Warum wir Generationengerechtigkeit fordern und dennoch nicht danach Leben

Generationengerechtigkeit ist ein Begriff im Aufwind. In der Politik ist er zum Schlagwort geworden, das gerne zur Rechtfertigung politischer Projekte verwendet wird. Der Begriff unterscheidet sich von „Nachhaltigkeit“ vor allem dadurch, dass durch den Bezug auf Generationen konkrete Menschen angesprochen werden, während Nachhaltigkeit ein abstraktes Konzept bleibt. Unter Politikern ist es daher schick geworden, zu behaupten, dass z.B. die Konsolidierung des Haushaltes und der Schutz des Klimas im Namen künftiger Generationen vorangetrieben werden, für die wir heute lebenden Menschen eine Verantwortung haben.

Diese Verantwortung für künftige Generationen existiert unbestritten. In Zeiten des menschengemachten Klimawandels ist sie mit Händen zu greifen. Noch nie zuvor in ihrer Geschichte hatte die Menschheit die nötigen technologischen Mittel, um das Leben künftiger Generationen über Jahrhunderte hinaus zu bestimmen: gefällte Bäume wuchsen nach, niedergebrannte Städte wurden wieder aufgebaut. Die Bedrohungen durch Atomwaffen, den Klimawandel, und die Ausbeutung natürlicher Ressourcen sind jedoch dauerhaft. Werden wir unserer Verantwortung für künftige Generationen, die daraus erwächst, gerecht?

Die Antwort lautet leider nein. Denn jedes Mal, wenn diese Verantwortung uns etwas kosten könnte, verschieben wir die Probleme von heute lieber auf morgen. In Krisenzeiten werden Klimaziele für die kurzfristige Förderung rückständiger Industriezweige im wahrsten Sinne des Wortes abgewrackt. Es ist auch kein Zufall, dass die Verhandlungen für einen Nachfolger des Kyoto-Protokolls in Kopenhagen 2009 und in Cancún 2010 im Schatten einer weltweiten Wirtschaftskrise gescheitert sind. Denn, machen wir uns nichts vor, auch in Cancún hat die Weltgemeinschaft entschieden, dass den Wählern von heute in wirtschaftlich schlechten Zeiten keine nennenswerten Bürden auferlegt werden sollen, um künftigen Generationen einen lebenswerten Planeten zu erhalten.

Gleichzeitig hat sich die Nutzung des Begriffes Generationengerechtigkeit in den Wahl- und Parteiprogrammen der deutschen Parteien vervielfacht. In der Praxis hat dies wenig geändert. So wird gerade im Bereich der Staatsverschuldung eine Phantomdebatte geführt, bei der dem Wähler vorgegaukelt wird, ein strikter Sparkurs sei im Sinne künftiger Generationen. Dabei bereiten Staatsschulden an sich künftigen Generationen nur wenig Kopfzerbrechen. Der deutsche Staat verschuldet sich vor Allem bei seinen eigenen Bürgern, die fleißig Schatzbriefe kaufen. Die Gesellschaft als Gesamtes wird dadurch auch in Zukunft nicht ärmer. Der wahre Schatz, den wir für künftige Generationen bewahren müssen, ist ein handlungsfähiger Staat. Ein Staat, der sich so hoch verschuldet hat, dass er nicht mehr handlungsfähig ist, wäre ein echtes Problem für künftige Generationen. An die Verabschiedung von Konjunkturpaketen zur Ankurbelung der Wirtschaft in Krisenzeiten, wie heutzutage, wäre nicht mehr zu denken. Es zeigt sich bereits, dass sich die öffentliche Hand aus immer mehr Aufgabenbereichen zurückzieht. Trotz Konjunkturpaket hat sich an der grundsätzlichen Unterfinanzierung des Bildungssystems und der Kindergärten und –krippen nicht viel geändert. Der letzten Bundesregierung waren Kinder im Rahmen ihres Konjunkturpaketes zusätzliche Direktausgaben von 100 € pro Kind wert. Ein neues Auto wurde mit 2.500 € bezuschusst. Auch hier geben wir das Geld also im Zweifel lieber für Dinge aus, die uns heute nützen, wie Neuwagen und Jobs. Sparen an Zukunftsinvestitionen wie Bildung und Kinderbetreuung fällt uns dabei nicht schwer.

