diplomacyatwork

Tobias Bunde Benedikt Franke Herausgeber

THE ART OF D I P L O M A C Y

achievements anecdotes aspirations

...comin‘ from

book for nerds

pressure barely space to breath always onAir (auf Sendung) text, text, text no whitespace high focus

message from the ivory tower

Table of contents The Art of the Deal The Language of Power The Power of Language The Art of Compromise The Importance of Trust/Values etc.

The Art of (the) Meeting The Importance of Institutions Genius Loci: The Power of Venues

...headin‘ to book for nerds, furthermore for the open minded, ambitious, maybe even young people squeeze in space air to breath listen whitespace

high focus & deliberate decompression boots on the ground you and the world best practices encourage to make notes, even in the book!

message from the ivory tower& portion of streetwise relation to regular life and personal experiences (childhood, relationships, friendships) inspiration for good talks, fine words diving into life gestalten

afghanistan so schön, die heile Welt, vom Schreibtisch aus doch die Straße tickt anders

step outside, listen, shape

geh raus, hör zu, gestalte

Gestaltung Weiß/Raum geben Umfeld/msc zeigen Betrachter einbeziehen

Deutschland als weltweiter Innovationsführer Von Bill Gates

In den letzten drei Jahrzehnten haben sich Gesundheit

fünf Jahren werden dieses Jahr sterben – vor allem in är-

und Wohlbefinden der Menschen erheblich verbessert. Vor

meren Ländern und meist an Ursachen, die vermeidbar

allem in Entwicklungsländern haben wissenschaftlicher

gewesen wären. Hunderte Millionen andere Kinder wer-

Fortschritt und gemeinsame Anstrengungen von Regierun-

den weiterhin unnötig an Krankheiten und Mangelernäh-

gen extreme Armut, Kinder- und Müttersterblichkeit sowie

rung und den häufig dadurch entstehenden lebenslangen

die Häufigkeit von Krankheiten wie Tuberkulose und Ma-

kognitiven und physischen Beeinträchtigen leiden. Schät-

laria deutlich reduziert. Auch HIV ist heute kein Todesur-

zungen der Weltbank zufolge leben noch 750 Millionen

teil mehr. Mit einem 99-prozentigen Rückgang der Polio-

Menschen in extremer Armut – vor allem bäuerlich-länd-

Fälle steht die Welt kurz davor, eine der bedeutendsten

liche Familien in Subsahara- Afrika und Südasien. Das be-

Infektionskrankheiten auszurotten. Nach den Pocken ge-

deutet, dass sie mit umgerechnet weniger als 1,90 US-Dol-

schieht dies erst zum zweiten Mal.

lar pro Tag auskommen müssen.

An diesen Errungenschaften ist Deutschland maßgeblich

Die Weltgemeinschaft muss daher weiterhin und ver-

beteiligt. 2016 war es eines der wenigen Länder, die

stärkt auf Maßnahmen setzen, die sich als effektiv erwie-

0,7 Prozent oder mehr ihres Bruttonationaleinkommens

sen haben. Darüber hinaus müssen wir jedoch noch einen

für Entwicklungshilfe ausgaben. Obwohl dieses UN-Ziel

Schritt weitergehen. Wenn wir den Fortschritt beschleu-

seither knapp verfehlt wird, ist Deutschland in absoluten

nigen und die bestehenden Herausforderungen bewälti-

Zahlen das zweitwichtigste Geberland weltweit und

gen wollen, gilt es, weitere wissenschaftliche und techno-

kommt somit gleich nach den Vereinigten Staaten, deren

logische Durchbrüche zu erzielen und dafür zu sorgen,

Beitrag jedoch an der Wirtschaftsleistung gemessen

dass alle gleichermaßen vom Nutzen des Fortschritts pro-

wesentlich geringer ausfällt.

fitieren. Dabei können Deutschland und Europa als Ganzes einen wichtigen Beitrag leisten, wenn sie auf dem Weg

Auch anderweitig hat sich Deutschland für die weltweite

in eine bessere Welt im Jahr 2030 als Vorbilder agieren.

