Friday, June 6, 2014

Dr Davood Moradian

Germany offers the world legendary philosophy, art, music, industry and enterprise. Yet unlike its towering reputation for these noble attributes, Germany does not have a distinctive foreign policy identity outside of Europe.

To paraphrase the title of Henry Kissinger’s book, Does America Need a Foreign Policy?, the question that comes to mind from an outsider perspective is “Does Germany have a Foreign Policy?” (Henry Kissinger: “Does America Need a Foreign Policy? Toward a Diplomacy for the 21st Century”, 2001)

Germany’s strong bond with the US, its leading role in the European Union and its significant assistance to developing nations does not obviate fundamental questions over Germany’s role in global affairs. Specifically, what is Germany’s grand vision for itself and the world? What is its philosophical and normative position over key concepts such as war, globalization, religion, and poverty? In contrast with its commercial presentation, Germany inadequately communicates its broader foreign and security policy conceptually and institutionally.

As with every nation, Germany’s Foreign Policy is determined by a number of factors, including its recent past and its neighborhood of nations. Europe’s centuries of internal wars, the legacies of two world wars, and the Cold War shaped Germany’s post-war direction as a nation.

The reunification of Germany and the establishment of the EU were the result of Germany’s visionary leadership and national success in reinventing itself amid European and American solidarity. However, these transformative achievements brought a number of unintended challenges.

Is Germany a pacifist country?

For Germany, the world is comprised of two abodes: a Trans-Atlantic partnership and the rest of the globe. A German official succinctly described this duality to this author as “the Garden vs. the Jungle”. The Garden’s prevailing political culture ought to be Kantian, which rests on the logic of friendship.

The Jungle’s prevailing political culture is Hobbesian, where the logic is self-interest. Germany and the EU’s resource allocation to developing nations reflect this duality. The EU has not met its commitment to spend 0.7 percent of gross national income on foreign aid. The debate in Germany over Turkey’s entry into the EU reflects this fundamental question over the EU’s identity as a “locality community” or a “value community”.

The horror of the First and Second World War understandably changed Germans’ view of war and conflict. Germans despise war with an unrivaled degree of nobility. Germany’s enduring strategic investment in the EU and multilateral organizations such as the International Criminal Court (ICC), along with its promotion of human rights and democracy around the World are clearly intended as preventative measures against future conflicts. However, Germany has necessarily also remained ambiguous about war, both conceptually and practically.

Germany’s membership in the North Atlantic Organization (NATO) and the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy, and its position as the world’s third largest arm dealer challenge the perception of Germany as a traditionally pacifist country. Unlike the efforts of Germany’s civil society and political parties for nuclear disarmament, there has not been a globally publicized intellectual debate in Germany on the abolition of war or even the criteria and conditions for legitimate war.

The abolition of war can only moved from a utopian objective to “emancipatory realism”, when the underlying causes of war are addressed. There are Thcydidean triad of security, honor and self-interest.

Historic responsibility a hurdle for conflict resolution

Germany’s “historic responsibility” is unprecedented and globally inspiring and commended. While the holocaust of the Jews and other “undesirable” communities during World War II remain scars on the conscience of the humanity, Germany is admired for taking unreserved and unqualified responsibility.

Other nations either justify (nuclear bombing of Japanese cities) or ignore (slavery and colonial crimes) historical injustices, committed by their fellow citizens.

However, this “historic responsibility” has often blurred the line between moral responsibility and a guilty national conscience. One manifestation of this confusion is Germany’s role in the Palestinian and Israel conflict. While it is absolutely imperative to provide all kind of support to the victims and survivors of the Holocaust and to protect the Jews and the state of Israel from any existential threat, Palestinians’ rights and dignity should also be protected.

Germany’s tolerance of right wing governments of Israel and hostile constituencies has weakened Germany’s moral standing on the diplomatic landscape. Germany is now isolated from any impartial intervention in helping the Palestinians and Israel to find a mutually beneficial and just resolution of their decades-old conflict.

The external economic relations are predominant

Germany’s external economic relations are impressive. The fact that Germany has remained a major manufacturing power, alongside the giant China, is a testimony to Germany’s first class economic model. However, Germany’s external trade and economic relations are not fully compatible with a progressive and socially responsible economic model within Germany and the EU. It is to a large extent profit-driven and devoid of major social and political considerations.

Again, there are two German economic models: one for the “Garden” and the other for the “Jungle”. Germany’s comfortable economic relations with authoritarian regimes contradict Germany’s domestic and European progressive economic practices.

Germany is the land of great poets and thinkers. Germany has contributed immensely to human civilization and progress. Iconic personalities such as Goethe, Immanuel Kant, Karl Marx, Max Weber, Wagner, and Jürgen Habermas have become an indelible part of humanity’s intellectual and cultural heritage.

Inter-cultural dialogues and exchanges have been integral foundations of the world’s civilizations, including Germany. Goethe’s encounter with the great Persian poet, Hafiz’s poetry inspired him to write West-östlicher Diwan or West-Eastern Divan. In the mid-20th Century, Pakistan’s famous Persian-speaking poet, Muhammad Iqbal, wrote his Payam-i-Mashriq (The Message of the East) as a reply to Goethe’s Diwan.