Dabei sind wir, als heute lebende Generation, in der Pflicht, künftigen Generationen mindestens die gleichen Möglichkeiten zu hinterlassen, die wir selbst hatten. In den Bereichen Klimawandel, Staatsverschuldung, Energiepolitik, Umwelt- und Artenschutz sowie schonender Ressourcenverbrauch reden wir gerne über diese große Verantwortung. Danach zu handeln liegt uns leider nicht.

The Fallout of the Crisis

In recent weeks and months I have addressed a number of populist and xenophobic tendencies in European politics and beyond in this blog. Unfortunately, there is no sign that these tendencies will abate. In Germany, the President was recently criticised by scores of conservative politicians for stating that Islam is part of Germany. Only a couple of days later, the head of the Bavarian Christian-Social Union, a junior-partner of the governing coalition, answered the statement by calling for an end to migration from regions with 'different cultural backgrounds' as these migrants are 'too difficult to integrate'. Chancellor Merkel did not dismiss this remark completely, instead she said that the 'multicultural' model in Germany has failed. 

I have always been of the conviction that the increase of these discussions is a reaction to the economic strains put on broad swaths of populations all over the globe due to the world economic and financial crisis. What is even more worrisome is that politicians are seemingly answering these calls by turning towards more selfish policies on a global scale. Many governments have silently given up on promised increases of development aid and are turning their attention towards national grievances at the cost of global problems that need international coordination in order to be solved. Climate change is only one of those issues. Nobody expects a binding agreement at the next Conference of the Parties of the UNFCCC in Mexico and worse, nobody even seems to care that the CoP will again be a forum for empty talks.

At the same time, this trend towards selfishness seems to translate into 'beggar thy neighbour' policies within the world currency system. The Federal Reserve Bank of the USA just announced that they will uphold their easy money policy in order to stimulate economic growth, ignoring that they are fueling tendencies of an international race for devaluation. China is not willing to change anything substantial about its undervalued currency and Japan and Brazil are stemming themselves against currency appreciations. So far, the EU has refrained from joining the devaluation race, which may be a positive side effect of the Euro. The common currency has derived individual heads of states of the instrument of manipulating the currency for economic gains.

Still, many experts are warning that devaluation may lead to trade wars in the long run which would have catastrophic consequences for everyone. Is it far fetched that selfish and xenophobic reactions in the aftermath of the world economic crisis lead to an increased readiness to rely on egoistic policies in international trade? Maybe, but the trend of people/nations focusing on their own narrow needs is distinguishable in both areas. Additionally, both the xenophobic reactions towards migration as well as the egoistic policies of devaluation have another thing in common. Both are not sustainable in the long run. Western economies will not prevail without migration and devaluation will only reap benefits, as long as other states are not reacting through devaluation of their own currencies.

Peace and justice

Last week I had the chance to visit the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the International Criminal Court (ICC), and some NGOs working in the humanitarian aid and peace-building sectors in Amsterdam and The Hague. A group of fellow students at the University of Tübingen had organised the trip and I was lucky enough to join in on rather short notice. Apart from Amsterdam being a gorgeous city and The Hague having a beach that is surely worth a visit in summer time, we met a lot of interesting people at the organisations we visited.

In Amsterdam we met with people from The Association of European Parliamentarians with Africa (AWEPA), an association of European parliamentarians working with African parliamentarians to further peace and development in Africa. The visit was somewhat of an eye-opener as people at AWEPA made us aware of the democratic deficits of many NGOs working in Africa that bypass parliaments to work directly with the government or civil society organisations and thus block the emergence of a strong legislative branch.

Later in the Hague we met with people from Cordaid, a large humanitarian NGO with catholic roots that gets most of its funds from Netherlands' government. Before moving to the ICTY and the ICC we also visited the International Water Association that has it's headquarters in The Hague.

For me the most interesting side-effect of the visit was to hear about peace-building and conflict resolution from two sides that are often pictured as opposites, namely humanitarian organisations focusing on alleviating suffering and working for peace, and international tribunals and courts, focusing on justice in order to ensure durable peace.
Humanitarian organisations like Cordaid have a relatively flexible stance towards conflict parties accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Their loyalties lie with the people suffering on the ground. While they do support the ICC, they also do support peace negotiations with people indicted by the ICC when there is a realistic chance for peace.

