Foreign
Policy of the Federal Republic of Germany and its Implications for Nepal-German Ties
1
"Continuity and Dependability" – HALLMARKS OF German Foreign Policy
Since the
foundation of the Federal Republic of Germany n1948 a year that also marks the beginning
of the Cold War in Europe and saw the creation of Communist East Germany by the Soviet
occupiers, German foreign policy has seen a remarkable degree of consistency, backed by a
fairly strong national consensus most of the time. This consensus covered the basic tenets
of our role in Europe and the world as a whole: A clear break with the totalitarian and
militaristic past, reconciliation with former wartime enemies, above all with Germany's
western neighbor France, strong backing for the European integration movement and a
position solidly anchored within the free world , i.e., the transatlantic community of
Western nations under the leadership of the United States of America. However, there were
a few defining moments since then. The first one perhaps came when a very lively – if
not to say: acrimonious – public debate concentrated on the re-armament issue in
1953. After the devastating experience of two World Wars spreading from Central Europe,
for which the responsibility was clearly assigned to Germany, many Germans felt that there
should never be a German army again. The Western allies had just done their utmost to
eradicate German militarism once and for all, to re-educate "the survivors and a new
generation of Germans who readily internalized the slogan "never again". Why
should the task of defending the Western part of a divided nation against possible Soviet
totalitarian expansionism not be entirely left to the allies then? Why did they want us to
join NATO under arms? In the end, those in favor carried the day, but only just. Germany
publicly renounced the development or acquisition of ABC-weapons of its own for ever. The
stationing of nuclear arms on German soil by US troops remained a very contentious issue.
a large segment of public opinion reacted highly skeptically each time NATO made a new
effort to counter the development of possible military superiority of the Warsaw Pact
during the long and dangerous era of the Cold War. The legacy of World War II lingered on
for a long time during which it remained unthinkable that German soldiers could ever again
play a role beyond a strictly defensive posture within the NATO area. I will come back to
the remarkable evolution that has taken place in the meantime.
2.
"Ostpolitik" and Détente in the Seventies
Perhaps the only other
controversial watershed in post-war German foreign policy was socialist chancellor Wildly
Brandt's revolutionary "Ostpolitik", the new policy of détente towards
communist Eastern Europe in the early seventies. It had many enemies at first, who all
considered this approach a "caving-in" to the unsavory realities created by
brutally ruthless Soviet expansion into the heart of Europe. Did "Ostpolitik"
not mean the sanctioning of Communist territorial gains, the unacceptable division of
Europe by the much-hated "iron curtain", the granting, through the Helsinki
Conference I 1972, of a substitute peace agreement long coveted by Soviet leaders that
would not only legitimize the status quo, but even provide stepping stones for further
westward communist advances?
Well, things turned out
quite differently as we now know from hindsight. There is no absolute proof, but
nevertheless a strong likelihood that "Ostpolitik" and the Helsinki process of
institutionalized dialogue between West and East prepared the ground for the unexpectedly
swift demise of totalitarian communist domination over Eastern Europe. The fall of the
Berlin Wall, German unification and the prospect of genuine and comprehensive European
integration were direct results of this break down. For the first time in the history of
Germany, a country that has a common border with no fewer than nine neighboring states,
friendly relations with all of them could now be entertained. An exciting political dream
had come true.
3. A New Role
for Germany in the post-1990 World?
How did all this affect
the foreign policy of a henceforth united Germany of 82 million people, now the most
populous country in Europe next to the Russian Federation? Despite quite some rhetoric
about united Germany's new international weight and the willingness to take on an
increased responsibility in world affairs, changes were slow and gradual at first. Today,
twelve years after unification, these changes have become quite visible, though, and they
have been largely accepted by a general public in Germany that was at first totally
opposed to German soldiers serving with international peace missions even when they had a
UN mandate. One measurable result of this remarkable evolution: There are now in excess of
9000 German soldiers serving in peace missions outside the NATO defense perimeter, more
than those nation except the USA! For instance, the German Bundeswehr has presently over
4,000 troops with KFOR in Kosovo, 1,700 in Bosnia (SFOR), 500 in Macedonia, 1,100 in
Afghanistan and a large number of others deployed as part of the international alliance
against terror in the aftermath of September 11. All political forces – with the
exception of PDS, the successors to the former East German Communist party – support
such an ambitious deployment of Germany troops. This reflects a true revolution in popular
attitudes and an astounding emancipation from previously wide-spread thinking, according
to which history, i.e. the disastrous role German troops had played in tow World Wars
especially in Eastern Europe, imposed special restraints on German foreign policy and
would forever confine the present day Bundeswehr to a narrowly interpreted, purely
defensive task within Western Europe. What makes the change even more remarkable is that
it fell upon Joschka Fischer, a popular Foreign Minister from the Green Party whose
supporters had originally been mainly anti-NATO pacifists, to become the principal and
most persuasive promoter of active German participation in such far away military
operations. The replacement of the Cold War by the spread of dangerous regional and ethnic
conflicts, coupled with the emergence of a world-wide terrorist threat against
civilization, and the horrific attacks of September 11 drove home the painful realization
even to formerly upright pacifists: In an imperfect and perilous world, the preservation
of peace and security, freedom and democracy, human resort, concerted military action.
