1 - 1999

Steps in the Right Direction

Many decisive questions are still open

by Volkmar Köhler

The new federal government professes its commitment to the global challenge of sustainable development right in the preamble of its coalition agreement. It is defined under the heading "global safeguarding of the future for all countries of the South as a core area of German foreign policy". This goal is linked with efforts in crisis prevention and peaceful resolution of conflict, standing up for human rights and aiding democracy.

First, the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) remains, something which was by no means sure a few months previously. The churches, non-government organizations (NGOs) and well-known representatives of the development politics scene had demanded beyond this minimum a drastic strengthening of the ministry. In party decisions the Conservatives (CDU and CSU) had committed themselves along similar lines. The party conference of the Social Democrats in 1997 went so far as to call for the replacement of the BMZ with a Future Ministry, a Federal Minstry for Sustainable Development (BMNE), with considerably greater authority a necessity. In fact, the development policy tasks up to now scattered are to be concentrated in the BMZ. In the spirit of supporting international structural policy the BMZ receives overall responsibility in questions of the development policies of the European Union and becomes a member of the Federal Security Council. This is welcome news, but leaves many questions open.

International structures ...

What is the situation of the old tiresome topic of overall responsibility for the UN conferences related to structural policy, such as the responsibility for the developmental cooperation with the middle and eastern European nations, the authority for further UN special programs and special organisations such as the Refugee Commission (UNHCR) and Children's Emergency Fund (UNICEF), Habitat, etc.? In what department in the future are humanitarian and catastrophe aid and aid for democratisation? The mechanism for a really coherent international structural policy remains unclear.

It is naturally right to aim for a reform of foreign economic aid in accord with ecological, social and development-friendly points of view and to demand similar criteria for the work of the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and World Trade Organization. But already in the Maastricht Treaty the goal of political coherence toward the developing nations is much more comprehensively defined.

We would like to know, if this will be taken seriously, for example, in the agricultural and agricultural export policies. Then, too, it must be clarified whether the BMZ is given the right to bring up particularly serious cases of incoherence to be dealt with at cabinet level. A coherence initiative at a European level has not been announced. Nonetheless the commitment to a more effective European development aid gives reason to hope. The German position toward the Lomé-Treaty is basically positively presented, but the basic points of the German negotiating position are not clarified further.

The intention of continually moderately raising the financial commitment authorisations is good news. Here the deficiency must be urgently remedied. Whether the invocation of the 0.7% goal is worth anything in the face of the international decrease in development aid and the real budget situation remains to be seen. At any rate there is no more talk of a development aid law! The positive valuation of the NGOs must be common opinion in the meantime. The same is true for the specifically emphasised importance of affirmative action for women.

... and German responsibility

Under the heading development policy the coalition agreement contains no clear statements about the status of fighting poverty, population control, prevention of streams of refugees and global environmental policies. Thus remains open how much egoism and how much altruism could show up in the concept of global structural policy. Running like a thread through all the single questions are the demands for greater observance of ecological and social criteria and the principle of sustainability.

Who would not agree to that? To align the structural adjustment policy of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank according to these, to commit the regional banks to them, to reform the development programs of the United Nations, in short, the whole multilateral area along these lines means setting a political goal which is not sufficiently covered by the real German influence in this area and assumes powers of persuasion which are not readily available. Just as with the highest political goal of a further civilising and juridification of international relations with the wish for pacification and the establishment of an international monopoly of force, the question whether the realities of the international community are indeed assessed correctly is unavoidable.

Questions remain not only about the basics. There is a need for concrete terms regarding the form of other policy fields which are important for development policy. This is especially true of agricultural policy. One would like to have the one or the other hint more precisely explained. What is meant, for example, by the creation of the governmental development cooperation and the merger of different implementation organisations?

Similarly one would have liked to have learned more about the institutionalisation of the cooperation between the Credit Institute for Reconstruction (KfW) and the German Society for Technical Cooperation (GTZ). What is the situation with regard to the number of development aid staff in German embassies? Are well-coordinated aid missions in the receiver countries finally being planned, to improve the cooperation of the single implementation organisations locally? How do things look with the staffing of the BMZ, so that it can again finally fulfill its leadership task over against the implementation apparatus?

In the past years, the parties, churches, NGOs and the sciences have clearly and in detail conducted the debate about the development policy of the future. Unambiguously, what is necessary has been described, the issues have been formulated. The coalition agreement shows movement in the direction of the present state of this discussion. This is positive. Many decisive questions, though, are still open. Further concreteness is necessary soon.

Volkmar Köhler (CDU) was Parliamentary Secretary in the BMZ from 1982-89. He is a member of the Commission for Development Affairs and Environment of the Evangelical Church in Germany (EKD). Unabridged translation of a commentary which first appeared in epd-Entwicklungspolitik, 20-21/1998.