Prosecutors of international courts and tribunals on the other hand are not happy to see this. They try to isolate the persons indicted by the courts and pressure the international community to arrest them. The last thing they want to see is that alleged war criminals cut deals and blackmail governments and states into a peace deal that ensures their immunity.

As a consequence, peace and justice seem to be at odds sometimes. Interestingly, there are different opinions about this even within the tribunals. We had the chance to talk to a judge and some persons working in the office of the prosecutor. While the judge emphasised that courts deliver justice and are not responsible for peace, the position that courts can further peace through justice was defended by prosecution staff. The prosecutors focused on the many mis-perceptions about the work of tribunals and courts. Indeed, they convincingly argued that many of the allegations, essentially stating that courts try to achieve justice at the price of peace, result from propaganda efforts of the very same conflict parties that are being prosecuted. 

The point both judges and prosecutors had in common was to maintain the argument that law cannot be compromised for the sake of politics. In my opinion this is a somewhat problematic position in the world we are living in today. While on  the national level the state is the single most powerful actor and can eventually enforce the law, such a guarantor of law is missing on the international level. Thus warlords, militia leaders and heads of state will always try to get away with murder by bargaining, blackmailing and threatening. As long as the international community lets these people get away with their demands to be exempted from the law, there will always be discussions about peace and justice. In some cases, the people living in the conflict regions may end up on the losing side of these discussions.

ICC building in The Hague, front entrance
Top left picture: ICTY building in The Hague

Populism on the Rise

So, after a rather long summer break of beach vacations and the following struggle to keep up with the workload I finally get around to write a new post. Actually a couple of interesting things have happened during the summer months, but one topic has been hot across a variety of different countries: immigration and xenophobia.

It seems that looking for scapegoats remains a strong human inclination in hard times. Even though the world is slowly recovering from the financial and economic crisis, people in many western countries are still jealously guarding the economic recovery against perceived threats from the outside.

Already in spring the US State of Arizona passed the harshest anti-immigration bill of the US. After scores of illegal immigrants from Latin American and Middle American states had upheld economic growth in the US by working for wages no American would move a finger for, these illegal immigrants had become unwanted competition on the labour market. The bill introduced a duty to have immigration papers ready 24/7 and allowed police officers to check the immigration status of people if there were 'grounds for suspicion'. The Obama Administration has sued in Supreme Court against the bill.

In France, President Sarkozy has decided to deport illegal Roma living in camps in France in a populist move to appeal to right wing voters who want illegal immigrants out, especially during times of economic strife. This initiative has met harsh criticism by European countries and the European Commission. A trial at the EU Court is a possible consequence as the illegal Roma are Romanians and thus EU citizens.
Still, the initiative by Sarkozy does not only meet disapproval. When I was in Spain, a survey about Sarkozy's deportation plans was conducted in the scope of a political talk show there. Over 70 per-cent of the Spaniards calling in demanded that their President Zapatero should do the same thing in Spain and 'get rid' of the illegal immigrants in Spain. Yet, Spaniards are at the same time again starting to migrate towards France as seasonal workers during harvest time. Somethign Spaniards did not have to due in a generation as the economic boom boosted living standards across the Iberian peninsula. Due to economic strains they are now again moving to other European countries in the search for work, so one expects that they would have more sympathy for the situation of migrants.

In Germany, the former Secretary of Finance of Berlin and current board member of the Federal Bank Thilo Sarrazin has published a book about the unwillingness of immigrants to integrate in Germany, and has attributed some problems with integration to genetic causes. A concept frighteningly close to 20th century racism. Nevertheless he has also received public approval and attention.

Last but not least the US have mourned the 9th anniversary of the terror attacks of September 11th 2001 amidst outbreaks of xenophobia and distrust towards their Muslim minority. Taking into consideration that the US have a history of immigrations by people fleeing from religious prosecution and that al-Qaeda explicitly planned to unleash a war between Islam and the West, these developments are worrisome indeed.

