|
•English
Summary
•Printer-friendly
Version
•IPG-Homepage
|
|
Europe's Mission: Pushing for a Participative World Order
Ernst-Otto Czempiel*
|
The EU is called upon to pioneer a new type of foreign
policy, aiming at a participative system of global governance.
This - not the attempt to match American military might
- is the right way to correct unilateralist U.S. power
politics. It is also the way to win the fight against
terrorism.
|
Upgrading the Atlantic Community
By 'Europe' I understand primarily the European
Union. Its task is procedural as well as conceptual.
In order to be a global player the EU must develop
an institutional framework within which the
common foreign and security policy, as well
as the European Security and Defence Policy,
must evolve. This organisational problem must
be solved by means of the institutional reform
which is being prepared by the European Council,
and I shall not cover this constitutional aspect.
I shall concentrate on the conceptual challenge
of installing a world order which recognises
the distribution of power in the contemporary
world and at the same time introduces, or re-introduces,
certain rules of behaviour capable of diminishing,
if not eliminating, the use of physical violence
for the solution of conflicts.
_____________________________________________________________
The Atlantic Community serves as a model for
the realisation of societal aspirations throughout
the world.
_____________________________________________________________
Underlying the following analysis and suggestions
are four normative values:
-
The
Atlantic Community comprising Western
Europe and North America must be consolidated
and preserved. In this region there
is such a high density of interdependence
in the areas of security, economic well-being
and democratic participation that it
has become the most important zone of
peace in the world. With its achievements
the Atlantic Community serves as a model
for the realisation of societal aspirations
throughout the world.The Atlantic Community
is not identical with NATO. In spite
of its important achievements during
the Cold War and its peace-keeping activities
since then, the alliance should be treated
only as the military arm of the Atlantic
Community.
-
The Atlantic Community is not identical
with NATO. In spite of its important
achievements during the Cold War and
its peace-keeping activities since then,
the alliance should be treated only
as the military arm of the Atlantic
Community.
-
This
community needs some kind of institutional
framework, a "new transatlantic agenda".
It must produce in the area of security
what was accomplished long ago in respect
of economic well-being: a symmetric
relationship between Western Europe
and the United States. It is for that
reason that the members of the European
Union - or at least some of them - must
integrate their foreign and security
policies and thereby establish a basis
for equality with the United States.
This is not a matter of armaments or
military expenditure alone; it is above
all a matter of integrating national
foreign-policy decision-making processes
into a European foreign and security
policy. Europe must speak with one voice.
-
It
must be recognised that in the contemporary
world societal consensus is the indispensable
pre-condition for the success of foreign
policy. This lesson has been learned
by the USA in Vietnam and Somalia, by
the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, and
by Russia in Chechnya. The West is learning
it again in Afghanistan. Military intervention
might be unavoidable in rare cases,
but if it is not based on the consensus
of the society concerned, it will fail.
No proposal to the contrary should be
accepted by the citizen and the taxpayer.
Towards a New Foreign-Policy Paradigm
The four normative orientations mentioned in this introductory outline
complement each other. For the foreseeable
future the United States will dominate
world politics; however, I shall explain
at some length that seeking agreement
with Washington is not the same
as submitting to the USA. As it develops
as an integrated regional entity, the
EU can influence foreign-policy decisions
in Washington. Given their economic and
political power, the Europeans are able
to act on their own. If, for instance,
the United States should withdraw from
the Balkans (which is very improbable),
Western Europeans could easily fill the
gap.
After
they have succeeded in integrating their
policies in the issue area of security,
the Europeans can do here what they have
been doing in recent years in respect
of economic well-being: checking, and
balancing, the United States. The famous
“Yankee practicality” will always lead
Washington to make accommodation with
the powerful: the final configuration
of the Atlantic Community will resemble
the dumbbell envisioned by J.F.
Kennedy.
As
a regional federation the European Union
will not look like the United States.
