Topics: Chief Negotiator, Ambassador, State Secretary, Professor, Negotiation, Diplomacy, Switzerland, EU, USA, Bilateral agreements, Swiss foreign policy, advice, FDFA, FDF, ETH Zurich, Ambühl Meier AG.
Feel free to comment on Linkedin.
Reading time: 5 minutes.

Good morning, Mr. Ambühl. With your experience as ambassador, chief negotiator, state secretary, and professor of negotiation and conflict management at ETH Zurich, you look back on an impressive diplomatic and academic career. Which experiences and phases of your career have shaped you the most, both personally and professionally?

Professionally, I was most shaped by my time as a doctoral student at ETH Zurich, my post as First Secretary at our embassy in New Delhi, and the eight years I worked as Counsellor at our mission to the EU in Brussels. These stages had the greatest influence on my later role as a negotiator: in Zurich, the theoretical foundations through game theory, in India, the practice of everyday negotiation, and in Brussels, the world of international negotiations.

The media often only show the end result of negotiations. What does the daily work behind the scenes really look like?

Less spectacular than one might imagine. Before every round of negotiations, you have to prepare carefully by considering: What are your own goals? What are the presumed intentions of the other side? And what is the realistic room for maneuver? Based on this, you choose the approach that you believe best protects your interests. Good preparation is crucial.

What was the most challenging negotiation you led, and why?

I’ve led many negotiations. I had great respect before each one and often asked myself, how will I manage this? One of the greatest challenges was the Switzerland–EU negotiation on land transport within the framework of Bilaterals I, where I was not the head of the delegation, but rather its point of contact in Brussels. The Bilaterals II negotiations, which I then led as Switzerland’s chief negotiator, weren’t without challenges either. Especially on “Schengen/Dublin,” there was strong opposition: In Brussels, the initial opinion was that Switzerland, as a third country, should not be allowed to join the system, and even at home, there was significant public skepticism.

Negotiations also play a central role in the legal field. How can one specifically improve negotiation skills in this area?

By attending a negotiation course organized by us (laughs). Joking aside: There are many excellent continuing education programs that sharpen your awareness of what negotiation is really about. Introductory books also provide a good starting point for theory. Moreover, I would recommend taking every opportunity to negotiate in daily life – no matter how trivial – and use it to practice and systematically analyze why the negotiation ended the way it did. Practice makes perfect.

Good negotiation is based on the combination of theory and art: sober analysis, supported by theory, paired with rational judgment and diplomatic intuition. - Michael Ambühl

What strategies do you consider particularly important for successfully conducting negotiations?

First of all, there is no cookbook recipe for successful negotiation. Howard Raiffa, a well-known negotiation theorist, refers to the "Science and Art" of negotiation theory in his "Negotiation Analysis" [2002]. In my opinion, this is spot on. Good negotiation is based on the combination of theory and art: sober analysis, supported by theory, paired with rational judgment and diplomatic intuition.

A bit more concretely: It is important at the beginning not only to know exactly what you want but also to put yourself in the shoes of the opposing side. This means analyzing the structure of the negotiation problem carefully. Who is the demander, who has what options and leverage? What is the so-called BATNA, the "Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement"? What are my alternatives if I break off negotiations? Are they good or bad? What is the BATNA of the other party? Generally, one can say that BATNA is a measure of the negotiating power of a party. In the case of Switzerland-EU, it is clear that the EU has a better BATNA (but this does not mean that one must concede on everything). On the other hand, in the case of a "hostage-taker versus the police," it is more difficult to determine who is in the better position to break off negotiations.

And what approach do you recommend?

For negotiations, I would choose a coherent, deductively structured argumentation. Especially when you are in the weaker position (i.e., when you have a worse BATNA [already allowing for some application of theory]), you often only have the power of good arguments on your side. These must be clearly structured and easy to follow. And if the other party gets tangled in contradictions, I would ruthlessly break them down—provided I recognize them. Admittedly, if the other side is stronger, this may not always unsettle them. That happened to me in Brussels, where I once tried to grill my negotiating counterpart on an inconsistency. He calmly responded, "because we have so decided." And one more thing: I would not recommend using tricks or gimmicks. "Dirty tricks" are definitely off the table. If the other side uses them, I would politely but firmly reject them.

What typical mistakes often occur in negotiations, and how can they be avoided?

One mistake is to argue inconsistently or be unclear, leading to misunderstandings. Another is failing to properly assess the other options available. If you have a good BATNA, you should use it to your advantage. And if your BATNA is weak, do not simply give up.

Even after your career with the federal government, you continued to focus on negotiations at ETH and later with your consulting firm, Ambühl Meier AG. What were some of your highlights?

We advise companies in their internal and external negotiations or facilitate negotiation processes for state or semi-state institutions. One example was negotiating a guideline for compensations related to the disposal of nuclear waste. Another example involved the "Round Table on Hydropower" of the DETEC, which we chaired. The focus here was on selecting the most ecologically and economically viable hydropower projects. The selected projects were approved in the referendum on the electricity law last year. That was a small highlight for us. We were also pleased that the task force we led, "Understanding Process Davos and its Orthodox Jewish Guests," managed to smooth things over.

How do you assess the development of the relationship between Switzerland and the USA after the change in the presidency, and what strategic steps should Switzerland now take?

I am convinced that it is correct to maintain good relations with the USA, even if one finds the erratic and often irritating behavior of their president impossible to ignore. It is important to present our specificities to the Americans and try to convince them of the benefits of having a good relationship with us. This is, of course, not easy. It makes sense to leverage our advantages when they’re available. One of these could be that, as a non-EU member, we can respond to US positions more easily and quickly, in the best interest of Switzerland.

I am convinced that Switzerland, which I like to refer to as a sort of "EU in miniature," should position itself as a solidaristic and open country in Europe. - Michael Ambühl

You were significantly involved in negotiations with the EU in the past. How do you assess the future relationship between Switzerland and the EU in light of the current political situation?

I am convinced that Switzerland, which I like to refer to as a sort of "EU in miniature," should position itself as a solidaristic and open country in Europe. As a wealthy nation, we cannot free ride. We do not do this when it comes to the internal market, but we certainly do in terms of security policy. We should increase our engagement in this regard within the European context. On the one hand, we should ensure that no security gaps arise in our Alpine region, and on the other hand, we should be ready to support European peace enforcement and peacekeeping actions in Ukraine—once a ceasefire agreement is in place.

When you look back on your career, what lessons would you give to young professionals on their career path? What would you recommend to those aiming for a career similar to yours?

In general, I would say: First, become a good specialist in the field that interests you before becoming a generalist. I believe you can become a better generalist once you have mastered a specific area. As for my career: Both science and diplomacy have always fascinated me, and combining them even more so! I encourage anyone who is equally fascinated by this to pursue such a path. Diplomacy needs people who strive for scientifically grounded, legally sound arguments.

Thank you for the fascinating insights into your career and the art of negotiation. We wish you continued success and all the best!

_{Translated by AI}