civil institutions. It was a consequence of the division of security and foreign policy in Switzerland at the time. Humanitarian commitments, good offices or multilateral cooperation in economic and social matters were considered outside the security sphere. This delineation of responsibility began to disappear only in the mid-1970s partially due to the signing of the "Final Act of the Conference on security and cooperation in Europe" in 1975.
Shortly after the end of the cold war in 1990, the Swiss Federal Council published a document entitled "Swiss security policy in transition", which marked the first change towards a broader and more comprehensive approach to security. Security was no longer perceived as a purely military matter, moreover, it was noted that the autonomous maintaining of security became impossible.
It is known that Switzerland's national security is based on the principle of political neutrality, which stood the test of time and was legally formalized at the Vienna Congress in 1815. In the general approach, including foreign policy, Switzerland has used the flexibility of its neutrality in several ways. First, Switzerland has used the special position of a neutral country by offering good offices in the settlement of conflicts. Second, the country joined such institutions as the European free trade Association in 1961 and the Council of Europe in 1963. This dual position is called "solidary neutrality." Sociological research and referendums in Switzerland demonstrate high and stable support for neutrality . The views of political elites in Switzerland are consistent with the preferences of public opinion, that is, neutrality as a common value is supported by politicians of almost all important parties. For strict neutrality in matters of security are, first of all, the policies of the conservative side of the political spectrum. On the other hand, the centre's politicians and parties advocate a more pragmatic approach to security neutrality. For example, Free Democratic Party argues that Switzerland should adhere more strongly to the notion of "security through cooperation" .
By the beginning of the 21st century, the ideas of expanding multinational cooperation without abandoning neutrality became more and more popular in Switzerland. Referendums on the expansion of cooperation in security matters carried out in the 2000-ies have confirmed this course. Large-scale military reform ("Army XXI"), which began in 1998, not only made significant structural adjustments to the formation of the Swiss army, but also set a new vector in the national foreign policy.
In recent decades, Switzerland has increasingly deployed armed forces abroad in support of peacekeeping missions, among them: participation of the Swiss contingent of the international force in Namibia (UNTAG) (1989-1990); participation of the Swiss contingent (SWISSCOY) in the KFOR international force, led by NATO in Kosovo from 1999 to 2003; participation of Swiss officers in the international security assistance force in Afghanistan (ISAF) in 2003; participation in the European Union Force (EUFOR), etc.
It is difficult not to notice the changes in the quality of peacekeeping in which Switzerland participates. First, it is progress from the participation in the UN medical units or military observers to the military presence in Kosovo or the deployment of personnel in Afghanistan. Second, after the 2001 referendum on the Swiss military law, Swiss contingents abroad may be armed. This was an important step towards an increased participation by the Confederation in the peacekeeping missions. However, the Swiss military act also makes it clear that peace-enforcement missions abroad are prohibited .
Switzerland's increased participation in peacekeeping missions is most likely the result of a merger of security and foreign policy, which has led to a more integrated approach to security, and has also contributed to a greater willingness to support international missions. At the same time, this interdependence has led to some foreign policy restrictions in Switzerland's security policy. Sometimes, therefore, bilateral cooperation outside multilateral institutions is the only practical solution. In addition, some bilateral treaties, for example in the field of arms control, may serve as examples of future agreements within multilateral framework. In this regard, the comprehensive notion of security may also be referred to as a reason for bilateral action.
If back in 1986, the Swiss people, by a majority vote, opposed the country's entry into the UN, today Switzerland is increasingly agreeing to join multilateral security institutions. The two main security institutions to which Switzerland has acceded are the Partnership for Peace, which Switzerland joined in 1996, and the United Nations, which Switzerland joined in 2002. Both security institutions present ideas and values that are part of Switzerland's understanding of national security. Thus, the UN is committed to the concept of human security, which is an important part of national security in Switzerland. Moreover, the values underlying PFP, stability and security in the Euro-Atlantic area, the protection and promotion of fundamental and human rights and the protection of freedom, justice and peace through democracy are consistent with Switzerland's broad approach to security.
