Global Perspectives – Whither G8 and G5?

First published on the Euforic Blog

The July issue of Global Perspectives sums up the results of the G8 summit in L’Aquila and looks at the future of the global governance summit architecture.

According to some authors the G8 has still a potential as a political and security forum. Nonetheless it should seek to reform the international organizations to bring them in-line with the changed global power balance. According to the German Chancellor Merkel, quoted in a contribution, the G8 should be a body for discussion, consensus building and statements while the new G20 format should make decisions.

The Joint Political Declaration of the G8 stated that the Heiligendamm Process which aimed for structured dialogue between the G8 and the G5 (Brazil, South Africa, China, India, Mexico) should be re-phrased Heiligendamm-L’Aquila Process (HAP). It should continue substantive dialogue among the major economies and provide careful reflections on long-term questions regarding the G8-G20 constellation.

Possible themes for the HAP agenda could be freedom of investment to mutual benefit; the role of innovation and technology in the process of sustainable and socio-economic development; a strategic approach to development and its social dimension; assistance to vulnerable states; food security and reform of relevant organizations; and energy.

Also in this issue an opinion article by Thalif Deen who attacks the hypocrisy of the Western nations who compare their financial efforts to fight the global financial crisis with their aid commitments in order to reach the MDG targets.

Global Perspectives is a bi-lingual (English/German) joint production by IPS Inter Press Service Europe and the Global Cooperation Council, published by Globalom Media. The monthly editions on various themes of international cooperation and development are downloadable for free.

See also the Euforic newsfeeds on IPS Europe and global governance

 

Karlsruher Urteil: Integrationsbremse

In einem Papier des Berliner Forschungsinstituts (SWP) äußern sich erneut renommierte Experten zur Tragweite des Karlsruher Urteils. Peter Becker und Andreas Maurer bezeichnen das Urteil als Bremse für zukünftige Integrationsschritte, welche im Rahmen eines Vertragsergänzungsverfahrens durch den Lissabonner Vertrag ermöglicht werden. Das Gericht halte sich vor in Bereichen

“die die Lebensumstände der Bürger, vor allem ihren von den Grundrechten geschützten privaten Raum der Eigenverantwortung und der persönlichen und sozialen Sicherheit prägen, sowie für solche politische Entscheidungen, die in besonderer Weise auf kulturelle, historische und sprachliche Vorverständnisse angewiesen sind, und die sich im parteipolitisch und parlamentarisch organisierten Raum einer politischen Öffentlichkeit diskursiv entfalten” eine Prüfung vorzunehmen.

Für die anvisierte Aufsichtsfunktion nennen die Richter die Bereiche: Staatsbürgerschaftsangelegenheiten, das militärische und polizeiliche Gewaltmonopol, das materielle und formelle Strafrecht, fiskalische Grundentscheidungen, sozialstaatliche Gestaltung der Lebensverhältnisse sowie Fragen des Familienrechts, des Schul- und Bildungswesens und des Umgangs mit religiösen Gemeinschaften.

Nach Ansicht der Autoren könnte die Forderung des Gerichts, dass bei Integrationsschritten in diesen Bereichen das deutsche Volk befragt werden müsse, nur einen Zwang zum Volksentscheid in diesen Fragen bedeuten. Damit werde die Autonomie von Bundesregierung jedoch auch von Bundestag und -rat in Frage gestellt.

Die Autoren befürchten, dass sich das Verfassungsgericht durch diese Entscheidung zum Akteur des europäischen Politikzirkus gemacht hat. Jegliche textliche Änderung des europäischen Vertragswerks könne nun zum Gegenstand einer Verfassungsklage werden. Die deutschen Parlamente hätten hierdurch ein Druckmittel um auf europäische Gesetze einzuwirken, jedoch könnten sie eine Klage auch als Mittel bei innenpolitischen Auseinandersetzungen nutzen. Langfristig bestehe sogar die Gefahr, dass inter-governmentale Vereinbarungen außerhalb des EU Rahmens gefödert würden, die von den europäsichen Regierungen bevorzugt werden könnten, um sich der strengen Prüfung im Rahmen des Lissabonner Vertrages zu entziehen.