The cultural and intellectual dialogue between Jesuits and Chinese elites in the 16th and 17th centuries are another precedent in Germany’s rich tradition of inter-cultural dialogue. However, despite the unprecedented ease in communication and global interactions, Germany’s inter-cultural exchanges today are not commensurate with its impressive trade and economic linkages.

Domestic politics as a stumbling block

Germany is now the home of millions of people from many parts of the world who are the natural bridges between Germany and their respective native lands. Countries such as the UK and the US have far better record and policy in integrating the immigrants in both their domestic structure and foreign policy programs.

Germany’s foreign policy has to be conscious of and responsive to German citizens’ concerns and priorities. As with many post-industrial Western societies, German society has become a “risk society” and has demonstrated syndromes of “consumerist democracy”. Voters demand absolute security and infinite prosperity, while their tolerance for casualties and costs in external intervention are low. The growing imbalance between voters’ “high demand” and their “low tolerance” has constrained Germany’s foreign policy.

Germany’s Foreign policy bureaucracy is another important determinant in assessing German policy. German diplomats in Afghanistan are among the most educated, cultured and cosmopolitan diplomats. Unlike some European diplomats that prompt suspicion and bring historical baggage, German diplomats have easy access to many non-European circles. Their highly professional approach to their diplomatic assignments, particularly their respect for the host nation’s sensitive issues, has distinguished them among their counterparts. Germany’s non-intrusive diplomats are, however, constrained by their overcautious and formal approach in pursuing their tasks in places where traditional diplomacy is less effective and relevant such as conflict zones.

The relations between the Chancellor and the Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs and their respective offices sometimes blur. This becomes more visible when a weaker foreign minister accompanies a powerful chancellor, particularly if the two come from different political parties.

The way forward: Kantian foreign policy

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, shattered the hope of moving toward a safer and better world that the end of the Cold War heralded. Since then, the ugly politics of previous millenniums have resurfaced from sectarian violence in the Middle East to geo-strategic rivalries in Europe and East Asia.

More disconcertingly, the project of “Europe” is being challenged from within and without. Emancipatory politics has replaced by identity politics. Multiple corporations have far more clout than the UN and other multilateral organizations. Despite the looming crisis of climate change, there is yet to emerge a global consensus to recognize it as a threat, let alone finding ways to address it. National interests have restored their domination over global norms. “Game Theory” suppresses the “Responsibility to Protect” paradigm. Many democracies now resemble the Weimar Republic: Democracy without democrats.

In such turbulent world’s politics, what role should Germany’s foreign policy pursue? Both the question and answer are the prerogative of Germans. The highly admirable qualities of Germany’s character offer limitless possibilities for an ever-increasing positive role in the world.

Germans are, however, not alone in seeking answers to their nation’s place in the world and how to address the world’s increasingly complex problems. The cosmopolitan spirit of the unfinished work of the Enlightenment must guide those who are committed to the ideals of “Liberty, Equality and Fraternity”. We need more “Enlightenment” not less.

The Enlightenment gave birth to emancipatory politics. Emancipatory politics are based on four mutually reinforcing principles: Universalist, Inclusive, Normative and Progressive. Unlike realists’ view of world politics that prioritizes “National Interests”, emancipatory politics believes in and promotes “Emancipatory Interests”. Unlike neo-liberal’s “winner-take-all-globalization”, Emancipatory politics’ globalization is “humane globalization”. Emancipatory politics are owned by citizens who constitute “cosmopolitan democracy” in contrast with “consumerist democracy” that are sustained by corporations, interest groups and consumers. Emancipatory politics are far from “Militarized Idealism” or “Nationalistic Universalism”.

Germany is well placed to be a champion of emancipatory politics. In addition to its abundant material resources, democratic and stable political order, and its highly respected and trusted democratic credentials in the world, Germany’s rich intellectual heritage and resources are vital assets for advocating emancipatory politics.

Chief among them is one of the leading icons of the Enlightenment, Immanuel Kant. His characterization of a “perpetual peace” remains relevant in our era. It is worth recalling Kant’s three definitive articles as the foundation of building peace:

1- The civil constitution of every state should be republican.

2- The law of nations shall be founded on a federation of free states.

3- The law of world citizenship shall be limited to conditions of universal hospitality.

It is unfortunate that the first decade of the third millennium was dominated by “the clash of civilizations” and Al Qaeda’s murderous ideology of violence, instead of the “Democratic Peace Theory”. In the second decade of this millennium, we are faced with a “retreating Washington”, an “exhausted Brussels”, an “angry Moscow”, the “Arab Winter”, an “unsure China”, a “bureaucratic UN”, “greedy corporations”, “depoliticized youth”, an “insecure Islamic world”, “Dickensian poverty”, and a looming climate change crisis.

Though with different degrees, both the “jungle” and the “garden” are vulnerable to these increasingly transnational challenges, as the crisis of Crimea demonstrates.

In the Western city of Herat in Afghanistan, reading and memorizing Hafiz’s ghazals were almost compulsory for primary school children before the recent upheavals; those ghazals were most likely recited by Goethe. Reviving the hope in the Enlightenment can best be described by one of Hafiz’s ghazals:

“Rose petals let us scatter

And fill the cup with red wine

The firmaments let us shatter

And come with a new vision.”

Direct link