Every year 100 people in Switzerland die due to lack of an organ transplant, but the country’s nationwide organ shortage could now be reduced. A new smartphone app developed by Jocelyn Corniche, an anaesthetist at Lausanne University Hospital, and Swisstransplant, informs emergency-room staff that the phone’s owner is a registered organ donor – even if the phone is locked.
WHO demands e-cigarette bans and marketing restrictions
Tobacco companies are still being accused of targetting the young
Much to the irritation of the tobacco industry, including corporate giants such as Philip Morris in Switzerland, the World Health Organization is demanding that governments ban electronic cigarettes indoors. It also wants curbs on advertising and other tactics that lure young people.
In a report issued at the end of August, the UN organization maintains that not enough is known about e-cigarettes, and hence should be prohibited “until exhaled vapour is proven to be not harmful to bystandersâ€. Given their growing use among minors, many of whom consider “e-cigs†harmless, WHO recommends that nicotine doses be standardized and that fruit or sweet-flavoured versions be banned.
Manufacturers currently maintain that e-cigarettes are safer than tobacco as they do not contain carcinogens. Somewhat inexplicably, Philip Morris also says the WHO position excludes them from the “democratic process.â€
WHO wants crackdowns on practises that attract young people, which the World Medical Association describes as “sickening†and “predatory.†The industry has consistently used questionable approaches, particularly in eastern Europe and Asia, for encouraging traditional use. Observers note that in Switzerland companies hand out free cigarettes at pop concerts and other events.
Some Swiss politicians have expressed concern that tobacco lobbies are pressuring Bern not to ban smoking in public places as in neighbouring France. Interestingly, WHO staff have received significant hate mail and calls, which, one maintained, are encouraged by the tobacco industry.
Roger’s roar and smile and their lessons for diplomats
Federer at the Davis Cup
Roger Federer is best known as a tennis player, perhaps the greatest of all time. His record of 17 Grand Slam titles is unmatched in the sport’s history. But besides his one-hand backhand, elegant dress and phenomenal court movement and presence under pressure, his recent performance at the US Open bears witness to another quality that warrants attention and, hopefully, simulation.
No, we do not mean his reaching a semi-final in a major tournament at the age of 33. Ken Rosewell was a finalist at Wimbledon in 1974 at the age of 39. Nor should we be overwhelmed by the fact that Roger is playing at the same time he is parenting four young children. Roger and his wife travel with enough staff that I’m sure he doesn’t lose sleep changing diapers the night before a big match. Tennis moms have been doing this for years under much more trying circumstances. Kim Clijsters won the US Open one year after giving birth to her daughter as an unseeded wildcard. Holding up her daughter at the victory ceremony, a beaming Clijsters said “We tried to plan her naptime a little bit later so she could be here today. It’s the greatest feeling in the world, being a mother,†an overwhelmed Clijsters told the cheering crowd in what was appropriately labelled “the mother of all comebacksâ€.
No, what caught our attention were the moments after Roger’s magical victory over Gaël Monfils in the quarter-finals and after his loss to Marin Cilic in the semis. Down two sets to love and two match points in the fourth set against the Frenchman, Federer managed to come back from the precipice in a heart-stopping resurrection in front of 23,000 screaming fans and millions around the world. After the return of serve of Monfils sailed long, Federer walked to the net, raised his arms, shouted “Yes†and let out a primal scream.
What kind of scream? Certainly not the foreboding in Eduard Munch’s painting of the same name with its blood red sky and enigmatic figure in the foreground. And not, I believe, a typical tennis scream. Monfils, after his victory over Gregory Dimitrov in the previous round, turned his back to his vanquished opponent, faced the fans behind him thumping his chest and screamed in an Alpha male gesture similar to Novak Djokovic’s ripping off his shirt in triumph to expose his impressive abdominals in an obvious male manifestation of domination. No, I interpreted Federer’s scream to be one of extreme satisfaction at the moment. He was definitely not Alpha male as he graciously walked to the net and congratulated Monfils nor during the post-match press conference at which he expressed his pleasure at playing such a match and the pure joy of being so warmly supported by the New York crowd. As Roger said: “I have rarely felt the public so warmâ€. (Disclaimer: Do I have to say that I am from New York to justify Federer’s tribute to the crowd?)