Das kontrovers diskutierte Urteil des Bundesverfassungsgerichts zum Vertrag von Lissabon wurde in den letzten Wochen auf dem JEF Erfurt Blog mehrfach thematisiert. (“Von Bayern, Joschka Fischer, Karlsruhe und überforderten Parlamentariern“; “Von Europa hängt unsere Zukunft ab”).

 

The Heiligendamm Process and the reform of global governance

First published on the Euforic Blog

Considering the challenges the world is facing today, including the financial, energy and climate crises, there is an urgent need for an inclusive global governance structure with a high-level body fully representing the world population.

A new discussion paper by the German Development Institute looks at the ‘Heiligendamm Process’ as the starting point for further discussions on global governance reform. Further it offers different models for a future global governance architecture.

The Heiligendamm Process, which emerged from Germany’s G8 Presidency in 2007, was an attempt to intensify dialogue with the new emerging actors, namely Mexico, China, India, South Africa and Brazil (referred to as G5). However it was seen as open process and not as a step towards enlargement, which was rejected especially by the USA and Japan.

According to the author the global economic crisis brought the enlargement-option back on the agenda:

“While this high-level dialogue [the Heiligendamm Process] was geared to an informal exchange of views and experiences as well as to confidence-building, the global financial crisis now calls for rapid action and hard-and-fast arrangements.”

The Process is seen as success in terms of trust-building. It also helped to form a confident and pro-active G5, which even came up with concrete policy proposals during the recent G20 Summit in London. After the first phase of the Heiligendamm Process participants now need to decide where this governance model should be going to.

The author proposes a new out-ward looking process which includes other global governance structures and at the same time urges the G8 to explicitly deal with the enlargement issue. This discussion should also consider the role of the G20 which proved to be effective during the recent crisis.

by Martin Behrens

See the Euforic newsfeed and dossier on governance

 

Germany’s Middle East and North Africa policy: interests, strategies, options

First published on the Euforic Blog

Talking of German interests in the Middle East and North Africa is frowned upon in German policy circles. Preferred is a reference to the normative power and Germany’s role in the European Union. Authors of a recent publication (pdf in German) of the German Institute for International Politics and Security are convinced that interests and policy targets need to be made clear and should be embedded in a long-term regional strategy. The study includes articles dealing with Israel and Palestine, Iraq, the Gulf Cooperation Council member states, Iran and the Maghreb as well as with the cross-cutting issues energy, migration and terrorism.

In her contribution about the Maghreb, Isabelle Werenfels writes about a region which was marginalized in German foreign policy until questions of energy security, terrorism and migration appeared on the policy agenda. She concludes that a regional strategy is not existent. Instead, Germany is dealing with each country bilaterally and further actively contributes to the European Mediterranean Policy. The Solar Energy Plan of the EU which was initiated by Germany provides opportunities for a more intensified cooperation.

Steffen Angenendt writes about the pressure caused by irregular and illegal migration from and within the Middle East and North Africa. He calls on the Europeans to take a closer look at migration flows within these regions which are a threat to regional stability. Angenendt also criticizes the European asylum restrictions which make it almost impossible to get refugee status and leaves illegal migration as the only option.

Guido Steinberg summarizes that the greatest German concerns in the Middle East and North Africa are the regional conflicts between Israel and Palestine and the hegemony struggle between Iraq, Iran and Saudi-Arabia. It is in Germany’s interest to maintain and improve regional stability. However, this should not lead to the acceptance of autocratic regimes as the best of two evils. It means strengthening democratic change and social transformation processes which are needed to achieve sustainable development. If no room for democratic opposition will be given new conflicts and terrorism will be the consequence.

The appearance of new actors like Russia, China or India as new potential partners for the region without a democratization agenda makes it difficult for Germany and Europe to insist on democratic reforms. Therefore Steinberg makes a plea for an active German role to solve the refugee crisis in the region which will help to overcome the humanitarian drama, minimize the conflict risk and bring valuable influence on the new elite of the region once the refugees return.

by Martin Behrens

See the Euforic newsfeed and dossier for more on Germany’s cooperation policy.

Subscribe to the Euforic EU Neighbourhood Policy newsfeed for more on Europe’s policy towards its neighbours in Eastern Europe, the Middle East and the Mediterranean.