It will not be a nation-state writ large,
but something different and new. Capable
of defending itself, politically and economically
strong enough to face any , this European
Union will primarily look inward, not
outward. It will not accumulate power,
but distribute it. The political structure
will be decentralised with many poles
of power; only in particular areas of
policy – for example, monetary, fiscal
and defence – will the Union act in a
centralised manner. Otherwise, the principle
of subsidiarity will reign. This new kind
of state will not try to dominate the
world, but to augment the well-being of
its citizens. One of its main contributions
to the world order should be to encourage
other emerging great powers to do the
same, namely to fulfil the aspirations
and demands of their society and not to
privilege the particular interests of
their ruling elites.
This
is not an idealistic look into a utopian
future, but the realistic consequence
of the coming into existence of the “societal
world” (Gesellschaftswelt).[1] As already mentioned, societal consensus
is a prerequisite of any political success.
The many civil wars in the world today
demonstrate that a lack of societal consensus
cannot be compensated by military might.
The two most important functional tasks
of the state are to provide security and
well-being; fulfilling them should not
lead to the “arrogance of power”, but
to the realisation of democratic peace.
By
developing itself into a new European
regional federation – that is, into a
new, post-modern type of – the European
Union must (and will) develop a new type
of foreign policy. It will rely on the
progress made in 1945 with the Charter
of the United Nations: after more than
four centuries of constant intra-European
war, the Western states decided to abandon
the right of war and to transfer it to
the Security Council. With the founding
of the United Nations these states recognised
that one important cause of war is the
anarchy of the international system. The
prime task of the United Nations has been
to reduce this anarchy.
Since
the end of the Cold War, the West has
learned another lesson. The second great
cause of war, and the more important one,
is authoritarian–dictatorial regimes.
In 1990, therefore, the Charter of Paris
for a New Europe brought the spreading
of democracy and of the market economy
to the forefront of foreign-policy strategy.
The administration of George W. Bush
tends to forget the lessons of 1945, 1975,
and 1990. However, they remain the basis
of any successful foreign policy. And
new elements have to be added. Interdependence
and democratisation, globalisation and
the emancipation of societal actors have
created the “societal world” (Gesellschaftswelt).
Eminent persons already talk about “global
domestic politics” (Weltinnenpolitik):
even if only analogically, this expression
is apt.
_____________________________________________________________
The most important task for the West is
to avoid the renaissance of old concepts
and old strategies. The process of restoration
started in 1994 and the danger is that
the impact of terrorism will accelerate
this return to the past. _____________________________________________________________
The nation-state has lost its unconstrained
sovereignty along with its power. If the
state violates the fundamental rights
of its citizens, other states are entitled,
if not obliged, to intervene. Intervention
in favour of democratisation and the market
economy is the order of the day in a post-modern,
interdependent world. But it must remain
non-violent. If violence is unavoidable,
it must be authorised by the United Nations
or by a “regional arrangement” (which
NATO is not). The old “humanitarian intervention”
of the nineteenth century should not be
revived; it served only as a vehicle for
territorial expansion and power politics.
The new kind of intervention will take
the form of non-violent prevention.
These
few and brief remarks merely outline the
paradigm of the new foreign policy which
the European Union should contribute to
the Atlantic Community. Moving on now
to describe what a successful strategy
against international terrorism should
look like, I shall present some details
of the necessary new foreign-policy paradigma.
Addressing the Sources of Terrorism
The
administration of George W. Bush and
most Western European governments are
deeply divided over the best strategy
against terrorism. Bush pursues what
I shall call “selective imperialism”
(Selektive Weltherrschaft).[2] The European Union is unable to
change the political goals of the Bush
administration; only American society,
and Congress, could do that. However,
the European Union can influence the
behaviour of the Bush administration.
If Brussels declares unequivocally that
the European Union will not pay for
any further American wars, they will
not occur. If Western European states
reject the concept of “defensive intervention”,
it will lose momentum.
Most
importantly, the European Union should
promote a comprehensive concept for
the fight against terrorism. It is both
urgent and necessary to catch and punish
the terrorists responsible for 9/11;
it is of paramount importance to prevent
them from making new attacks.But this
is not enough. As former CIA Director
Robert M. Gates has remarked, you cannot
fight terrorism, you can only shut off
the sources nourishing it.