Federer’s obvious joy and scream were not just about winning. He was overwhelmed by the moment. He doesn’t have to play for money or more titles. As he said after his next match, “I don’t need an 18th Grand Slam title to be happyâ€. He thoroughly enjoys playing and the bigger the stage, the bigger the stakes, the bigger the thrill of the match. And that joy permeates his relationship with his opponents. He does not have to dominate them; he just wants to play his best tennis. (A former Danish tennis player Torben Ulrich, now writer, musician and filmmaker, was well-known for a similar attitude.) While winning is obviously important, it is the very act of trying to play his best that allows him to be gracious in victory as well as defeat. Federer walked to the net facing Monfils while screaming since his joy was a shared moment; Monfils turned away from his opponent in a solitary moment when he screamed.
Federer’s graciousness was also evident after he lost to Marin Cilic in the next round. After the defeat of Novac Djokovic and default of Rafael Nadal, Federer had a glorious path to the Open title. He played a dismal match against the Croat, losing in three sets with none of the mastery he had shown over the summer. He had never lost to Cilic in five previous matches and must have been hugely disappointed at his performance. Yet, at the post-match press conference, he expressed some disappointment while smiling and congratulating his opponent. “He realized a great performance,†Federer recognized. In both his victory and defeat, Federer paid tribute to his opponents, basked in the pleasure of victory while placing the defeat in a larger perspective. After all, he has said, I earn an enormous amount of money playing a game I thoroughly enjoy.
Can diplomats learn anything from this? There is competition in the political world. Countries win and lose wars. Negotiations do have winners and losers. At the WTO, for example, delegates are invited or not into exclusive Green Room discussions. You are either in or out as a rotating member of the UN Security Council. But diplomacy is not only about W (wins) and L (losses). Most “victories†in diplomacy happen when one side “gets†51% of what it wants. And, certainly not to be forgotten, if the “victors†are not gracious in the diplomatic competition, they are sowing the seeds for future conflicts – see the harsh demands at the end of WWI leading to WWII. Federer knows he will have to face the same players in other contexts. Does he really want to give them further ammunition to beat him?
Roger Federer is best known as a tennis player, perhaps the greatest of all time. I recommend that his graciousness after victory and defeat be required study at all diplomatic academies.
Daniel Warner is an American-Swiss political scientist. This article appeared on his blog for la Tribune de Genève at tdg.ch/blogs.
The referendum: How representative?
On 28 September, Switzerland will hold yet another referendum on crucial federal and cantonal decisions. The Swiss do this every three months, often on technical issues, such as solar energy or parking garages, about which they are not particularly knowledgeable. Or they pass judgement on passionate themes, such as last February’s initiative on curbing mass migration, which can make or break the country economically.
This month’s federal vote will decide whether to introduce a public health insurance, as Pamela Taylor writes, and whether restaurants should continue paying VAT. Local initiatives vary. Geneva will be voting on a proposal to build a tunnel across the Rhone, while Vaud has no changes on the table.
Another key referendum is next week’s Scottish independence vote, notably, the right to break away from the United Kingdom with which they have been associated for more than 300 years. The most recent polls suggest a very close “yes†win for the nationalists.
French-dominant Quebec has tried twice to vote on independence from Canada. The first was in 1980, when it lost significantly, and the second in 1995 where the initiative was defeated. Barely. Now, nearly 20 years later, the Quebec nationalists are on the out. Many Québécois, particularly young people, are coming to realize that independence would only be shooting themselves in the foot economically and that union is preferable.
How democratic are these referenda? Do they really represent the public will? In Switzerland, participation is usually high, but a referendum can be decided by a 50.3% majority as happened with the migration vote. This means that nearly half the voting population does not agree. But at least every Swiss citizen is allowed to vote, regardless whether in Lausanne, Los Angeles or Lagos.
The Scottish referendum only allows current residents to participate. Scots living elsewhere in the UK or abroad cannot, even if they pay taxes for properties they own in Scotland. Some UK citizens argue that they, too, should be able to vote as the decision will affect them.