These developments are a consequence of our everyday approach towards migration and integration. As long as we are profiting from it, or we can just forget about it, we do not deal with the problems migration brings with it. Integration is a challenge for both the recipient society and for the immigrants due to a number of reasons. The book by Thilo Sarrazin has the virtue of at least addressing this topic and illuminating the problems migrants also tend to bring with them. Yet, migration should not only be a topic to vent steam in bad times. There should be a genuine and permanent effort to address the problems of immigrations on both sides and a strive for searching better ways of living together in the future. It is clear that immigration is the future in a globalised world, so we better start thinking of ways to make integration work despite economic strains.

Thilo Sarrazin

Germany and Europe - a love gone sour?

Together France and Germany have been seen as the heartland and motor of Europe for decades. The age-old animosity between the two neighbours had erupted in the scope of two World Wars in the 20th century. When the European integration began through the founding of the European Coal and Steel Community, thoughts were still mainly on avoiding another outbreak of the enmity. Very few people would have thought that the countries would become the driving tandem of the EU by the end of the 20th century.

Yet, something has changed since the world financial and economic crisis starting in late 2008. France has criticised Germany for its over-dependence on exports, claiming that the German model works at the expense of other EU Member States. On the other side, Angela Merkel blocked French President Sarkozy's plans for a joint EU approach towards economic governance. (I had posted some remarks on the lack of such a joint approach back in February). But the rift is not only widening between the European tandem. Also the rest of Europe is eying Germany with increasing suspicion.

The main reason for the tensions is Germany's slow approval of financial support for Greece and the European emergency fund to stabilise the Euro-zone. Media in other European countries has increasingly written about Germany 'showing its teeth' and pursuing and increasingly national agenda. Newspaper commentaries, like George Soros' commentary in last weeks Die Zeit, claim that Germany is trying to impose its model of financial austerity on the other Member States. In the German population on the other hand there are fears that Germany will be pulled back into the financial crisis by other, weaker EU Member States or that they will be deprived of the fruits of their hard work through the failures of irresponsible governments in other Member States.

What are the reasons for these widening rifts between Germany and many of its European neighbours? I argue that there is a fundamental misunderstanding about the way Germany sees itself and is seen by its neighbours. Germans are traditionally very skeptical about the economic development and when assessing their overall situation. Even though Germany weathered the financial and economic crisis well, and came out on top, people are worrying about the chaotic situation in the German Federal Government, they are afraid that the model of temporary employment that brought Germany through the crisis might collapse or backfire; they are afraid that they could be sucked in to a new financial crisis by Greek, Spain, Ireland and other countries struggling for a financial equilibrium.

The EU neighbours on the other hand see Germany as THE economic power on the continent. And they see that the economic dominance has grown even stronger since Germany weathered the crisis comparatively well. Additionally, our neighbours are projecting their notions of nationhood on Germany. Pursuing national interests in certain situations is perfectly normal for most states, even within the EU. So other EU Member states see Germany's show of force, that is born out of fear, as a claim of leadership or even dominance within the EU. Germans on the other hand do not have a 'normal' notion of nationhood since World War II. The view that the Holocaust and World War II were a consequence of Germany's national ambitions is a mainstream view over here. As a consequence, Germany has to follow national interests much more implicitly than its neighbours. Only when Germans see their economic wealth at stake, a centrepiece of Germany's post-war self-image, stronger moves are admissible. But in Germany this is seen as self defence, not as a bid for power.

Only recently, inter alia through the World Cup 2006 celebrations in Germany, a more relaxed relationship with nationhood has been emerging in Germany. Germans were seen as a friendly and hospitable nation during the World Cup 2006, a fact that was widely reflected in national press coverage and in which Germans took a lot of pride. It was seen as a way to find a new approach towards nationhood, completely different from 20th century national(social)ism. Germans see themselves, and want to be seen, as a friendly nation (just have a look at the World Cup logo Germany chose below). Reliable, friendly and unoffending. So they do not realise how their economic policies are being read by their neighbours. Germany is not conscious of its increasing power within the EU and is thus not using this power in a responsible way and with respect for the fears of its neighbours that see an increasing economic dominance of Germany looming over their heads.