Gesundheit und Entwicklung als führend erwiesen. Im

Dazu braucht es politische Maßnahmen und Instrumente

Rahmen der G7-Präsidentschaft 2015 und der G20-Präsi-

zur Förderung von Forschung und Entwicklung, die Ant-

dentschaft 2017 machte

worten auf die weltweit drängendsten offenen Fragen und

750 Millionen Menschen leben in

sich Deutschland für den

Probleme geben.

extremer Armut – vor allem bäuer-

Kampf gegen gesundheit-

lich- ländliche Familien in Sub-

liche Bedrohungen wie

Warum wir Innovationen so dringend brauchen

sahara- Afrika und Südasien. Das

potenzielle Pandemien

Malaria etwa ist eine dringliche Frage, die die Bedeutung

bedeutet, dass sie mit umgerechnet

oder die zunehmende Re-

von Forschung und Entwicklung besonders gut veran-

weniger als 1,90 US-Dollar pro Tag

sistenz gegenüber lebens-

schaulicht. Diese parasitäre Erkrankung wird von Moski-

auskommen müssen.

wichtigen Medikamenten

tos übertragen und trat früher fast überall auf, auch in

wie Antibiotika stark. Au-

Südeuropa. Noch immer fordert Malaria viele Todesopfer:

ßerdem bewies es durch die Aufnahme von zahlreichen

Von den etwa 200 Millionen jährlich nachgewiesenen Fäl-

Asylbewerbern und Flüchtlingen seine Führungsstärke in

len (von denen im Übrigen 90 Prozent in Afrika auftreten)

der Weltgemeinschaft.

führen jedes Jahr 450 000 zum Tod. 70 Prozent der Opfer sind Kinder unter fünf Jahren.

Die humanitären Krisen, die hinter diesen Migrationsund Fluchtbewegungen stehen, erinnern uns jedoch da-

In den letzten 15 Jahren haben wir bedeutende Fort-

ran, dass noch viel Arbeit vor uns liegt. Immer noch müs-

schritte im Kampf gegen Malaria gemacht, jedoch gerät

sen frappierende Ungerechtigkeiten beseitigt werden,

diese Dynamik gerade ins Stocken. Zwar verfügen wir

damit die Gesundheit und das Wohlbefinden der Ärmsten

über hocheffiziente Instrumente, doch brauchen wir aus

verbessert werden und unsere Welt eine stabilere und

unterschiedlichen Gründen neue. Zuallererst, da der

friedvollere wird. Geschätzte fünf Millionen Kinder unter

Kampf gegen Malaria ein gnadenloser Wettlauf gegen die

»Deutschland kann seine Rolle als Forschungsund Innovationspionier im Bereich Gesundheit und Entwicklung weiter stärken.«

207

Deutschland als weltweiter Innovationsführer Von Bill Gates

In den letzten drei Jahrzehnten haben sich Gesundheit

fünf Jahren werden dieses Jahr sterben – vor allem in är-

und Wohlbefinden der Menschen erheblich verbessert. Vor

meren Ländern und meist an Ursachen, die vermeidbar

allem in Entwicklungsländern haben wissenschaftlicher

gewesen wären. Hunderte Millionen andere Kinder wer-

Fortschritt und gemeinsame Anstrengungen von Regierun-

den weiterhin unnötig an Krankheiten und Mangelernäh-

gen extreme Armut, Kinder- und Müttersterblichkeit sowie

rung und den häufig dadurch entstehenden lebenslangen

die Häufigkeit von Krankheiten wie Tuberkulose und Ma-

kognitiven und physischen Beeinträchtigen leiden. Schät-

laria deutlich reduziert. Auch HIV ist heute kein Todesur-

zungen der Weltbank zufolge leben noch 750 Millionen

teil mehr. Mit einem 99-prozentigen Rückgang der Polio-

Menschen in extremer Armut – vor allem bäuerlich-länd-

Fälle steht die Welt kurz davor, eine der bedeutendsten

liche Familien in Subsahara- Afrika und Südasien. Das be-

Infektionskrankheiten auszurotten. Nach den Pocken ge-

deutet, dass sie mit umgerechnet weniger als 1,90 US-Dol-

schieht dies erst zum zweiten Mal.

lar pro Tag auskommen müssen.