Both Scotland and Quebec can have their futures decided by a 50.1% local vote. US citizens, who can vote from abroad, can propose change, but both Houses need a two-thirds majority. So at least, that’s arguably more democratic. But what happens when people realize – only much later – that devolution with union is perhaps better than independence with borders?
Edward Girardet, Editor@staging.lenews.ch
People who need people. And people who don’t.
Sometimes I like to think of my family as a patchwork quilt. Because we’re covered in cat hair and permanently draped over the couch in the TV room. Ha ha. No, but seriously. I think of it as a quilt because, as any quilt-maker can tell you, organizing the various pieces of fabric into a whole can be a challenge. The bits might all be lovely on their own, but they need to achieve some sort of harmony if you want a quilt that doesn’t give you a headache every time you look at it.
As with soft furnishings, so with life. Two or more people, with unique characters, different needs and (sometimes horrible) habits are forced to live together in one house for extended periods of time without going completely mad … it may sound like a description of Big Brother, but I’m actually talking about families.
For example. In my family, we have a few differences of opinion around issues such as sleep (my husband and I enjoy it but the children aren’t big fans) and holidays (I’m into Slow Travel while my husband tears through destinations as if the tour bus were being tailgated by Time’s Winged Chariot). But these are minor incompatibilities. Our real area of mismatch – where we just can’t get our pieces of fabric to fit together – is in our attitudes to other people.
My husband is an extrovert, which means that socialising not only makes him happy, but actually gives him energy. He’ll come back from a weekend of sport, brunches, barbecues and parties all fuelled for the week. The bigger child is cut from the same cloth, only hers is a rather bolder pattern: she absolutely lives to socialise. She can’t walk to the post box and back without making a new friend, and is constantly coming home with someone’s mother’s telephone number scribbled on a piece of paper, which I must then use to cold call and set up play dates. She’s done this at parties, in restaurants and, most recently, on a twenty minute boat ride up the Thames.
I, on the other hand, am an introvert. Socialising makes me tired (most probably because of all the extroverts, sucking out my energy to fuel themselves) and I need a fair bit of time alone to recuperate. The smaller child is like me but more so. Much more so. When we were planning her birthday party, her biggest concern was not the cake, or the decorations, but how we could best keep everyone out of her bedroom. And only last week, on hearing that friends were popping over for a visit, her immediate response was, “Oh no! Lock the doors!â€
“But I thought you liked them,†I said, as she headed off to her Happy Place (a cardboard box under her bed).
“I love them,†she agreed. “But not in the house.â€
I’m not sure yet how we’ll work these disparate needs into a family that is both vaguely socially normal and still respectful of the space that some members need. But I do know what the quilt that represents us should be like: it should be soft and warm, and big enough to wrap around all of us, and whatever friends we want to bring along; a joyfully-coloured, free-motion crazy quilt with plenty of embellishments. And some pins left in.
Robyn Goss is a South African writer, recently moved to Switzerland. You can read her blogs at www.robyngoss.com
The Swiss president’s commute goes viral on twitter
In stark contrast to the president of the United States, the Swiss president was shown in a photo, taken by Le Temps journalist Serge Jubin, standing on a railway platform in Neuchâtel waiting along with the general public for his train to arrive. No armour plated limousine in sight. Jubin’s tweet reads: “Switzerland, a wonderful country where the president happily taps away on his smartphone surrrounded by regular train travellers while waiting for his train at the railway station in his home town of Neuchâtel.” The photo was retweeted hundreds of times around the world.
In Switzerland the seven-members of the Swiss Federal Council, akin to a cabinet, act collectively as the head of state. Every year one of the seven acts as the nation’s president, a largely ceremonial role as executive decisions are taken by all Federal Council members together.
For more stories like this on Switzerland follow us on Facebook and Twitter.
Explaining Switzerland’s issues
Christophe Darbellay
Earlier this week, I had lunch with an expat friend from Vaud at one of Geneva’s leading hotels overlooking the Rhone River. He has been living in Switzerland for nearly 30 years, including a nearly decade-long stint in the German-speaking north. So he is very much aware of the divides that exist within Switzerland itself, and how many ordinary Swiss do not understand their own country.
