In the words of the Review experts...
The deployment of federal armed forces is contentious and regularly provokes political controversy. Follow the debate of the Review 2014 contributions and join the discussion. What is your opinion regarding the deployment of German forces abroad? Do we need sound criteria for different operations and missions? Should Germany be more active in humanitarian interventions or is military restraint the right way to go? We would like to know your opinion!
Wolfgang Schwarz, Former Research Fellow, Institute for Policy and Economy of the GDR, editor/publisher „Das Blättchen“:
Scrutinize Bundeswehr operations abroad
Another thing that is wrong with German foreign policy and needs to be changed is the absence of a clear definition of military and political objectives by the German parliament prior to the dispatch of Bundeswehr troops on missions abroad. Today, the mandates for these operations are being renewed or extended without thorough evaluation, nor is there a serious examination of their performance after they are completed.
Read the full article here
Timothy Garton Ash, Professor for European Studies at Oxford University:
Forge and uphold common positions in Europe's external security policy
In general, no one looks to Germany to take such a leading role in European external military action as France and Britain have done. But we do look to Germany to redouble its efforts, along with others, to forge and uphold common positions in Europe's external security policy. There will, in this world of old and new giants, be plenty of great powers who wish to 'divide and rule' between major member states of the EU.
Read the full article here
Almut Wieland-Karimi, Director of the Center for International Peace Operations:
Multilaterale Friedenseinsätze sind das effektivste Instrument, um Konflikte beizulegen
Winston Churchill said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others. Similarly, peace operations are the worst form of intervention, except for the alternatives, such as "coalitions of the willing" (e.g. in Iraq) and US drone attacks (in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia). Multilateral and multidimensional peace operations, particularly UN led missions, are by far the most efficient and effective instrument to settle conflicts and prevent new crises.
Read the full article here
Adekeye Adebajo, Executive Director of the Centre for Conflict Resolution and Kudrat Virk, Senior Researcher at the Centre for Conflict Resolution in Cape Town
Germany shall be more discerning in aligning with French military operations in Africa
Rather than EU deployments (which should only be short-term rapid-reaction missions), Germany should, in future, deploy its troops under UN command. Furthermore, it should strongly support the creation of an African Standby Force (ASF) to be deployed under UN command. Germany must also be more discerning in aligning itself too closely with the increasingly discredited French military role in Africa. The recent French interventions in Mali, Côte d’Ivoire, and the CAR have reinforced Gallic neo-colonial influence in Africa. There is widespread African opposition to the French presence which many see as an attempt to multilateralise – through the EU and the UN – discredited and costly unilateral interventions.
Read the full article here
Michael Wolffsohn, historian and publicist:
Humanitarian intervention requires basic principles
To engage in humanitarian intervention requires basic principles, derived from universal human and civil rights. Each operation must serve these. Governments must clearly explain where, when and why they want to send troops to A and not B. Why intervene in Mali and the Central African Republic, but not in Libya and Syria? In any event, intervention is pointless in the long run without a plan for the political future of the region in question. Intervention in Mali, or wherever else, might defeat insurgents who then flee to a place where no intervention is occurring - to neighbouring countries or to their own ethnic group or community (which is not tied to national borders) - only to return from there.
Read the full article here
Kofi Annan, Chairman of the Board of the Kofi Annan Foundation, former Secretary-General of the United Nations:
Dürfen vor schändlichen Verbrechen nicht die Augen verschließen
A third and intimately intertwined problem facing Germany is her reluctance to project power. While Germany’s history and public opinion make unilateral German military action highly improbable, the country could and ought to be able to deploy her considerable military and police capabilities within a multilateral framework as she has done in the past, participating, for example, in operations in Cambodia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Central African Republic and the Balkans. […]
Besides contributing more troops and assets to multilateral peace-keeping missions itself, Germany must pursue its meritorious efforts to help the African Union develop its own peace-keeping and peace-building capacities.
Germany should become a prominent champion of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) in the international community. Though the concept has been muted since the Libya intervention, it has not lost any of its relevance, as the current crisis in the Central African Republic painfully reminds us. There are certain crimes which are so shameful that we cannot remain indifferent.
Read the full article here
Louise Arbour, President and Chief Executive Officer of the International Crisis Group:
Facing the Ukrainian crisis Germany must justify its ambivalence
But the Ukraine crisis is forcing a much more explicit articulation of Germany’s ambivalence vis-à-vis the use of military force. The pressure will no doubt increase as Poland and the Baltic states invite a more assertive NATO role and presence in their region. Articulating a rationale for the limits of the use of force will be necessary but difficult if Germany is to achieve the kind of leadership that the current government seems to be aiming at.
Read the full article here
Joachim Krause, Professor at the Institute for Security Policy at Kiel University
The foreign policy debate has been strongly influenced by pacifist ideology
The following aspects should be closely examined: What have these operations achieved? What went right, and where were mistakes made? What lessons can be learned? Previous Federal Governments have shied away from this debate. These discussions must take a differentiated, matter-of-fact look at post-conflict peacebuilding, mediation, observation and monitoring of armistices and arms embargoes, peace enforcement, securing of maritime routes, anti-terrorist operations, and peacekeeping partnerships – and they must arrive at strategic recommendations. Such a strategic review should also address the question, in view of the changed situation in Europe, of what resources the Bundeswehr can actually contribute to operations beyond Europe. […]
German foreign policy has not managed to use military instruments to promote its interests abroad in such a way that they complement the primarily civilian focus of its foreign policy. During the past 15 years, the debate in Germany over what role military instruments should play in foreign policy has been strongly influenced by pacifist ideology. This now hampers Germany’s ability to take foreign policy action.
Read the full article here