It is important to distinguish the causes
and the sources of terrorism. Terrorism
acts from the darkness; its perpetrators
are unknown or dead. Nobody knows why
the 19 terrorists destroyed the World
Trade Center, nor the reason why PanAm
Flight 103 was blown up over Lockerbie.
Anonymity is an important trait of terrorism.
Political
terrorism, however, sends a message
to people; and while they are not responsible
for terrorist acts, in a way they do
provide them with sustenance. If they
respond affirmatively, terrorism is
successful and goes on; if they fall
silent, terrorism runs dry. To address
its sources is the optimal strategy
for fighting terrorism. Shortly
after 9/11, it was clear to the West
that there are three such sources in
the modern world: the conflict in the
Middle East, the predominance of Western
power in the world, and the growing
poverty stemming from the unequal distribution
of the benefits of globalisation. Under
the leadership of the administration
of George W. Bush, however, the West
soon neglected these insights and shifted
its focus from fighting terrorism to
conquering Afghanistan and preparing
for the invasion of Iraq. The European
Union should not support this change
of agenda, but should re-order the priorities
in favour of fighting terrorism. By
doing so it will establish many characteristics
of the new foreign-policy paradigm.
Promoting Peace between Israelis and
Palestinians
The conflict between Israel and
the Palestinians is certainly the
deepest source of terrorism. The
resolution of this conflict would
reduce terrorism to a very low level.
The EU is unable to impose a solution
on its own; only the USA could do
so; but Western Europe can keep
the conflict very high on the international
agenda – it could focus international
attention and the attention of the
Atlantic Community on this conflict.
The Bush administration is trying
very hard to shift the discussion
towards the war against Iraq. All
the Arab states and the Europeans
take a different view; for them
it is much more important to solve
the conflict between Israelis and
Palestinians than to depose Saddam
Hussein. The latter would serve
only to increase terrorism, while
solving the conflict in Israel would
diminish it.
In
the face of the world’s only superpower,
the United States, the voice of
individual European politicians
will not be heard. If, however,
all European governments were to
speak in concert; if, above all,
the European Union were to take
an official policy stance on the
issue, tremendous influence could
be exercised in Washington.
The
conflict in Israel is not only the
most important source of terrorism,
but also the most difficult to handle.
Fifty years of bilateral mediation
have failed. The efforts of individual
European politicians – notably German
Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer
– who have tried time and again
to promote peace there, are honourable;
but this kind of revolving door
diplomacy has not succeeded for
the last 50 years and will not succeed.
Furthermore, it tends to strengthen
the hawks on both sides because
they are able to play one visitor
against another.
In
the modern world traditional bilateralism
produces only suboptimal results.
The only strategy which has had
some success in promoting the peace
process in the Middle East has been
the multilateralism of the Madrid
Conference of 1991. As a method
of conflict resolution multilateralism
has several advantages. It obliges
the parties to lay out their positions
and to justify them, both in front
of one another and before the international
community, present at the table.
This distinctive environment produces
a political climate which does not
permit any tricks or manoeuvres.
It forces the conflicting parties
to look for real compromises and
to stick to them. The peace process
of the Madrid Conference survived
several years and was not easily
destroyed.
Therefore, a second international
conference should be convened as
soon as possible. Several politicians
have made pertinent proposals which
President Bush first accepted, but
then quickly rejected. Again, if
the European Union had acted as
one, it would have had more impact
in Washington. If the EU had decided
to bring before the UN Security
Council a resolution calling for
such a conference, the Bush administration
would have had to think twice before
again rejecting it. But at the G-8
summit in Calgary, June 2002, the
Europeans did not speak with one
voice, and Germany spoke only very
softly.
_____________________________________________________________
It is much more important to solve
the conflict between Israelis
and Palestinians than to depose
Saddam Hussein. The
latter would serve only to increase
terrorism, while solving the conflict
in Israel would diminish it.
_____________________________________________________________
To
bring enduring peace to the Middle
East requires more effort. A solution
must be found in respect of Iraq,
which cannot be kept under international
sanctions It has to be reintegrated
into the community of states. UNSC
Res. 687 (3 April 1991), interpreted
the many obligations imposed on
Iraq as “steps towards the goal
of establishing in the Middle East
a zone free from weapons of mass
destruction and all missiles for
their delivery and the objective
of a global ban on chemical weapons”.