Germany still has to learn that power comes with responsibility. This responsibility has to be assumed actively. It is not possible to act as if the increase of German economic power had not taken place, but this is exactly what Germany is doing. Germans are saying 'we just wanna be friends' while they are defending their newly won economic power position. In order to understand the background of this misunderstanding, Germany and its neighbours have to learn to see things through each other's eyes. Apparently, 60 years of integration have not been enough to reach this level of mutual understanding.

Peace through integration - EU and UNASUR

With UNASUR, Latin America is following the example of the EU, trying to establish a zone of stability, economic prosperity and peace on the South American continent. But why has the European Union become a textbook example for peace while tensions still abound in Latin America?

Ensuring a long and stable peace on a formerly war ravaged continent is probably the most impressive achievement of the European Union to date. Even though peace has become the natural condition for a whole generation of Europeans, it was far from self-evident that a continent like Europe could achieve this in mere decades.

The situation along many borders in Latin America on the other hand remain tense. Some days ago, Hugo Chávez declared at a graduation ceremony of sports students that he would sever all diplomatic ties with Colombia. It was his answer to allegations of President Uribe of Colombia, who had claimed that Venezuela is supporting the FARC guerilla. Colombia is waging a decades old counterinsurgency campaign against the FARC. Information that FARC has used bases in Venezuela several years ago are well known, and so far it is unclear whether the proof presented by Colombia is new, or just documents the old facts.

This new row about alleged FARC support is a new episode in the animosities between Venezuela and Colombia that became heated when the US boosted its military cooperation with Colombia and got permission to use several army bases on Colombian territory. Even though a war over these disagreements still seems very unlikely, it is worrying that a solution to the problem was not found in earlier stages. That both states are members of UNASUR, documents that Latin American integration has still not managed to fully display the stabilising effects that the European Union project had in Europe.

Why is this the case? Of course there were also political conflicts between European states during the European integration, for example regarding the accession of the United Kingdom disputed between France and Germany in the sixties. France took up an 'empty chair policy', refusing to take part in European Council meetings as long as a solution was not found, effectively blocking the EC at that time. Even many status questions between the sates remained unsolved, including contested borders. Still, cooperation never suffered significantly.

The hegemonic interests of the US and its meddling in Latin American politics could be an explanation for the stuttering start of UNASUR. After all, the relations to the US is one of the main divisive issues in Latin America. Europe had to fend off the influence of a regional hegemon, too, namely the USSR. The Iron Curtain documented the division of Europe regarding the role of the Soviet Union. Yet, the division did not run between the governments of the EU member states. The external factor of US foreign policy thus definetly figures into the less than perfect security situation in Latin America.

Still, ohter factors have a bigger impact, namely the legacy of self-sufficient armed groups in many parts of Latin America. Without the FARC threat Colombia would be less tempted to cooperate with the US military in spite of security concerns voiced by its neighbours, and the latest episode of the quarrel would not have occured at all. Armed groups in a region are an invitation to proxy warfare, used to pressure other governments by supporting its internal enemies. Additionally, these groups do not respect borders. A Colombian air raid on FARC bases on the Ecuadorian side of the border sparked tensions between Colombia and Ecuador several months ago. When these groups cross borders freely and provoke reactions, suspicion about the neighbour's involvement naturally arise.

In Europe, peace was a by-product of economic integration. The economies of the European states became intertwined to a degree that no one could start to manufacture arms without the other one knowing. Distrust was diminished considerably which ultimately led to further reapproachment and cooperation. Transparency could also be a successful recipe for guaranteeing more stability in Latin America, but it would not be a final solution. The threat of armed non-state actors has to be confronted as they will be a lasting source of instability in the region. Thus, cooperation in military matters will be necessary to stabilise the security situation in Latin America.

Unfortunately, cooperation in issues of security are not as easy to achieve as economic cooperations. They presuppose a certain level of trust as military cooperation is not always as clearly a positive-sum cooperation as economic coordination. The challenges in Latin America are thus greater than they were in Europe. The politicians will have to actively work on building trust and transparency, in order to then move forward to military cooperation. The self-sustaining process of reapproachment and trust building in Europe was in some ways a lucky coincidence. Thus, the individual responsibility of politicians in Latin America is higher. Both Uribe and Chávez did not live up to this responsibility in their crisis management. One can only hope that Colombian President elect Santos will push his reconciliation efforts forward that he started by inviting Chávez to his inauguration ceremony.