Germany believes in the need to strengthen joined the international alliance against
terror and will continue to contribute to it in a responsible manner – within the
limits of our capabilities.
Limiting
Factors for a Greater German Foreign Policy Rôle
Germany‘s basic
foreign policy consensus will carry well beyond the upcoming federal elections on
September 22, even if they were to result in a change of government. The general direction
of foreign policy is not an election issue. Any possibly emerging ruling coalition would
stay the course. But the limiting factors for still greater German involvement in
international affairs will also mostly remain in place. Although often called an economic
giant and the world’s second-largest trading nation, Germany is not a super power,
and will never be. In actual fact, the enormously costly effort to complement political
unification in 1990 with full economic and social integration, on equal terms, of Germans
living in the area of the former GDR has resulted in severe budgetary problems, aggravated
by sluggish economic growth. The necessary across-the-board cuts further curtailed foreign
policy options by straining the resources available for the overdue modernisation of our
armed forces. Economic assistance programs suffered. Even the Federal Foreign Service,
instead of expanding in tandem with greater international responsibilities and
expectations, has now shrunk well below the pre-unification level, notwithstanding the
many new Embassies that had to be opened in Central Asia and elsewhere. A reform of the UN
Security Council to reflect changed global realities since the founding days of the world
organisation more than half a century ago seems to be getting nowhere. That means that the
aspirations of Germany and Japan towards a permanent seat will not be fulfilled anytime
soon. It should also be noted that, in the process of Europe’s economic and political
integration, Germany has ceded part of its sovereignty to the European Union. EU member
states, for instance, can no longer negotiate bilateral trade agreements etc. Bilateral
economic co-operation continues, but an increasingly large share of national resources is
now flowing through the EU Commission in Brussels.
Implications
for Nepal-German Relations
Although there clearly
is a resource crunch limiting the attention Germany can devote to smaller, geographically
removed nations, Nepal continues to be one of the focal countries for German economic
co-operation to the tune of roughly 15 million € in new commitments each year. If you
take into account Germany´s share in the contribution of the EU as a multilateral donor
you could add another 4 million €. Germany certainly counts among the Kingdom´s
topmost bilateral donors. We have been your third-largest trading partner behind India and
the USA. Traditionally good official relations are complemented by countless contacts at
the non-governmental level. The number of visiting tourists, unfortunately, is in general
decline, Germans not excluded. I am confident, however, that this will be only a temporary
phenomenon. The general fascination of Germans with Nepal and the Nepalese people endures
beyond the present crisis that is causing so much harm and suffering here. Donors such as
Germany can contribute towards a resolution to the conflict, the number one priority for
the country, but they cannot substitute for necessary reform efforts that must come from
the Nepalis themselves, carried out through their own legitimate institutions. Together
with our EU partners we have left no doubt that we condemn the cruelly destructive
terrorist methods used by the „Maoist" insurgents. We cannot be indifferent,
though, to the the way in which the unavoidable countermeasures are being carried out, and
the institutionalized political dialogue between donors and the Government allows us to
speak up when we see danger signs on the horizon. German taxpayers have upheld the general
consensus in favour of devoting a sizeable part of our national resources to economic
assistance programmes despite our own economic difficulties and disturbingly high numbers
of unemployed, reaching beyond the four million mark. They will however insist on certain
criteria to be met by the recipient country if such flows of scarce resources are to
continue. Among these criteria figure notably good governance, respect for human rights,
freedom of information and popular participation in decision making. There is no
diagreement between our respective governments that the pursuit of these principles, far
from constituting just a sort of a complacent folly of rich donor countries (we all do
have our own problems at home!), is very much in the interest of Nepal. Nevertheless, and
especially during times of a violent internal conflict, occasional problems may arrise in
the implementation of these generally accepted objectives. True friends of Nepal and its
people should and will not pass them over in silence.
Let me conclude by
expressing the hope and wish that free and fair elections at both the national and the
local government level in Nepal will bring back elected representatives of the people as
soon as this can possibly be achieved. Germany, for her part, has reacted quickly and
favorably to the request of the Election Commission for material support in the upcoming
national polls. So you could comment on our foreign policy that Germany is „putting
her money where her mouth is". This would be very much in line with our traditional
foreign policy motto of „Continuity and Dependability" cited at the outset of
this presentation.
