‘The world of conflict mediation is evolving’

Thomas Greminger, head of the Geneva Center for Security Policy (GCSP), discusses the evolving role of Switzerland in global diplomacy, highlighting key strategies in the conflicts of Gaza and Ukraine. Keystone / Martial Trezzini

Engaging constructively with both states and non-states is key to resolving complex conflicts, argues Thomas Greminger, head of the Geneva Center for Security Policy (GCSP), in an interview with SWI swissinfo.ch.

Thomas Greminger, current head of the Geneva Center for Security Policy (GCSP), is a Swiss diplomat and former head of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).   

Drawing from his decades-long experience in negotiations with millitant groups like Hamas, he discusses the challenges and opportunities in engaging with both state and non-state actors when it comes to peace talks. He argues Switzerland still has a role to play in international conflict resolution.     

SWI swissinfo.ch: As a Swiss diplomat, you were directly involved in negotiations with Hamas members in the early 2000s. Could you share how this experience shaped your understanding of the conflict in the Middle East and potential resolution strategies?  

Thomas Greminger: At that time, Hamas, including its more moderate faction, showed interest in international recognition and engagement. They seemed open to a long-term ceasefire, recognising Israel, and working towards a two-state solution, which included ceasing rocket fire on Israel in exchange for improved conditions for the Palestinian population such as less harassment at checkpoints. Our strategic goal was to reinforce these moderates.  

In conflict resolution, identifying groups that seek international recognition and wish to break out of isolation is crucial. Switzerland’s strategy was to engage with these potentially constructive groups, to strengthen their influence over more radical elements. This approach was part of our broader dialogue with Islamic groups in the region.  

SWI: In 2008, Switzerland drafted the Swiss document, a declaration of intent opening the way for talks between Israel and Hamas. How has Switzerland’s role evolved from being a privileged partner negotiating with Hamas, to supporting the classification of the group as a terrorist organisation?  

T.G.: That’s an important question. Over time, the international community didn’t address the fundamental grievances of the Palestinians and shifted their perception of Hamas. It increasingly saw Hamas as a terrorist group and radical elements in the movement progressively gained the upper hand. The Swiss dialogue with Hamas never fully ceased but transitioned from a political to a more technical nature after 2008, when key international actors like the European Union decided not to join the process.  

SWI: The Federal Council aims to officially label Hamas as a terrorist organisation. Is Switzerland still engaging with Hamas?  

T.G.: Following the brutal attacks in October and the atrocities committed by Hamas, which were clearly of a terrorist nature, the Federal Council had to send a strong signal by labelling them as terrorists. However, in Swiss legislation, there are different ways to label a group, and some methods would probably still allow for discreet, behind-the-scenes dialogue, if deemed useful at some point.  

+‘Declaring Hamas a terrorist organisation contradicts Switzerland’s neutrality’

SWI: Could Switzerland play a role in moderating Israel’s military response, given the recent calls by the international community for such action?  

T.G.: As an advocate of international humanitarian law, Switzerland’s role is to insist that Israel adheres to its principles, including the protection of civilians and in particular the principle of proportionality. This should be pursued through bilateral channels, multilateral platforms like the United Nations Security Council, and both quiet and public diplomacy.  

SWI: South Africa has requested Israel be judged for genocide by the International Court of Justice. How do you assess Switzerland’s current role protecting International Law and International Humanitarian Law, especially as the depository state of the Geneva Conventions?    

T.G.: Switzerland has indeed become more outspoken in sending clear messages to Israel about respecting international humanitarian law. While the ICJ’s legal action on the conflict is significant, it’s unlikely to fundamentally solve the Palestinian issue. A political process and commitment from the parties on the ground, including Israel and major stakeholders like the United States and Europe, are essential for a sustainable political solution.  

Keystone / Anthony Anex

SWI: Do you think the EU’s reluctance to engage with Hamas has impacted peace prospects in the region?  

T.G.: Reflecting on this, is asking ourselves what might have been. Switzerland’s dialogue with Hamas almost 20 years ago was initiated with the hope that the EU would eventually come on board. An EU engagement could have potentially guided Hamas towards moderation, leading to more constructive outcomes. However, this is speculative, and we cannot be certain of the result.  

SWI: Is there a noticeable gap between official government positions, particularly in the EU and the US, and public opinion on the ongoing conflict?  

T.G.: Yes, there is a gap. On one hand, people are deeply affected by the devastation and the Palestinian civilian toll of the war, which is understandable. On the other hand, Western governments, influenced by the Israeli government’s perspective, focus on the need to decisively defeat Hamas. This contrasts with perceptions in the Arab world and much of the Global South. This dichotomy between the visceral reaction to the conflict’s human cost and the geopolitical and security-related reasoning behind government positions should not surprise us, though.  

SWI: Some argue that international law and humanitarian law are the main casualties of the ongoing war. Do you think this undermines the perception of human rights as universal and a guarantee of security and dignity?  

T.G.: Over the last few decades, there have been again and again serious violations of international law. These are not recent developments. However, there seems to be a relatively new trend of resolving conflicts militarily that is worrying. It further undermines a global order based on international law and commonly agreed rules. The shift from a unipolar world led by the US to a multipolar one where the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) and Global South countries play a more important role has so far been creating a more chaotic and unstable system, disrupting the predictability of the rule-based order we once had.  

SWI: With new actors like Qatar and Saudi Arabia emerging in conflict mediation, do you think Switzerland has lost some of its influence in good offices?  

T.G.: The world of conflict mediation is evolving, and it’s positive to see new facilitators and mediators on the scene. Rather than fearing the loss of influence, Switzerland should look for complementarity with these new actors. There are different types of approaches that may succeed in facilitating between parties to a conflict. At times traditional mediation works, at times you may need a powerful or resourceful regional actor to facilitate. What always remains important is trust of the parties in the mediator. This makes investing in entry points for conflict resolution so relevant. This means building up relations of trust with the sides of a conflict which often represents a long-term process. 

SWI: What do you think of President Zelensky’s ten-point peace plan discussed during WEF in Davos?  

T.G.: The Ukrainian government’s plan is a legitimate effort to mobilise international support for their concept of ending the war. This said, any formal peace process will need to include Russia. In this sense the actual outcome of a negotiated peace process will be different from what parties are calling for at the outset.  

+Ukraine and Switzerland urge countries to support peace plan in Davos

SWI: Based on your experience, are there clear differences in negotiation tactics when dealing with armed groups like Hamas compared to states in conflicts like Russia and Ukraine?  

T.G.: Definitely, there are major differences. When negotiating with states, there are formal communication channels and established conflict resolution mechanisms. In contrast, engaging with non-state actors immediately raises issues about recognising their political status. However, in a highly polarised political environment formal communication channels and conflict resolution mechanisms among states tend to get quickly blocked. In addition, when non-state actors act as proxies for states, the differences between a process between formal state and non-state actors get blurred as well. Therefore, in both cases establishing a robust channel of dialogue often becomes the foremost challenge in the beginning of a process. 

Edited by Virginie Mangin/livm