The new balance of deterrence - by Wolfgang Schäuble
Today the number of highly explosive crises and conflicts is enormous: Iraq, the efforts of the coalition against the international terrorism, now into their second year, with results that are hard to summarize, conflicts around the Iranian and North Korea atomic programs, the paralysis of the peace efforts in the Near East, extremely cruel civil wars in the central Africa, instabilities and terror in the Caucasus, in Southeast Asia, Failing States all around the globe, scarcity of raw materials, hunger, environmental degradation, demographic shifts, differences in rates of development - one would prefer to stop to list them up altogether, were it not, that every single one of these problems could also, under the conditions of the globalization, mean a direct danger for our own security.
We should not make ourselves too much hope that these crises will all by themselves go away. At present neither the United Nations and the international law nor the military and economic weight of the last remaining superpower, the USA, have the strength to guarantee security and stability. The peace in the globalized world will therefore to a high level depend on how we will move to a substantially intensified development policies and - hand in hand – to a new form of the deterrence.
The commitment to the order must hereby be accompanied by the respect for cultural and political diversity, different histories, differences in development levels and economic capabilities, as well as by consistent human right policies. Because each order extends only as far as its capability to get implemented, it needs means and determination to prevent the abuse of power and force – in other words it needs an up-to-date deterrence. This is often mentioned only in connection to times of the east-west conflict, where it succeeded, due to the possibility of the mutual assured destruction, to prevent the atomic destruction of the world and the direct military engagement between the two large blocks. In times of international terrorism, asymmetrical warfare and Failing States, this principle does not function in such a simple way any more.
Nevertheless, the principle should not be given up: each potential aggressor, in other words anybody, who is willing, in a criminal or terrorist way, to use force to promulgate his goals, must be convinced that the use of force will only achieve his own destruction and none of his goals. In cases of a transnationally organized terror, deterrence will extend to the regime, that supports the terror. The solidarity of al-Qaida with the Taliban regime of fear in Afghanistan is an example.
Therefore military abilities will remain a necessity However, that does not mean that one strives for more frequent employment of military means. The tenor should rather be, that superiority of the military power should ensure their employment remains unnecessary. And, deterrence should not be seen as the right of the stronger.
Since today the deterrence cannot as in the cold war be based on the mutuality and since a perfected dominance can act as provocation and lead to asymmetrical warfare, we must strive for a balance: In its relationship to the non-western world the Leitmotiv of the west should be the promotion of the enriching variety.
The success of this new kind of deterrence thus depends on two issues: on our determination, to fight against attacks on our order with all, if necessary also with military means, and on our respect when dealing with the non-western world. These two border conditions justify the political, moral and international-law legitimacy of the new deterrence
This is also the mental core of the European safety strategy. Named "preventive commitment", it means the application of the whole spectrum of our means and instruments in favour of the prevention and deterrence of dangers for our security. Thus diplomatic, security, military power, hand in hand with development and economical power - soft power and hard power.
That also means the readiness to use, when necessary and inevitable, the military means. The governments, including the German government, must now remain consistent. The package is effective only as a whole. It would be dangerous illusion to believe, we Europeans could concentrate on those allegedly more peaceful and "good" instruments, while our Atlantic partners would pick chestnuts from fire for us as well, when it gets serious – risking their lives.
The uneasiness regarding the military option may not be a reason to shrink from or consciously distort this debate. This would be politically irresponsible. The Europeans alone could neither avoid nor solve the wars in our own backyard in the Balkans. Also in Afghanistan, where German Armed Forces are on an important and dangerous mission, one should not silently ignore the fact that in the long run the security of the soldiers depends on the guaranty, they would, when worse comes to worst, be protected and evacuated by American armed forces
The USA are presently making the bitter experience that in the absence of readiness for reliable partnerships they are rather losing control in the political theatre of the world. However large the superiority, it alone can not serve as a basis for a strong order. And the chances, that a democracy, based on liberal and pluralistic principles, would set down the international order with military power only, are fortunately limited
Some Europeans have hopefully been shaken awake and now admit, that the policy stubbornly striving for emancipation from the Atlantic ally and arguing about how many poles the future world order should have, is wrong. We Europeans should instead concentrate on improving our partnership abilities. That means above all finding a common voice in the foreign policy, improving our military abilities, having long-term development policies and also overcoming our own economic stagnation.
The cooperation of the west will be the only adequate answer to all the challenges and therefore also for the peace in the globalized world. America cannot find a better partner than Europe, and the same applies for Europe. Across the Atlantic we share the experience and the values of living together in a very unique way. Therefore we are and we remain a kinship with a common destiny.
Wolfgang Schaeuble is the deputy chairman of the CDU/CSU Bundestag faction, responsible for foreign, security and European policies
original (outside view 7.1.2003) in Sueddeutsche:
sueddeutsche.de
Nota bene: in case of a government change in Germany, Schäuble would be the most probable candidate for the post of the foreign minister - except if, as a result of internal pushing and backstabbing, they succeed to push him away onto the post of the president of the republic (the usual vertical arabesque trick) |