Prostitution,
a male-female relationship like any other?
-Anne Rapin, France
Complaisance of
some, indifference of others, widespread silence and ignorance about what may be one of
the greatest existing taboos:; prostitution. In France, the silence is beginning to be
broken. A new momentum in ideas and action has appeared in recent years, with initiatives
of parliament and voluntary organizations, relayed to public opinion by the proliferation
of reports on the subject in the media. A new awareness fitting the infringement of basic
human rights that prostitution, now a transnational phenomenon represents.
"A magnifying
mirror of asocial relationships between the sexes," keystone of male domination,
prostitution is just one of the acts of violence to which women are subjected by men in
all societies and of the recognized prerogatives of the male sex. Not a continent escapes
it, but not all confront it in the same way.
Since the mid 1990s,
prostitution has seen a resurgence at the international level. With the advance of
globalization and the power of the market, the collapse of super powers and the opening of
frontiers, we are witnessing the expansion and refinement of slave trade networks, the
growth of the sex industry and sexual tourism and prostitution occurring on a massive
scale. More than ever this problem is taking on a transnational dimension. The traffic and
trade in bodies very often depend on the same networks as drugs, arms or money laundering.
In 2002, it was
estimated that more than 5 million people are being prostituted worldwide, mainly women
and children. The clients, however, are usually men. The annual turnover from prostitution
is said to be 60 billion euros worldwide and 10 billion in Europe. In France, 70% of the
profits go to the pimps.
All of which explains
the resistance encountered by attempts to tackle prostitution, despite the gravity of the
attack on basic human rights that it represents. Kidnappings, confiscation of papers,
pressure on families, blackmail, training camps-where women are frequently submitted to
rape and torture-and murder pure and simple in some cases, the Movement du Nid reminds us
that the world of prostitution uses "methods which have always been used by those
involved in the slave trade"''. As the slavery, this French organization observes
that the person prostituted is depersonalized, treated like a consumer good, dependent on
a master, for the financial profit of others within a structured system. In France, 95% of
the 12,000 to 15,000 prostitutes are in the hands of some 10,000 pimps.
For some fifteen years,
with the support of a number of States, politicians and jurists, lobby groups have been
actively campaigning, especially at the European Union level, to steer legislation in
favor of the regulation, or even the legislation, of prostitution, on the pretext of
improving the working conditions of sex workers and protecting them. This campaign, which
aims to get prostitution regarded as a business like any other, has relaunched the
abolitionist struggle supported in particular by France.
Refusing to punish
prostitutes, considered to be the victim of systematic exploitation, the abolitionist
system runs aid and social rehabilitation schemes and campaigns against living off immoral
earnings, punishable in France, by some of the harshest prison sentences and fines in the
world. This setup is completed by the French Central Office for the punishing of the trade
in people, OCRTEH, created in 1958, which reports to the French ministry of the Interior.
This body, the only one of its kind in the world, has a number of functions: to centralize
information on prostitution and pimping at the national level, to co-ordinate
investigations aimed at dismantling the networks and arresting the pimps and to conduct
investigations on the ground, all in collaboration with the police and gendarmerie forces
concerned.
The human being is not
a merchandise: In June 2000, before the UN General Assembly in New York, asked to report
on the situation five years after the Beijing conference on women's rights, France
restated, through its spokesperson, Secretary of State for Women's Rights, Nicole Pery,
that "'The human being is not a merchandise and therefore can't be traded or
sold" in line with the Convention of December 2nd, 1949 on the 'punishing of the
crime of trading in people and the exploitation of others by prostitution', signed and
ratified by France in 1960-a solemn French declaration which has been hailed by a great
many of the world's women's organizations.
A conference in May
2000, organized by the Scelles Foundation, with the aid of ten French organizations, at
UNESCO in Paris, with the title "People of the abyss, prostitution today"
rekindled the interest of the authorities in the subject. In February 2001 a first
activity report on "'public policy and prostitution" was presented by Dinah
Derycke, president of the French senate delegation on women's rights. IN January 2002, a
draft law was adopted, at the first reading, by the Assemble Nationale in the context of a
parliamentary fact-gathering mission on modern slavery. It provides renewable temporary
residence and work permits for people leaving Mafia networks, with secure accommodation
for three months.
Lastly, in March 2002,
the sub-committee on prostitution and the trade in people for sexual purposes, set up as
part of the work of the French national Commission against violence to women, made public
the report and the recommendations of Malka Marcovitch, president of the Movement for the
Abolition of Prostitution, Pornography and all forms of sexual violence and sex
discrimination, MAPP. All of which are initiatives that testify to global approach to the
problem being taken by France. |