The end of>Gulf War II thus was
understood as the beginning of a
regional order of disarmament and
détente. This innovative proposal
was never implemented. Instead,
Iraq was singled out and kept under
severe sanctions for more than 10
years. (By comparison, Germany,
responsible for the Second World
War and its 52 million casualties,
had to wait only five years before
being readmitted into the society
of nations.) Of course, Iraq must
be kept under control, but it should
also have the certain prospect that
the sanctions will be lifted. >Other
relevant issues include the unfinished
business of domestic reform in Iran
and the latent conflict between
this country and Iraq. There is
also Syria and its unrelenting position
towards Israel with regard to the
Golan Heights. On the other hand,
there is the military alliance between
Turkey and Israel. Underlying this
pattern of conflict is the considerable
societal instability in Saudi Arabia
and the Gulf emirates. No other
region in the world is characterised
by so much unrest and conflict.
No other region of the world has
assembled so many weapons. It is,
in fact, the world’s most dangerous
hotspot.
To
constrain the various parties and
to calm tensions nothing would be
more pertinent than the establishment
of a regional organisation in the
Middle East. The former German Foreign
Minister Klaus Kinkel has proposed
the establishment of a Conference
on Security and Cooperation in the
Middle East. The European Union
should promote this proposal. As
the history of the East–West conflict
after 1975 demonstrates, the Conference
on Security and Cooperation in Europe
(CSCE) has contributed substantially
to détente between, and democratisation
within, the competing states: both
these developments are urgently
needed in the Middle East. They
would do much to promote peace between
Israel and the Palestinians.
The
European Union should speak out
clearly and repeatedly in favour
of these reforms. The terrorists
of 9/11 have not revealed the goals
of their attack. One can only guess.
But since most of them were/are
Arabs, and their attack took place
at a time when the conflict in Israel
had become much more violent, the
connection seems evident. While
the Oslo peace process continued,
there was less Arab terrorist activity.
It reached its unprecedented height
only after the conflict in Israel
took a turn for the worse.
The
relationship between the Arab–Israeli
conflict and the terrorist attack
of 9/11 is contextual, not causal.
But the only key to understanding
terrorism is analysis of the contexts
within which terrorist violence
occurs.
If
the most important context for 9/11
is the conflict in Israel, it is
not the only one. The second is
the dominance of the Western industrialised
states. The economic expression
of this is globalisation; its political
name is intervention. Western Europe
participates in this dominance and
should be aware of it. The United
States is the most dominant power,
but the European Union and its member
states follow closely behind. This
dominance also has a cultural dimension,
as Samuel P. Huntington has pointed
out.[3] But the political
dimension is crucial. When Iraq
invaded Kuwait, all Arab states
and their societie supported its
expulsion. However, after the economic
and political punishment of Iraq
developed into its strangulation,
Arab support waned rapidly. Western
policies were increasingly understood
as the renaissance of European colonialism
in the region.
Since
the United States has proved unable
to do so, the European Union should
shift course. Iraq must fulfil its
obligations but should be compensated
with a relaxation of the sanctions.
War has to be avoided by all means.
In Arab eyes such a war would prove
beyond doubt that the USA and Western
Europe were attempting a second
colonisation of the world. This
is not what Europe has in mind but
this is how the West is currently
perceived in Islamic eyes. Therefore,
Europe should propose – and should
persuade the United States to follow
suit – that all states and their
respective societies participate
in regional and/or universal decision-making.
The EU has concluded many bilateral
agreements of association with the
countries of the Near and the Middle
East. But there is no multilateral
dialogue in which societal actors
participate.
The
regime of EU cooperation with (and
EU assistance to) a number of African,
Caribbean, and Pacific states (the
ACP regime) should have made much
more use of the parliamentary assembly,
the most important body for European–African
dialogue. With Asia, ASEM should
be intensified. It is important
to have contact with the societies
concerned, because in the world
today societies matter; their perceptions
of Western behaviour are relevant
for security in its modern, more
comprehensive sense. It is important
to let all states and societies
play their proper part in discussing
and deciding on the political and
economic issues which concern them.