An diesen Errungenschaften ist Deutschland maßgeblich

Die Weltgemeinschaft muss daher weiterhin und ver-

beteiligt. 2016 war es eines der wenigen Länder, die

stärkt auf Maßnahmen setzen, die sich als effektiv erwie-

0,7 Prozent oder mehr ihres Bruttonationaleinkommens

sen haben. Darüber hinaus müssen wir jedoch noch einen

für Entwicklungshilfe ausgaben. Obwohl dieses UN-Ziel

Schritt weitergehen. Wenn wir den Fortschritt beschleu-

seither knapp verfehlt wird, ist Deutschland in absoluten

nigen und die bestehenden Herausforderungen bewälti-

Zahlen das zweitwichtigste Geberland weltweit und

gen wollen, gilt es, weitere wissenschaftliche und techno-

kommt somit gleich nach den Vereinigten Staaten, deren

logische Durchbrüche zu erzielen und dafür zu sorgen,

Beitrag jedoch an der Wirtschaftsleistung gemessen

dass alle gleichermaßen vom Nutzen des Fortschritts pro-

wesentlich geringer ausfällt.

fitieren. Dabei können Deutschland und Europa als Ganzes einen wichtigen Beitrag leisten, wenn sie auf dem Weg

Auch anderweitig hat sich Deutschland für die weltweite

in eine bessere Welt im Jahr 2030 als Vorbilder agieren.

Gesundheit und Entwicklung als führend erwiesen. Im

Dazu braucht es politische Maßnahmen und Instrumente

Rahmen der G7-Präsidentschaft 2015 und der G20-Präsi-

zur Förderung von Forschung und Entwicklung, die Ant-

dentschaft 2017 machte

worten auf die weltweit drängendsten offenen Fragen und

750 Millionen Menschen leben in

sich Deutschland für den

Probleme geben.

extremer Armut – vor allem bäuer-

Kampf gegen gesundheit-

lich- ländliche Familien in Sub-

liche Bedrohungen wie

Warum wir Innovationen so dringend brauchen

sahara- Afrika und Südasien. Das

potenzielle Pandemien

Malaria etwa ist eine dringliche Frage, die die Bedeutung

bedeutet, dass sie mit umgerechnet

oder die zunehmende Re-

von Forschung und Entwicklung besonders gut veran-

weniger als 1,90 US-Dollar pro Tag

sistenz gegenüber lebens-

schaulicht. Diese parasitäre Erkrankung wird von Moski-

auskommen müssen.

wichtigen Medikamenten

tos übertragen und trat früher fast überall auf, auch in

wie Antibiotika stark. Au-

Südeuropa. Noch immer fordert Malaria viele Todesopfer:

ßerdem bewies es durch die Aufnahme von zahlreichen

Von den etwa 200 Millionen jährlich nachgewiesenen Fäl-

Asylbewerbern und Flüchtlingen seine Führungsstärke in

len (von denen im Übrigen 90 Prozent in Afrika auftreten)

der Weltgemeinschaft.

führen jedes Jahr 450 000 zum Tod. 70 Prozent der Opfer sind Kinder unter fünf Jahren.

Die humanitären Krisen, die hinter diesen Migrationsund Fluchtbewegungen stehen, erinnern uns jedoch da-

