Umstrittene Schweizer Sicherheitspolitik ... - ETH Zürich

The Graduate Institute
I know that within the federal administration, many steps have been
taken to create things such as inter-agency working groups, and to coordinate
policy development. But at the operational level, matters are quite
frequently if not most of the time treated within distinct bureaucracies.
One example of this which you know much more about than I do would
be the deployment of forces under Swissint, which has a small presence
and has been active in many zones around the world – often with one or
two persons – and has sent expert, training, verification and other kinds
of missions to many countries. To my knowledge, however, this is not
always well-coordinated with larger foreign development or security policy
activities and priorities. Therefore, it does not guarantee that resources,
which are scarce, are allocated and used in the most effective manner.
There are also different “expert pools” in the different ministries, which
could at least be harmonized towards meeting common security goals.
Of course, there is nothing unique about this particular dilemma
for Switzerland. Many other countries and international institutions
also face this challenge, but one of the themes that should be addressed
in the future is what kind of major effort can be undertaken to enhance
genuine collaboration to achieve security goals. Organizations such as
NATO, and the US armed forces, are moving, even if slowly and with
difficulty, in this direction. The experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq – very
intense war zones – have led both to recognize that “military operations
other than war” – to use US jargon – are equally important missions to
the use of force for modern armed forces. But in the case of Afghanistan,
as some military officials in the US have indicated, there are literally
hundreds of actors – civilian, humanitarian, development and military
actors, police and governance – that are trying to work in a difficult
environment. Coordinating that requires new forms of institutional collaboration.
NATO is moving in this direction, too. One of the themes
of its upcoming summit is, I believe, to try to address some of the ways
in which NATO must collaborate with non-military institutions – partly
from its own member states – in different operation theatres and in its
overall security strategy. This is difficult to do, and it will require some
rethinking. The best way to do it is to start coordinating security policy
at home, especially before cooperating outside.
413