It is obvious that Europeans and
Americans differ substantially in
their views of the world.
But the Europeans also maintain
a traditional, outmoded understanding
of security. They should learn from
political terrorism that societal
attitudes and perceptions are of
critical importance for the establishment
of real and comprehensive security.
The
development and spreading of this
new paradigm of foreign and security
policy would be the most important
contribution of Western Europe to
the global role of the Atlantic
Community.
It will be years before the European
Union can function as a unified
actor in world politics. For the
development of a new and pertinent
foreign and security policy it requires
only the will. With their centuries
of dreadful experience the Europeans
should be the first to realise that
in the world today a successful
foreign policy depends on the consensus
of the partners, governmental as
well as societal. This includes
the application of power. But it
should permit, and promote, the
participation of all. And it should
apply military force only in the
few cases where it is unavoidable
and also authorised by the Security
Council.
Towards a Participative World
Order
Europe
should take the lead in re-activating
the United Nations. Beginning with
the administration of Ronald Reagan
and culminating in that of George
W. Bush, the USA has abandoned the
UN: blinded by its military supremacy,
Washington thinks it can do without
the international organisation. This
is a fatal error. The Europeans should
try very hard to bring the USA
back on course. The General Assembly
is the only political forum where
every country of the world is represented.
Its importance cannot be overestimated.
In the General Assembly dialogue between
states can take place. The West has
the opportunity to learn what is being
thought in the non-industrialised
world and can make use of this knowledge
when formulating its positions and
political goals. In the 1970s several
great debates took place in the General
Assembly leading to resolutions on
the New Economic Order, disarmament,
and the environment. The outcome was
non-binding. However, the extended
discussion gave the impression to
all participants that their voice
was important and a part of an evolving
global public opinion.
Nothing
would have been more pertinent than
an extended discussion in the General
Assembly on the problem of terrorism.
The West uses this term in a very
indiscriminate way. Of the three forms
of societal violence only one deserves
the term ‘terrorism’, the one which
employs violence for the sake of violence.
Prototypes include the AUM group in
Tokyo and Timothy McVeigh in Oklahoma.
Palestinian violence against the Israeli
occupation, including suicide bombing,
does not count as terrorism but as
political resistance. The assault
of 9/11 falls between the two categories:
although its political goals have
not emerged it quite obviously had
a political context, and so it should
be called ‘political terrorism’.
These
problems and distinctions are very
complex and deserve a much more elaborate
discussion. Terminology here is highly
politicised. All the more reason to
have raised the topic in the General
Assembly and to have learned from
the opinions presented whether there
is a context of political terrorism,
what it looks like and what should
be done to disperse it.
_____________________________________________________________
If
Brussels declares unequivocally
that the European Union will not
pay for any further American wars,
they will not occur.
_____________________________________________________________
The
General Assembly is still an intergovernmental
conference. There are many proposals
concerning how to involve societal representatives
in it. To reform the General Assembly
accordingly could avoid further violent
demonstrations against summit conferences.
Dissenting voices could have their forum
in the General Assembly and might therefore
refrain from physical manifestations.
A
reformed General Assembly could also
be the place where a dialogue of civilisations
could take place. The West could learn
whether its political dominance is
being perceived also in terms of cultural
alienation and what could be done
to overcome such unwanted consequences.
Listening
to what non-European politicians and
societal actors have to say does not
mean that one must accept their views.
It is enough to take note of them,
to learn from the non-industrialised
world how the OECD countries and their
politics of economic and political
globalisation are perceived by the
recipients. The main mistake of the
West has been to neglect those reactions,
to confine the discussion on globalisation
to their domestic consequences. 9/11
shows that the external consequences
are at least equally important.Europeans
should not close, but rather open
their eyes and ears and think about
the world within which they live and
act. It is different from the world
of the nineteenth century. Two former
German presidents, Herzog and von
Weizsäcker, already talk about “global
domestic politics”. This is certainly
an overstatement, but it points in
the right direction. Rapidly increasing
interdependence has connected states
and societies with each other to an
unprecedented degree. This new world
warrants new strategies. A
consciousness of communality demands
recognition that all actions have
consequences which must not be neglected
but integrated into the conceptualisation
of foreign policy.