He is also acutely aware of the role foreigners play in Switzerland. The hotel restaurant, where we were lunching, can barely maintain enough waiters to ensure the quality that a five-star needs to provide for lack of personnel, he explained.
While Europeans and Americans may often regard Geneva as the “real” capital of Switzerland, he noted half-jokingly, numerous German-speaking Swiss act as if Suisse romande does not exist. And if they do acknowledge it, they perceive the Lake Geneva region as that Latin enclave in the south. Many have never even been to Lausanne or Geneva. So clearly, there is a dire information gap affecting both Swiss and foreigners.
At the same time, my friend noted with embarrassment, he barely gets by with his terrible French. It’s a similar situation with many foreigners living in Switzerland. He has tried many times to learn the language, but most of his work with international corporations, including Swiss ones, is done in English. So, apart from going to the bakery or doing his shopping at Migros or Manor, he doesn’t really need French.
What he does need, however, is an overview of what’s happening in the Lake Geneva region, and Switzerland itself. This includes listening to WRS and reading Le News. These, he maintains, are his principal local information sources. It was tragic, short-sighted and even racist of Bern, he added, to close down the original WRS and then deliberately deny the new operation access to an FM signal. This means that without DAB+ at home and in their cars many thousands of potential listeners still do not have access.
“No Swiss politician is going to raise a finger to protect the rights of foreigners in their country, even if they desperately need them,” he noted. This point of view is shared by a surprisingly large number of Swiss, who are also among Le News’ readers. As one civil servant in Bern told me, “I now rely on Le News to give me a different perspective – one which you will not find in the Swiss press.”
As the editor of Le News, I consider this information role a crucial one, regardless whether our readership is Swiss or foreign.
Some Swiss have criticized me for being “anti-Swiss’, which is a curious allegation given that I am Swiss. We are living in a far more interesting country today than 30 years ago, when, quite frankly, it was a pretty dull place. Switzerland now commands exceptional diversity and innovation with its position as the world’s most competitive economic country according to the World Economic Forum. Much of this has to do with traditional Swiss ingenuity and exceptional governance combined with highly skilled and imaginative immigrant resources.
A few others have blatantly informed me that the country does not need an English-language newspaper, because Switzerland does not need – or want – foreigners. At the same time, such Swiss have no compunction about making money off their backs. One café owner in Vaud, whose establishment relies heavily on English-speaking parents stopping by for their morning coffees after dropping off their kids at the international schools, steadfastly refuses to allow Le News on its premises.
Doris Leuthard
Of course, what such poo-poohers really mean is that they do not share Le News’ responsibility to explore critical issues, such as immigration, cutting edge technology or more constructive relations with the European Union, that are very much in Switzerland’s interest. And in the interests of the international community here.
What we wish to ensure is that Le News can help provide the sort of information that will enable residents and visitors, regardless whether Swiss or foreign, and including those on the French side, to understand the region better by becoming part of it – and enjoying it. This means being informed about what is happening with the arts, business, tourism events, wildlife and local politics.
And maybe one of the Swiss language schools will come up with a formula to help linguistically impaired expats, such as my friend, find both the time and will to order more than a coffee in French. And why not in German, Italian or Romansch as well?
Edward Girardet, Managing editor  ed@staging.lenews.ch
On the beach
One morning during our recent summer holiday in England, my husband leaped out of bed, joyfully announcing, “It’s a Beach Day today!â€
“Really?†I asked, peering out of the window at the grey sky and the trees bending horizontally in the wind. “Why do you say that?â€
“Because it’s not raining!â€
The children and I balked, but my husband, who has spent time in the UK before, reassured us. “It’s what everyone does on a day like this. Let’s go.â€
So we grabbed our beach gear – fleeces, jeans, umbrellas – and headed off. And he was right. Everyone was doing it. Although they were doing it with metres of stripey windbreaks and flasks of steaming tea, so we really stuck out as sadly underequipped foreigners.
No matter. The family had a wonderful time. My husband went surfing, and the children raced around with buckets, spades and fishing nets, giddy with beach-joy. I watched them for a bit, then retreated behind a rocky outcrop to attempt hibernation. And while I did so, my mind turned to memories of Beaches Past, and how different they have been to one another.
