Considering the combination of military assistance and discussions is essential.
In today's world, violence is just as prevalent as it was in the past 30 years, according to the Peace Report 2023 being presented in Berlin. Peace researcher Ursula Schröder discusses the significance of this in an interview with ntv.de.
The Peace Report has been labeled "World Without Compass." This could be interpreted as a reflection on the international community's inability to maintain peace and stability, or the lackluster response to global conflicts.
ntv.de: Can you explain the significance of the Peace Report's title, "World Without Compass?"
Ursula Schröder: Yes. The assessment of the peace political developments in the current year is very negative. We're witnessing more global confrontation and an increase in war and violence. Moreover, there's a lack of long-term political strategies geared towards promoting peace and strengthening security. In contrast, we observe politics that focuses on short-term planning and decision-making without set long-term goals.
Considering the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, which differ significantly, are there any common or universally positive behaviors in these conflicts that peace research recognizes as constructive, effective, and beneficial?
First and foremost, it's imperative to uphold international law, particularly humanitarian international law, in times of war. Both Israeli military action against Hamas and Russian attacks on civilian institutions and critical infrastructure have been criticized. These violations of international legal norms must be adhered to no matter what. Germany's foreign policy should strive for this. If warring parties can disregard these norms without consequences, it will only lead to more conflicts in the future. And war must have limits.
What other universal behaviors can be identified?
In addition, multilateral cooperation must be prioritized. The United Nations is testament to how many issues can be addressed through global collaboration. In the face of multiple cross-border crises and conflicts, we need a return to international forums and institutions where states can rely on the enforcement of international agreements. Unfortunately, the trend is towards the erosion of these organizations and a preference for ad hoc arrangements and alliances that lack a long-term framework.
When you refer to ad hoc and informal cooperation, do you include situations like the impromptu meeting between Emmanuel Macron and Olaf Scholz?
Yes, the informal cooperation between Macron and Scholz, as well as other leaders, is also included. It's important to recognize that informal cooperation can be valuable in certain situations. However, it cannot replace the established framework that has been in place since the end of World War II. We need to find a balance between the two. Informal cooperation can be a valuable supplement, but it cannot replace the formal structures that have been established.
The EU continues to struggle with unified foreign policy decisions. From recognizing a Palestinian state to supporting Ukraine, these issues have long been contentious. This has always been a problem, but it's more evident now given the escalated nature of conflicts. To represent their interests internationally, European countries must collaborate in foreign policy. Europe needs to become more active on the global stage.
How can the EU achieve this?
Essentially, it comes down to creating new decision-making processes. One possible solution is to abandon the requirement for unanimous decisions in foreign and security policy and introduce "qualified majority decisions." While these proposals have been on the table for some time, they have yet to be implemented. To be able to act abroad, the EU must also improve and streamline internal procedures for future expansion rounds. We need clarity on when and under what criteria states can join the EU. It's not enough to simply make promises.
Are the values "demanding international law" and "working towards cooperation through treaties and alliances for the long term" always good? Are there any universally good behaviors?
It's also crucial to engage in diplomatic efforts to end wars. Even highly escalated conflicts will eventually require a political solution. The current war in Ukraine and the conflict in Gaza will eventually require negotiations. These processes must be well-prepared and supported from the outside, but the core focus should be on political arrangements. This shouldn't be seen as mutually exclusive with military interventions. Instead, the goal should be to integrate military support into a longer-term political context. Ultimately, the spirit of negotiating and the commitment to political processes is universally positive.
Do you feel this positive attitude towards diplomacy and negotiations has been diminished, considering the EU's approach to Ukraine?
Certainly, the focus on politics and the potential for negotiation is essential. Remarkably, it seems we're overlooking this aspect when discussing Ukraine. While the military support for Ukraine is critical, it must be part of a larger strategy to end the conflict through political processes. This will require preparation and negotiation readiness from all sides.
How should we approach a future that involves more conflicts and wars?
Ultimately, one should always emphasize the importance of advocating for strength and unity. With more conflicts and wars emerging, it's crucial to have a strong commitment to international law and maintain cooperation through multilateral efforts. This includes diplomatic negotiations to end wars and create peaceful solutions. A united front can help us navigate such challenges.