Participation
must be institutionalised also at
the regional level. The European Union
is the leading example of such progress.
At a lower level of integration the
OSCE was founded for the same purpose.
Unfortunately, it has been neglected
since its establishment; its revitalisation
would constitute an important contribution
to European security. As already mentioned,
a similar organisation in the Middle
East might do wonders. All regions
of the world should have regional
institutions. Chapter VIII of the
Charter of the United Nations foresaw
such a development, but tried to keep
it under the supervision of the Security
Council. In 1945 this reflected the
interests of the great powers in controlling
the world. Now it is the USA which
resists the promotion of regionalism
and prefers bilateralism, which benefits
the powerful. The interests of security
and well-being, however, would be
better served if neighbouring states
cooperated in regional organisations
to solve regional problems. Subsidiarity
works well also in international politics.
_____________________________________________________________
All regions
of the world should have regional
institution.
_____________________________________________________________
There
exist about 15 regional organisations
for the promotion of economic well-being;
in the area of security, there are
only a few. The Organization of American
States (OAS) is too much dominated
by the United States. The newly formed
Organization of African Unity (OAU)
is still too young to be successful.
More promising is the Asian Regional
Forum (ARF), set up by the ASEAN states.Since,
given its preference for bilateral
relations, the United States will
not promote the founding of more regional
organisations, the European Union
should step in: because the CSCE has
been so successful in facilitating
the participation of governmental
and non-governmental actors, the Europeans
should spread this concept worldwide
and support its realisation. Regional
organisations are most fit to regulate,
and to solve, conflicts between their
members. They protect their region
from unwanted, dominant influences,
thereby eliminating one cause of grievances
and possible terrorist acts. They
are, however, open to cooperative
participation from other parts of
the world.
It
is not necessary to reformulate the
wording of Chapter VIII of the UN
Charter. The existing text would permit
the blossoming of regional organisations.
What is lacking is the political will,
regionally as well as globally. Cooperation
in international organisations overcomes
the limitations of national sovereignty,
thereby benefiting the interests of
citizens. Recently, the German Foreign
Office changed its approach to the
world from a continental to a regional
orientation. This is very appropriate.
The dominance of the term “globalisation”
notwithstanding, the world of today
is a regionalised one. The states
of a given region, and its societies,
should take priority in the handling
of their own problems. This would
be the best guarantee against Western
dominance without damaging the genuine
interests of industrialised states
and their societies.
Intervening on Behalf of Democracy
As
an important feature of the organisation
of the modern world, participation
must be realised not only between
states, but also – and more importantly
– within states. The “Third Wave
of Democratisation” (Huntington)
is sweeping through the world. There
are few, if any, societies which
do not desire to participate in
the decision-making of their governments.
The negation of such strong desires
leads to civil war. The former Yugoslavia
is an eminent case in point.
President
Jimmy Carter tried to fortify this
wave and to ride it. During his
first two years in office, President
Clinton correctly pursued the politics
of the “enlargement” of democracy
and the market economy. The “Charter
of Paris for a New Europe” of 1990
had reflected this important foreign-policy
concept. Since 1994, however, the
effort has lost ground in favour
of the renewed eminence of the old
defence strategies. Only the European
Union has gone on working for democratisation,
making it a precondition for association.
The recent reforms in Turkey represent
a striking example of the success
of such an audacious policy of democratisation.
But even the EU could do better.[4]
_____________________________________________________________
Non-military intervention
in favour of democratisation must
be made the most important strategy.
The law of non-intervention should
be turned into an obligation to
intervene.
_____________________________________________________________
Western Europe
should not only continue this policy
of structural change, but it should
apply it also outside Europe. The
world will never attain an enduring
international order if the domestic
order of states is authoritarian or
dictatorial. The United States, and
President George W. Bush, correctly
demand a new government in Iraq. But
democratisation cannot be enforced
from the outside. The present government
in Washington underestimates the problem.
It obviously has forgotten the lessons
of Vietnam and Somalia. The present
events in Afghanistan tell the same
story. It is a contradiction in
re to enforce the democratisation
of a country with military power.
