Could it be as a reaction to the publication in London, and preparation in Paris, of a National Security Strategy and a Defence White Paper, respectively? Or is it in response to the recent Franco-British ‘Schulterschluss' on European defence, to show that Berlin is not lagging behind? Or, alternatively, could it be seen as a preemptive move by Berlin to determine the content of the European Security Strategy, expected to be revised under the French EU Presidency.
Whatever the motivation, the move should be seen as a sign of Germany's coming-of-age. For the first time ever, a political party has launched a debate on German security - without the trigger of crisis or an imminent decision, for example on the deployment of German troops to a warzone.
This initiative is, in many ways the culmination of a longer-term development by which Germany's policy on international military operations has changed. During the Gulf War in 1991, debates about the armed forces' role in international military operations showed traditional German reluctance towards participation. By 1999, Germany took part in NATO's Kosovo operation, thus setting a unique precedence in its post-war foreign policy and confirming the desire to become, henceforth, an active partner in NATO. CDU's strategy -- taken together with Berlin's quest for a UN Security Council seat - can be seen as the last element of this paradigmatic shift in German policy on international military participation.
The conservative strategy paper defines Germany's national interests in terms of five issue areas: (1) the fight against terrorism; (2) nuclear proliferation; (3) energy and pipeline security; (4) climate change; and (5) the prevention of conflicts. In this, the document does not stray far from the British and French versions.
Where the strategy fails is in explaining that Germany will not be able to do much, by itself, in countering many of these threats. No country, however, large and resource-rich can nowadays "go solo". It is also unclear how the CDU thinks that Germany's security can be enhanced by working through a revamped, post-Lisbon EU, which will see not only a re-drafted ESS, but a permanent President of the European Council, an EU "Foreign Minister" and European diplomatic corps - the External Action Service. The SPD have been clearer, recently hosting a conference on how to build a "European Army".
Perhaps most obviously, the CDU paper did not deal with the issue of "hard power", neglecting to say under what conditions the German Army should intervene in other countries to prevent genocide or - as is now the case in Burma - to alleviate natural-made, but regime-enhanced mass suffering.
In a number of areas, however, the CDU document goes much further than anything seen before. It recommends not only the right to deploy the army at home in the case of national emergencies - a brainchild of Wolfgang Schäuble, Minister of the Interior - but also that the Bundestag should not have such a direct say in the deployment of German troops. It also recommends a US-style National Security Council.
At a time when many European allies have begun seeing Germany as the 21st century's Sweden - militarily capable, but, by choice, absent from European security debates - the decision to give more power to the Bundeskanzlerin will be greeted positively abroad (even if it is unacceptable to German Foreign Minister Frank Walter Steinmeier). As such, the CDU proposal is positive in many respects. Bringing Germany's house in order will be crucial if Berlin is to play a bigger role on the world stage.
But to be truly useful, the document will have to be amended, especially as it concerns Germany's role in Europe. For the idea of focusing on a National Security Strategy makes little sense in our modern, interdependent times. Anything that is a serious threat to Germany - i.e. terrorism and climate change - is a serious threat to Germany's neighbours, too. And Germany can only resist such threats by working together with its allies, primarily, although not exclusively, among the EU-27.
A German National Security Strategy should therefore explain how Berlin intends to work through the EU to safeguard its citizens.
|
|
Tweet | |
Europeans are losing faith in the EU
Europe can rescue the two-state solution
27 countries in search of a proper security strategy
How Europe can help Egypt
Understanding the influence of the Gulf States
A new era for EU-Georgia relations?
What next for Egypt, Tunisia and Libya?
What does China think about the island dispute?
A comprehensive evaluation of European foreign policy
How the euro crisis has affected politics in 14 EU member states
Do EU sanctions work?
Thomas Klau discusses Germany's hegemony in Europe.
What does France think about Germany? - a new column by Ulrike Guérot
ECFR's China-Germany brief is quoted
2 Comments
My first reaction when I heard about this new CDU paper was split between a kind of relief, thank’s God the Germans start daring to think alone in Defense affairs, and a kind of anger, do we really need all these national papers to define the policies of all our European tribes? Wouldn’t it be now time to have a global European white paper on Defense and strategy? Does it exist? Are you working on it? Do you advise any European policymaker on the subject?
thank you.
Dear Jean,
You may know of the European Security Strategy - Europe in a better world - agreed on 12 December 2003. See here: http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/r00004.htm There is now talk of revising the strategy during the French EU Presidency.
I think it remains important for national governments to develop their own national strategies and the fact that so many European governments - in Britain, France, Germany and perhaps even Denmark - have or a thinking of codifying their approaches to the most important question of public policy - how to secure citizens - is useful.
Sadly, many of these strategies do not grapple with today’s thorniest questions: how to deal with both old and new threats at a time of dwindling resources, a sneaking European isolationism, continued popular alienation from the U.S (which, in turn, risks becoming increasingly anti-European) and a power shift from the West to the Rest.
Many still see the EU as something to throw in, like the UN rather than a tool to achieve larger foreign policy objectives. Britain’s strategy is a case and point: http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/reports/national_security_strategy.aspx
Our main point is that national strategies must make a clear point of trying to work through the EU in order to achieve national objectives. That does not mean having only a European strategy; it means finding betters way for the EU to augment national policies.
Daniel