In den letzten 15 Jahren haben wir bedeutende Fort-

ran, dass noch viel Arbeit vor uns liegt. Immer noch müs-

schritte im Kampf gegen Malaria gemacht, jedoch gerät

sen frappierende Ungerechtigkeiten beseitigt werden,

diese Dynamik gerade ins Stocken. Zwar verfügen wir

damit die Gesundheit und das Wohlbefinden der Ärmsten

über hocheffiziente Instrumente, doch brauchen wir aus

verbessert werden und unsere Welt eine stabilere und

unterschiedlichen Gründen neue. Zuallererst, da der

friedvollere wird. Geschätzte fünf Millionen Kinder unter

Kampf gegen Malaria ein gnadenloser Wettlauf gegen die

Deutschland als weltweiter Innovationsführer Von Bill Gates

In den letzten drei Jahrzehnten haben sich Gesundheit

fünf Jahren werden dieses Jahr sterben – vor allem in är-

und Wohlbefinden der Menschen erheblich verbessert. Vor

meren Ländern und meist an Ursachen, die vermeidbar

allem in Entwicklungsländern haben wissenschaftlicher

gewesen wären. Hunderte Millionen andere Kinder wer-

Fortschritt und gemeinsame Anstrengungen von Regierun-

den weiterhin unnötig an Krankheiten und Mangelernäh-

gen extreme Armut, Kinder- und Müttersterblichkeit sowie

rung und den häufig dadurch entstehenden lebenslangen

die Häufigkeit von Krankheiten wie Tuberkulose und Ma-

kognitiven und physischen Beeinträchtigen leiden. Schät-

laria deutlich reduziert. Auch HIV ist heute kein Todesur-

zungen der Weltbank zufolge leben noch 750 Millionen

teil mehr. Mit einem 99-prozentigen Rückgang der Polio-

Menschen in extremer Armut – vor allem bäuerlich-länd-

Fälle steht die Welt kurz davor, eine der bedeutendsten

liche Familien in Subsahara- Afrika und Südasien. Das be-

Infektionskrankheiten auszurotten. Nach den Pocken ge-

deutet, dass sie mit umgerechnet weniger als 1,90 US-Dol-

schieht dies erst zum zweiten Mal.

lar pro Tag auskommen müssen.

An diesen Errungenschaften ist Deutschland maßgeblich

Die Weltgemeinschaft muss daher weiterhin und ver-

beteiligt. 2016 war es eines der wenigen Länder, die

stärkt auf Maßnahmen setzen, die sich als effektiv erwie-

0,7 Prozent oder mehr ihres Bruttonationaleinkommens

sen haben. Darüber hinaus müssen wir jedoch noch einen

für Entwicklungshilfe ausgaben. Obwohl dieses UN-Ziel

Schritt weitergehen. Wenn wir den Fortschritt beschleu-

seither knapp verfehlt wird, ist Deutschland in absoluten

nigen und die bestehenden Herausforderungen bewälti-

Zahlen das zweitwichtigste Geberland weltweit und

gen wollen, gilt es, weitere wissenschaftliche und techno-

kommt somit gleich nach den Vereinigten Staaten, deren

logische Durchbrüche zu erzielen und dafür zu sorgen,

Beitrag jedoch an der Wirtschaftsleistung gemessen

dass alle gleichermaßen vom Nutzen des Fortschritts pro-

wesentlich geringer ausfällt.

fitieren. Dabei können Deutschland und Europa als Ganzes einen wichtigen Beitrag leisten, wenn sie auf dem Weg

Auch anderweitig hat sich Deutschland für die weltweite

in eine bessere Welt im Jahr 2030 als Vorbilder agieren.

Gesundheit und Entwicklung als führend erwiesen. Im

Dazu braucht es politische Maßnahmen und Instrumente

Rahmen der G7-Präsidentschaft 2015 und der G20-Präsi-

zur Förderung von Forschung und Entwicklung, die Ant-

dentschaft 2017 machte

worten auf die weltweit drängendsten offenen Fragen und

750 Millionen Menschen leben in

sich Deutschland für den

Probleme geben.

extremer Armut – vor allem bäuer-

Kampf gegen gesundheit-

lich- ländliche Familien in Sub-

liche Bedrohungen wie

Warum wir Innovationen so dringend brauchen

sahara- Afrika und Südasien. Das

potenzielle Pandemien

Malaria etwa ist eine dringliche Frage, die die Bedeutung

bedeutet, dass sie mit umgerechnet

oder die zunehmende Re-

von Forschung und Entwicklung besonders gut veran-

weniger als 1,90 US-Dollar pro Tag

sistenz gegenüber lebens-

schaulicht. Diese parasitäre Erkrankung wird von Moski-

auskommen müssen.