Finally, Switzerland has taken measures to limit the use of force and to ensure accountability for the use of armed forces abroad. The institution of referendum, being an integral part of the Swiss model of democratic self-government, is not only an instrument of regulation of interethnic, interfaith and ethno-linguistic conflicts , but also provides an opportunity to take into account the views of the Swiss regarding security issues. Since the end of the Cold War, nine security referendums have been held, four of which relate to the use of force abroad .
Swiss Federal Council is authorized to deploy the country's military contingent abroad . However, if the mission is armed, the Federal Council must consult with the Foreign affairs and security committee of the Parliament. Moreover, if more than a hundred servicemen are sent abroad or if the mission lasts more than three weeks, the Parliament is obliged to vote on the issue. An additional requirement for the deployment of Swiss troops abroad is the UN or the OSCE mandate. These institutions are the only legitimate institutions authorized to mobilize and use military force.
The concept of neutrality continues to dominate Switzerland's security culture. However, neutrality does not preclude greater cooperation on security issues with partners in or outside agencies. Therefore, in the field of the multilateral use of force, one can observe changes in Switzerland's security culture.
Thus, "security through cooperation" in Switzerland means, on the one hand, the cooperation of domestic military and civilian instruments and, on the other, the intention to work together with international partners. The latter is not merely an expression of solidarity, but an important element of Switzerland's security policy, which serves its own interests. The limits of Swiss cooperation in the field of security are determined by two factors. A prerequisite for Switzerland's participation is that any peacekeeping operation must be clearly legitimate from the point of view of international law (usually the UN Security Council or the OSCE mandate). In addition, the limitations arising from the neutrality act must be respected. In this context, since 1993, the Swiss Federal Council considers that economic coercive measures by the United Nations have a priority in relation to the neutrality act. However, this position does not apply to military coercive measures. In this case, neutrality is maintained in the reserve.
БИБЛИОГРАФИЧЕСКИЙ СПИСОК:
1. Volgin О.S. Vladimir Solovyov on the importance of the state. Philosophy. – 2015. – No. 8.
2. Document submitted to the 5-th International Security Forum (ISF), October 14-16, 2002, Zurich. See. –URL: http://www.isn.ethz.ch/5isf/5/Papers/Haltiner_paper_V-3.pdf.
3. Karsanova E.S. Swiss experience of public administration and prevention of ethno-linguistic contradictions. Scientific review. Humanities. – 2012. – No. 5. – Ser. 2.
4. Karsanova E.S. Ethno-political conflicts in multinational states: comparative analysis/monograph. – Odintsovo: ANOO VPO OGI, 2010.
5. Petrov I.Е. Essays on the history of Switzerland. – Yekaterinburg: Tsirkon, 2006.
6. Federal law on the army and military administration (military law) of 3 February 1995, art. 66а. (Bundesversammlung der Schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft, Bundesgesetz ueber die Armee and die Militaerverwaltung (Militaergesetz, MG) vom 3. Februar 1995, Art. 66a).
7. Basler Zeitung. FDP setzt sich fuer starke und moderne Armee ein. August 6, 2007. See. – URL: http://www.baz.ch/news/index.cfm?ObjectID=3B8E8605-1422-0CEF-70D8BAE116EDF984.
8. Karl W. Haltiner and Andreas Wenger. Sicherheit 2006: Aussen-, Sicherheits- und Verteidigungspolitische Meinungsbildung im Trend. – Zurich: Forschungsstelle fuer Sicherheitspolitik der ETH Zuerich und Militaerakademie an der ETH Zuerich, 2006.
9. Karsanova E.S. Federalism as a factor of sustainable development of the multiethnic state. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences. vol. 6, No 3. Supplement 2, May 2015. – Rome, Italy, 2015.