In any case, Iraq is by no means
the only candidate. Many Western
allies throughout the world merit
strong encouragement towards democratisation,
notably in the Middle East. Pakistan
under Musharraf only recently took
a more decisive turn towards dictatorship.
As in the Cold War for many decades,
the fight against terrorism is leading
Western thinking to overestimate
the importance of the foreign-policy
orientation of governments and to
neglect the character of their domestic
behaviour. This was wrong then,
and it is dysfunctional today. Terrorism
thrives on political suppression.
Democratisation is the best antidote.
To
put it differently: “humanitarian
intervention” is absolutely necessary
– but it must be non-violent. In
the old, traditional thinking, intervening
in the domestic affairs of a foreign
state was – and remains – forbidden.
This “law of non-intervention” curiously
does not apply to military intervention.
War, the strongest kind of intervention,
has returned to our world after
having been absent for almost forty
years. What is even more curious:
Western powers reject any non-violent
intervention as illegal.
To
bring order into our modern world,
this kind of Western thinking has
to be completely reversed. Non-military
intervention in favour of democratisation
must be made the most important
strategy. The law of non-intervention
should be turned into an obligation
to intervene. Political science
has revealed that many – and effective
– strategies are available; what
is lacking is the political will
on the part of governments to use
them.
A
comparison of the costs of the air
war against Serbia with the money
invested in the reconstruction and
democratisation of that country
and of Kosovo is telling. Billions
of dollars were spent on the war;
only a few million have been invested
in democratisation. Even the European
Union is putting much more money
into its nascent military capabilities
than into the Stability Pact for
the Southern Balkans.
Strategies
of democratisation demand a policy
of prevention. In 1992, the Security
Council of the United Nations pronounced
prevention as the most important
forward step. The then Secretary
General of the UN, Boutros Boutros-Ghali,
issued two important proposals for
preventive strategies. However,
nothing has happened. Those proposals
should be dug out, enriched with
the relevant political-science knowledge,
and put at the centre of modern
foreign-policy making. Without this
reform we shall miss the opportunity
to establish a new and lasting world
order and return to the pre-1945
world characterised by authoritarian
governments and the frequent use
of military power.
It
is alarming that the present administration
in Washington is steering exactly
this course. In his graduate address
at West Point on 1 June 2002, President
George W. Bush proclaimed his readiness
for “pre-emptive action” and for
the use of military power where
needed. He is bent on invading Iraq
and afterwards perhaps Iran which
he has also included in the “axis
of evil”.
It is understandable that the trauma
of 9/11 obliges the administration
of George W. Bush to punish the
terrorists and to destroy their
bases. The European allies should,
however, keep the Bush administration
from falling prey to old illusions
of the kind which tend to accompany
military supremacy. What Secretary
of Defence Donald Rumsfeld has called
“defensive intervention” is nothing
other than old-style and familiar
“preventive war”. Pretexts can easily
be found for its use. Pre-emptive
war, however, has only ever made
things worse than before. This temptation
should be replaced by a cool and
rational analysis of the causes
and sources of terrorism and the
possibility of eliminating them
by pertinent political action.
Bridging the North–South Gap
The
third, but not the least important,
source of terrorism is the unequal
distribution of wealth in the world.
It poses the greatest challenge
to global policy-making. As a rule,
the poor suffer silently. There
is, on the other hand, no denying
that in a world of well-being and
wealth terrorism would occur only
rarely. The history of the Red Army
Faction in Germany teaches a pertinent
lesson. The terrorists found no
response whatsoever in German society
and had to give up.
The
world of today is not yet a world
state, but it does show a high degree
of interdependence. Global poverty
matters globally. Many politicians
argue correctly that “worsening
poverty throughout the world can
only create conditions of desperation
that may lead to more terrorism”.[5]
In Germany, Minister for Economic
Cooperation Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul,
since long before 9/11, has argued
in favour of sustainable development
as the basis for a lasting world
order.[6]
To
put it bluntly, helping the non-industrialised
world to develop quickly has become
an important aspect of modern security
policy. Eight hundred million people
are undernourished. The West intends
to cut this number in half by 2015,
but it will not achieve its aim.