wichtigen Medikamenten

tos übertragen und trat früher fast überall auf, auch in

wie Antibiotika stark. Au-

Südeuropa. Noch immer fordert Malaria viele Todesopfer:

ßerdem bewies es durch die Aufnahme von zahlreichen

Von den etwa 200 Millionen jährlich nachgewiesenen Fäl-

Asylbewerbern und Flüchtlingen seine Führungsstärke in

len (von denen im Übrigen 90 Prozent in Afrika auftreten)

der Weltgemeinschaft.

führen jedes Jahr 450 000 zum Tod. 70 Prozent der Opfer sind Kinder unter fünf Jahren.

Die humanitären Krisen, die hinter diesen Migrationsund Fluchtbewegungen stehen, erinnern uns jedoch da-

In den letzten 15 Jahren haben wir bedeutende Fort-

ran, dass noch viel Arbeit vor uns liegt. Immer noch müs-

schritte im Kampf gegen Malaria gemacht, jedoch gerät

sen frappierende Ungerechtigkeiten beseitigt werden,

diese Dynamik gerade ins Stocken. Zwar verfügen wir

damit die Gesundheit und das Wohlbefinden der Ärmsten

über hocheffiziente Instrumente, doch brauchen wir aus

verbessert werden und unsere Welt eine stabilere und

unterschiedlichen Gründen neue. Zuallererst, da der

friedvollere wird. Geschätzte fünf Millionen Kinder unter

Kampf gegen Malaria ein gnadenloser Wettlauf gegen die

»Deutschland kann seine Rolle als Forschungsund Innovationspionier im Bereich Gesundheit und Entwicklung weiter stärken.«

207

Deutschland als weltweiter Innovationsführer Von Bill Gates

In den letzten drei Jahrzehnten haben sich Gesundheit

fünf Jahren werden dieses Jahr sterben – vor allem in är-

und Wohlbefinden der Menschen erheblich verbessert. Vor

meren Ländern und meist an Ursachen, die vermeidbar

allem in Entwicklungsländern haben wissenschaftlicher

gewesen wären. Hunderte Millionen andere Kinder wer-

Fortschritt und gemeinsame Anstrengungen von Regierun-

den weiterhin unnötig an Krankheiten und Mangelernäh-

gen extreme Armut, Kinder- und Müttersterblichkeit sowie

rung und den häufig dadurch entstehenden lebenslangen

die Häufigkeit von Krankheiten wie Tuberkulose und Ma-

kognitiven und physischen Beeinträchtigen leiden. Schät-

laria deutlich reduziert. Auch HIV ist heute kein Todesur-

zungen der Weltbank zufolge leben noch 750 Millionen

teil mehr. Mit einem 99-prozentigen Rückgang der Polio-

Menschen in extremer Armut – vor allem bäuerlich-länd-

Fälle steht die Welt kurz davor, eine der bedeutendsten

liche Familien in Subsahara- Afrika und Südasien. Das be-

Infektionskrankheiten auszurotten. Nach den Pocken ge-

deutet, dass sie mit umgerechnet weniger als 1,90 US-Dol-

schieht dies erst zum zweiten Mal.

lar pro Tag auskommen müssen.

An diesen Errungenschaften ist Deutschland maßgeblich

Die Weltgemeinschaft muss daher weiterhin und ver-

beteiligt. 2016 war es eines der wenigen Länder, die

stärkt auf Maßnahmen setzen, die sich als effektiv erwie-

0,7 Prozent oder mehr ihres Bruttonationaleinkommens

sen haben. Darüber hinaus müssen wir jedoch noch einen

für Entwicklungshilfe ausgaben. Obwohl dieses UN-Ziel

Schritt weitergehen. Wenn wir den Fortschritt beschleu-

seither knapp verfehlt wird, ist Deutschland in absoluten

nigen und die bestehenden Herausforderungen bewälti-

Zahlen das zweitwichtigste Geberland weltweit und

gen wollen, gilt es, weitere wissenschaftliche und techno-

kommt somit gleich nach den Vereinigten Staaten, deren

logische Durchbrüche zu erzielen und dafür zu sorgen,

Beitrag jedoch an der Wirtschaftsleistung gemessen

dass alle gleichermaßen vom Nutzen des Fortschritts pro-

wesentlich geringer ausfällt.