The EU2020 Strategy

The EU2020 Strategy, successor of the Lisbon Agenda, was adopted by the European Council on 17 June 2010. The Foundation for the Rights of Future Generations (FRFG), where I am working as a research associate, organised the launch conference for the EU2020 Strategy in Germany, together with the Representation of the European Commission in Germany. The conference took place in the “Europäisches Haus”, seat of the European Commission Representation directly at Pariser Platz, a few meters from the Brandenburger Tor.
A number of knowledgeable experts on the different aspects of the EU2020 Strategy, including representatives from the relevant Commission General Directorates, took part in three panel discussions. The audience consisted of over 100 stakeholders and interested citizens. The conference probably fulfilled its aim of sparking a public debate about the EU2020 Strategy, but on a personal side note I feel there are some more things to say about the successor of the Lisbon Agenda.

First of all, I think the failure of the Lisbon Agenda in general did not receive the attention it would have deserved. The world financial and economic crisis in a certain way was a welcome excuse for the European governments to bury the Agenda quickly and without too much noise. Since the crisis had made compliance with the aims set out in the Agenda impossible, the EU did not have to discuss the failure of the strategy. As a reminder: the proclaimed aim of the strategy was to make Europe the most competitive economic area in the world, something that the EU is probably less likely to achieve now than when the Lisbon Agenda was first adopted. This failure was barely discussed in public when the Lisbon Agenda neared its completion. But can a successful successor strategy to the Agenda be devised without discussing the failures? Yes and no.

Yes, because Europe has learned one important lesson from the Lisbon failure after all. The aims in the Lisbon Agenda were not clear, compliance was difficult to measure and there was no clear direction for Europe apart from lofty formulations. When the Lisbon Agenda was re-tuned a couple of years after its adoption trough the Council, including clear aims and agreements, some improvements became measurable. 

No, because Europe has still not moved away from a strategy striving to boost the same old indicators: economic growth as percentage of the GDP, research investments as percentage of the GDP, a maximum percentage of unemployment, a minimum percentage of university graduates. With the financial and economic crisis even the last European has lost his belief in these static figures. Instead of being presented a more sophisticated definition of growth, encompassing ‘smart’, ‘sustainable’ and ‘inclusive’ growth, that the EU introduced with its 2020 Strategy, people wanted to see a concept beyond mere growth and GDP.

And then there is the biggest no. After drawing a lot of vocal criticism from different European countries for the way a Bachelor/Master system introduced (some say imposed) on 27 different university systems with different academic traditions, through the Lisbon Agenda, the EU now seems to make the same mistake again. Again education seems to be the weakest link in the EU2020 Strategy as the Council has just decided to kick out a number of concrete education aims from the paper. Promoting ‘smart’ growth without a concept for education sounds like a challenging idea to say the least. It seems like the EU has forgotten that the innovation resources of Europe are the European students and professors, not patents miraculously appearing out of nowhere and education and research spending in percent of the GDP.

What are the reasons for this seemingly irrational misconception? Member States, particularly the German regional entities (Länder), jealously guard their competences in educational matters. The main areas in which German regions can uphold an independent policy are matters of internal security (police services) and education, and they are not ready to let Brussels have a say in one of the few areas in which a German regional government can sharpen its profile. In order to pacify the German ‘Länder’, the Council even adopted the sentence ‘These recommendations shall be fully in line with relevant Treaty provisions and EU rules and shall not alter Member States' competences, for example in areas such as education.'

The backtracking on tangible aims for the education sector in the EU2020 Strategy reveals the weaknesses of the EU system. The different political levels follow their own logics and have still not developed a sufficient understanding of the needs and priorities of the other levels. Try to explain a Finnish Commission official why the German government has to consult every step it takes in the education sector with 16 Länder, while taking shifting majorities in the second chamber and important elections in different regions into account. By the way, two commissions to reform Federalism in Germany have been founded in the last decade, with meagre results. It won’t be the last time that Europe witnesses a clash between the logics of regional and continental governance.