To reach it, it will not suffice
to raise foreign aid by 12 billion
US dollars every year, which the
USA and the European Union have
promised to do by 2006: they must
open their markets to developing
countries, as they were told at
the conference on Sustainable Development
in Johannesburg, August 2002.
The
industrialised countries cannot
live as an island of well-being
and wealth while the rest of the
world does not even have the prospect
of such development. The persistence
of a large part of the world in
deep poverty creates a source of
violence and despair, as President
of the UN General Assembly Han Seung
Soo has remarked.
Western
policies do not reflect this relationship,
as the Conference “Financing for
Development”, March 2002, documented.
The G-8 summit in Canada, June 2002,
managed to raise only 6 billion
US dollars for the whole continent
of Africa. After thirty years of
European cooperation with the states
of Southern Africa, the latter are
worse off than before. The so-called
“Barcelona Process” has lost momentum.
With
regard to the third source of terrorism,
global poverty, the Europeans have
to do a lot by themselves. The nascent
political union which is being prepared
by the Convention on the Future
of Europe should recognise the close
relationship between structures
and policies. As a regional state,
the European Union should develop
new institutions which are open
to the new realities of our world.[7]
They need a contemporary concept
of power which must include military
power, but also emphasises the economic,
political, and societal sources
of power; these sources must be
accumulated, but not centralised.
Power should be distributed so that
subunits can benefit from it.The
most important task for the West
is to avoid the renaissance of old
concepts and old strategies. The
process of restoration started in
1994 and the danger is that the
impact of terrorism will accelerate
this return to the past.
The Task of Europe: The Power
of Good Example
Summing up,
I argue that the USA and the EU
should not compete for, but cooperate
in leadership. The precondition
is that the EU implements its political
union and speaks with one voice
in the area of security.
_____________________________________________________________
The best and cheapest way of intervening
is to make the EU a shining example of a
civilised society and to advertise.
_____________________________________________________________
What the Atlantic Community needs is not
more military power but modernised foreign-policy
concepts. As long as the present US administration
remains in office, the USA will rely primarily,
if not exclusively, on the military. The EU
should avoid that mistake. Its military strength
is sufficient, although it does require more
division of labour and some modernisation.
What is lacking is more sophistication in
foreign policy. The EU could provide this.
There are many practical lessons to be learned:
- To realise that the contemporary world is different from
that of former centuries. Old strategies are only of limited
value.
- To avoid the trap of realism. Vegetius was wrong: to prepare
for war only produces war. What the world needs is the reduction
of violence, and the EU should inaugurate and promote this
process.
- The best strategy today is preventive political – not military
– intervention. At present, the USA is doing the opposite
by establishing the goal of toppling, violently, the dictator
Saddam Hussein, but supporting, with a great deal of money,
the dictator Pervez Musharraf.
- The EU should intervene non-violently, incessantly, and
continuously in favour of the enlargement of democratisation
and the market economy. Every interaction should contain elements,
however small, of such intervention.
-
The best and cheapest
way of intervening is to make the EU a shining
example of a civilised society and to advertise
it. The “American way of life” has done
much more for the world than American weaponry.
Since the USA has been led backwards to
old-style power politics, the EU should
take over.
-
The EU should take societal
attitudes seriously. As Vietnam, Somalia
and Afghanistan have shown, time and again,
without the consensus of the society concerned,
all policies, foreign as well as domestic,
are doomed. The societal world of today
cannot be governed by coalitions of governments
only. Societal actors are important, not
only in the area of economic well-being,
but also, and above all, in that of security.
As
the strongest and most modern regional state,
the EU is capable of digesting the political
experiences of the recent past and of drawing
lessons from them. But it must try harder.
The drive towards foreign-policy innovation
should be stronger. Otherwise what former
American Under-Secretary of State George
W. Ball predicted in 1982 for the USA, quoting
T.S. Eliot: “We had the experience but missed
its meaning”, could apply also to the EU.[8]
|
Ernst-Otto Czempiel
*1927;
Professor emeritus für auswärtige und
internationale Politik, Universität Frankfurt;
ehemaliger Direktor der Hessischen Stiftung
für Friedens- und Konfliktforschung;
sanner@hfsk.de
|
|
|