For example, before we left South Africa we spent a bit of time in the Cape and landed up, on New Year’s Day, on the beach in Muizenberg. The sun was blazing, the waves were big, and you could hardly see the sand for all the people: people playing beach sports, people sunbathing, and lots of people in the water, paddling, swimming, body boarding, surfing, kayaking …
And every now and then the Shark Spotter, sitting high on an east-facing cliff, would see a dark shape easing along the coast. The spotter would then radio down to a compatriot on the beach, who’d sound the shark siren and raise a white flag, and everyone would get out of the water. Calmly and immediately. There was no Jaws-like panic, no stampede, no screaming. Paddlers, swimmers, surfers … they just walked out of the sea and waited on the beach until the dark shape moved on. When the white flag was replaced by a green one, they trooped back into the water again.
I thought it was all pretty hard core, so I was very surprised a few months later when we headed down to Lac Léman for our first Swiss swim, and my daughter refused to get in.
The whole lakeside area looked like something out of a fairy tale, with a manicured lawn and white swans drifting past us on water as flat and clear as a mirror. There was no one else there, apart from a group of pensioners having a chat in the sun after their morning swim.
“No way,†said the small one, sitting back down on her towel. “Too dangerous.â€
“Dangerous?†I repeated, baffled. “Child! You’ve never been anywhere safer!â€
In reply, she narrowed her eyes at me, as if she’d just realised I was actually trying to kill her. “Mommy. How can you expect me to swim on a beach where there are no shark flags?â€
Robyn Goss is a South African writer, recently moved to Switzerland. You can read her blogs at www.robyngoss.com
Hostages: To pay or not to pay, that is the question
Murdered American journalist, James Foley
Murdered journalist, Steven Sotloff
The grotesque assassination of the American journalist James Foley has publicly raised the complex question of whether or not governments, companies or individuals should pay a ransom to free hostages. There are supportable arguments on both sides of the issue and, not surprisingly, there are differences on to how to deal with the problem. There has been no coherent response in the West to demands for ransom.
All governments deny that they pay. A declaration by a group of countries at a 2013 G8 meeting clearly stated that they would not reward hostage taking: “We are committed to protecting the lives of our nationals and reducing terrorist groups’ access to the funding that allows them to survive and thrive in accordance with relevant international conventions. We unequivocally reject the payment of ransoms to terrorists in line with the UN Security Council Resolution 1904 (2009) which requires that Member States prevent the payment of ransoms, directly or indirectly, to terrorists designated under the UN Al Qaeda sanctions regime through the freezing of funds and other assets.â€
Nonetheless, reaping rewards from kidnapping has become a big business if not a growth industry. A recent survey by the New York Times showed that since 2008, $125 million has been paid in ransom, $66 million last year alone. For organizations such as Al Qaida, exchanging hostages for money has become an important source of income. Human beings, in other words, are a commodity to be negotiated. In the case of James Foley, for instance, reports are that the Islamic States of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) demanded a multimillion dollar ransom for his release of up to $100 million. Estimates are that in 2010, £600,000 was paid to Somali pirates to free Paul and Rachel Chandler.
According to reliable sources, the United States has maintained a position that adamantly refuses to pay. Moreover, it will fine companies or individuals under its jurisdiction who do pay. The reasons given for this position are that paying kidnappers will only encourage similar actions and that the money received will increase the capabilities of terrorist organizations. In reality, this means that in spite of a failed rescue attempt, the US government allowed Foley and the other captive then in the hands of ISIS, Steven Sotloff, to be outside financial negotiation. The US feels that payments will have long term negative consequences; the short-term tragedies just have to be accepted.
The United States is unique in this position. Great Britain refuses to pay as a country but ignores when companies or individuals exchange hostages for money. European countries such as Spain, Italy and France deny paying but have been known to do so. 50 foreigners were held in the past five years; almost all have been released after payment. While Israel does not pay for hostages, it did release over 1000 Palestinian prisoners in 2011 in exchange for the freeing of one Israeli captured soldier, Gilad Shalit.
