1 - 1999

The New German Goverment

From Genscherism to Fischerism

The Green Minister of Foreign Affairs, World Peace and Human Rights

This interview with respected peace and conflict researcher Dieter Senghaas, who teaches at Bremen University, was conducted by Ursula Rüssmann.

Publik-Forum: The new Foreign Minister, Joschka Fischer, repeatedly said during the election campaign that Germany must again have a more power-conscious manner internationally. Where should a German foreign policy which is conscious of its power throw its weight in the future?
Dieter Senghaas:It is very important to make progress with European unity. After that it is necessary to develop a peaceful order for the whole of Europe. Here there is especially the task of integrating Russia and Eastern Europe. Finally, Germany should pursue a "world policy", properly understood. By that I mean a heightened awareness for issues involving the United Nations, that is, security, the environment and development.

The profession of belief in a peaceful order for all of Europe is often found in the Red-Green coalition agreement. Doesn’t the extension of NATO eastwards which has begun point in the wrong direction? Should there be further extension beyond Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic?
Senghaas:The first phase of the extension is still just beginning. Involved in a second round would be the Baltic States, Bulgaria, Rumania, and depending on the results of the next election possibly Slovakia as well, who are interested in joining. Whether that works will depend upon to what extent the Russian interests are taken into account. In addition, parallel to the eastern extension of NATO, the improvement of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) must be seriously undertaken. That must be done with a great deal of energy and determination, similar to the way in which former Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher in the Eighties tried to rescue the Conference for Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) during the second phase of the Cold War. It was easier then for Genscher though, because the CSCE already existed, while the OSCE must still be built up further with the perspective of new tasks.

Which tasks are those?
Senghaas:First is the politically-oriented prevention of conflict. The OSCE must be markedly better equipped to be active early, as conflicts are seen to develop - for example, in southern Slovakia, where there are tensions with the Hungarian minority - so that they do not escalate in the first place. In this direction clear new accents must be set. Concepts for this already exist. Exactly what must be done is already known. The foreign ministries in part are ready to start. To be active in this direction they are only waiting for political signals.

But the public debate is dominated by NATO and the military and in no way by OSCE.
Senghaas:A shift of enphasis is indeed overdue. In the long run I can imagine anyway that OSCE and NATO to a certain extent change over into a single security organisation which would then encompass the whole northern hemisphere. In the long run in this connection means 20 to 25 years.

NATO as the military arm of the OSCE, so to speak?
Senghaas:Yes. A military arm, though, which if all goes well would be only half as strong as today. But it would still exist in any case, precisely for the policing tasks in coping with conflicts.

What remains then for the United Nations?
Senghaas:The UN has certain tasks which only it can fulfill. Therefore regional organisations like ASEAN and OSCE and NATO, too, cannot carry out so-called "peace-enforcing missions"on their own. They can organise the peaceful conflict resolution themselves, but the UN is the seat of the "world-state’s monopoly of force". However, the UN does not yet have the instruments which the UN Charter actually foresaw for it and therefore it must still for some decades rely on regional organisations.

The new federal government has offered the UN permanent troops, so-called "stand-by forces", for peace enforcement duties. Can this strengthen the UN?
Senghaas:I think so. Here Germany could lead the way. Up till now the UN General Secretary always had to go begging for such missions and was in the end dependent on the interests of the major powers.

Bonn cannot carry out the development of the OSCE alone. Is there enough support for this OSCE goal in Europe at all?
Senghaas:Precisely the recruitment of this support is what I see to be one of the most important tasks of the new government. Without a moving spirit such as Genscher was in the Eighties, who continually follows the issue, nothing will be achieved. Just as there was a "Genscherism", we need for the new task a "Fischerism: clever, prudent and tactful. Because the English, French and Italians, on whom it depends at first, will probably not be very excited. It will take a lot of convincing.

The discussion about German foreign policy has recently circled especially around the military deployment of the armed forces (Bundeswehr). Mustn’t now the revaluation of peace service which has long been demanded by the churches, the peace movement and peace research finally take place?
Senghaas:Naturally. Ideas and experience for how a professional peace service could be created in five to ten years are sufficiently available. Politicians need not poke about in the fog if they now want to take concrete steps. A relevant passage was slipped into the coalition agreement. Now there is no longer an excuse for the new government.

Do human rights have to gain more weight in German foreign policy than has been usual?
Senghaas:Which strategy in the issue of human rights is appropriate in each instance depends very much on the particular country. Take China. At the present time, a human rights policy of a head-on offensive would be absurd. Fortunately, China today is in a process of upheaval. At the top the old political apparatus continues to rule, but at the same time, as a result of the economic opening, new social classes are forming which are no longer willing to let themselves be bossed around by the old leadership in Peking. Not even the provincial Party functionaries are prepared to do that any more. Gradually from within the society itself the demand for political opening grows. This is a protracted process, in which there will be setbacks in the future as well as periods of abrupt opening. In such a situation, human rights politics from outside can only be pushed at specific points, relevant to single cases, not from a general accusatory or head-on position.

Do you see the development in China as running on its own momentum?
Senghaas:To some extent, certainly. In other countries, for example in what was formerly Zaire or in Burma, things look totally different, because there these reforming forces do not or only weakly exist within the society, often only in the capital. There pressure from outside is absolutely important, with the aim that the despots be chased out and no new ones take their place.

Unabridged translation of an interview first published in Publik-Forum, Zeitung kritischer Christen, Oberursel, Ausgabe Nr. 21/98.