The debate in Germany is quite split on the matter: it's either about providing military support to Ukraine or engaging in negotiations. This isn't accurate, however. We need to think about both aspects and find a way to make them work together. Concretely, we must ensure that ongoing military aid to Ukraine is integrated into a political process aimed at ending the war. The Swiss peace conference, for example, could be a starting point for establishing such a process.
But what if Russia doesn't participate?
Russia's absence at the Swiss peace conference was expected, since they had stated from the beginning that they wouldn't participate. Thus, there won't be any peace talks in Switzerland. The goal of the conference organized by Switzerland is to develop a viable political process for future negotiations to end the war. It's more about talking about talks, about finding a way to negotiations.
Perhaps we're not yet ready to engage directly with Russia. It's better to first understand the interests and potential paths forward among the various factions. During the Swiss conference on peace in Ukraine, for instance, there should be discussions about how to strengthen global support for Ukraine and identify the countries that can participate in mediation initiatives. It's the first step towards making negotiations possible.
Earlier, you mentioned that military support and negotiations must be considered together. Will both topics be discussed in Geneva? Is there a Ramstein corner where it's about who supplies what weapons when?
Participating states will certainly discuss the issue of security guarantees for Ukraine. These are crucial for Ukraine to even consider negotiations. One of the main challenges is that Ukraine cannot trust that Russia will adhere to agreements. This is also a requirement for coming to an agreement.
What are the options?
First and foremost, it's about securing bilateral security agreements for Ukraine. These need to include hard, binding military support commitments for Ukraine, which is extremely necessary. Some countries have already concluded such agreements with Ukraine. Only after such agreements have been put in place can the Ukrainian government even consider negotiations.
Your peace study also evaluates the security commitments that Germany has given to Ukraine. Are you not satisfied with them?
The agreement in question is related to German budget law. The question is whether this mechanism is reliable and fast enough. In our view, the security agreement should be made more binding. Other bilateral security agreements are also somewhat vague, particularly regarding the question of whether states would also send their own personnel to Ukraine to train, for example.
Let's move on to the Middle East: Your peace study has specific recommendations regarding dealing with Israel and the Gaza Strip.
Israel has the right to defend itself against an attack, but we've observed that it often goes beyond this. In particular, they violate humanitarian law, especially regarding the principle of proportionality. This requires that the civilian population be protected from unnecessary harm. We're not seeing this happen, which is why the situation is now being scrutinized by the International Court of Justice in The Hague. The principles of humanitarian law must be upheld. They outweigh the political principle of German state reason.
If your report states that Israeli violations of international law outweigh German state reason, and therefore always favoring Israel, what are the implications?
The decision was correct. The funding for UNRWA, the UN aid organization in the Gaza Strip, should be resumed. It was necessary to first check whether support was provided to Hamas from there. But now, it's about helping the suffering Palestinian civilian population. Later, we must also consider Germany's role during the post-war transitional phase, hoping for a lasting peace. How can Germany contribute to reconstruction with civilian means and instruments? For now, it's about ending this war.
Is the pressure on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu increasing? What does your report say about that?
The pressure on the Israeli government is increasing, as evidenced by Spain, Norway, and Ireland recognizing Palestine as a state. Additionally, there's been an emphasis from US President Biden on pushing for a peace plan. His latest proposal, which aims to end the war in three phases, should be implemented. It's essential to link it to a long-term political solution to the conflict in the region.
Despite the alarming increase in violence in the world since 2022, with the highest level of violence in armed conflicts and wars since 1994, the situation in Africa, particularly south of the Sahara, is quite volatile and volatile. Jihadist battles and military coups have contributed significantly to the fragility of the Sahel region.
Is the situation in the Sahel region dangerous enough to pose a threat to us?
Yep, it's crucial for Germany's tough security policy to stay engaged in that region as well. It's not just a matter of kindness or pity. It's also about preventing these conflicts from spilling over into our own backyard. This could happen through migration or an increase in extremist violence. There are two main reasons for getting involved: security concerns and humanitarian needs. So, we propose in our report that Europe and Germany should not completely pull out of collaborating with military regimes in the Sahel. Instead, we suggest a more nuanced approach – carefully assess development cooperation, but don't hastily abandon it.