Watching the video of James Foley’s last moments is heart-wrenching. The message from the ISIS representative to the American people and president was clear: “Now that you’ve intervened, you are the enemy and we will go after you.†Because the US will continue to intervene in Iraq by aerial bombing at a minimum, one can expect that every American in Iraq will be at risk, with no guarantee of a negotiated release. Steven Sotloff tragically proved to be the next victim. If we follow the U.S.’ reasoning, we must be prepared to watch other videos like the ones with Foley and Sotloff. And we can only dread that there may be similar incidents in the United States or around the world. ISIS has declared the US its enemy – “we will go after you†– with absolutely no respect for international humanitarian law.
Would paying a ransom have changed the situation for James Foley and Steven Sotloff? Will paying ransoms change situations for people like them? The United States, as is often the case, has a different position from the rest of the world. What its position entails is that we will have to learn to watch horrific footage of barbaric actions screaming “Do something to stop this,†accepting that paying money to free a hostage may cause more damage in the long term. Not an easy lesson at all. We would all like to join in the euphoria when the Swiss hostage Max Göldi was finally released in Libya and returned to Switzerland. Heart-warming is much better than heart-wrenching, but it appears we will have to learn to live with the latter.
Daniel Warner is an American-Swiss political scientist. This article appeared on his blog for la Tribune de Genève at tdg.ch/blogs
Things that Go Bump in the Night
Every time I read an article about someone who swears they saw the face of Elvis in a piece of toast, I’m reminded of how good we humans are at putting random shapes into patterns, and trying to make sense of them. It’s what makes cloud-watching so much fun; it’s also what gave us the evolutionary edge over animals that peered into prehistoric forests and couldn’t mentally organize the shadows well enough to tell a sabre-toothed tiger from a hole in the ground.
I just wish my children wouldn’t practice their pattern-making late at night, because it’s creepy.
For example, one dark evening when I was alone in our Johannesburg house with my then two-year-old, she looked out of the window and said, “Mommy, there’s a man in the garden.â€
There are few words that will galvanise a Joburg-dweller into action faster, so, with the panic button in one hand and the telephone in the other, I turned off all the lights and peered outside.
“There’s no one out there,†I said, after a while.
My daughter agreed. “No. He’s in here now,†she told me, pointing to a completely empty corner of the room.
It took several strong cups of tea before I’d let go of that panic button.
Another human skill – although perhaps one with less evolutionary benefit – is the ability to manufacture drama from absolutely nothing. Here, the best example I can think of is a reality TV show I once watched, about ghost hunters. (Yes, I know, but there was nothing else on). The presenter had, for some reason, to walk across a courtyard in the dark while her co-presenter, who was in radio contact with her, kept saying things like, “You’re a quarter of the way across and you’ve seen no sign of the terrifying ghost that haunts this hotel? No? Nothing? I hope you make it all the way without meeting the terrifying ghost …â€.
But nothing happened and she made it across safely. Despite this, the poor woman had worked herself into such a state that, by the time she reached the other side, she was a gibbering, sobbing wreck.
The reason I mention all of this is that I saw both of these things – pattern-making and drama-mongering – at work last night, in our hotel room, with my children.
It started when I moved a bag and cast a shadow on the carpet. But the bigger child thought it was something else.
“I saw something running across the floor,†she told me. “It went under the bed.â€
We checked and found nothing, but she was insistent. “It looked like a mouse. I thought I saw ears.â€
“What colour was it?†asked her little sister, ever supportive.
“It was whitish brownish blackish.â€
By the time the children had finished discussing it, it had grown a puffy tail and whiskers, and was the size of a cat.
“Mommy!†the smaller child screamed five minutes later, pointing out the window. “I saw it on that tree-branch! It was glowing!â€
This went on for some time, until the innocent shadow cast by my bag had taken on the properties of some sort of radioactive tree-dwelling vampire badger. Sleep did not come easily last night, to any of us.
Anyway, I offer this as a cautionary tale to parents: don’t bother planning an action-packed holiday for your children, filled with visits to science museums, boat rides and days on the beach. If your children are anything like mine, it’s very likely that the most memorable part of their trip will be the one thing that they didn’t actually see.