fitieren. Dabei können Deutschland und Europa als Ganzes einen wichtigen Beitrag leisten, wenn sie auf dem Weg

Auch anderweitig hat sich Deutschland für die weltweite

in eine bessere Welt im Jahr 2030 als Vorbilder agieren.

Gesundheit und Entwicklung als führend erwiesen. Im

Dazu braucht es politische Maßnahmen und Instrumente

Rahmen der G7-Präsidentschaft 2015 und der G20-Präsi-

zur Förderung von Forschung und Entwicklung, die Ant-

dentschaft 2017 machte

worten auf die weltweit drängendsten offenen Fragen und

750 Millionen Menschen leben in

sich Deutschland für den

Probleme geben.

extremer Armut – vor allem bäuer-

Kampf gegen gesundheit-

lich- ländliche Familien in Sub-

liche Bedrohungen wie

Warum wir Innovationen so dringend brauchen

sahara- Afrika und Südasien. Das

potenzielle Pandemien

Malaria etwa ist eine dringliche Frage, die die Bedeutung

bedeutet, dass sie mit umgerechnet

oder die zunehmende Re-

von Forschung und Entwicklung besonders gut veran-

weniger als 1,90 US-Dollar pro Tag

sistenz gegenüber lebens-

schaulicht. Diese parasitäre Erkrankung wird von Moski-

auskommen müssen.

wichtigen Medikamenten

tos übertragen und trat früher fast überall auf, auch in

wie Antibiotika stark. Au-

Südeuropa. Noch immer fordert Malaria viele Todesopfer:

ßerdem bewies es durch die Aufnahme von zahlreichen

Von den etwa 200 Millionen jährlich nachgewiesenen Fäl-

Asylbewerbern und Flüchtlingen seine Führungsstärke in

len (von denen im Übrigen 90 Prozent in Afrika auftreten)

der Weltgemeinschaft.

führen jedes Jahr 450 000 zum Tod. 70 Prozent der Opfer sind Kinder unter fünf Jahren.

Die humanitären Krisen, die hinter diesen Migrationsund Fluchtbewegungen stehen, erinnern uns jedoch da-

In den letzten 15 Jahren haben wir bedeutende Fort-

ran, dass noch viel Arbeit vor uns liegt. Immer noch müs-

schritte im Kampf gegen Malaria gemacht, jedoch gerät

sen frappierende Ungerechtigkeiten beseitigt werden,

diese Dynamik gerade ins Stocken. Zwar verfügen wir

damit die Gesundheit und das Wohlbefinden der Ärmsten

über hocheffiziente Instrumente, doch brauchen wir aus

verbessert werden und unsere Welt eine stabilere und

unterschiedlichen Gründen neue. Zuallererst, da der

friedvollere wird. Geschätzte fünf Millionen Kinder unter

Kampf gegen Malaria ein gnadenloser Wettlauf gegen die

»Deutschland kann seine Rolle als Forschungsund Innovationspionier im Bereich Gesundheit und Entwicklung weiter stärken.«

207

Knowledge Production

How We Must Act — Education (knowledge incorporated into people) and

societal significance of scientific knowledge and the

technology are the two most important determinants

connections from science to art and literature. It is in

of future social developments. Policy programmes

this domain that its global and historical significance

must focus on these two core aspects.

may be seen; however, these days are long gone when looking at present-day German universities. There-

— The inclusion revolutions of the eighteenth to the

fore, it should be a minimum goal until 2030 that three

twenty-first century (democratic revolution, educa-

or four German universities again take a place among

tional revolution, inclusion of the entire population in

the twenty to thirty best universities in the world. To-

economic activity) brought about modern society.

day, we are far from this goal. It needs significant polit-

When it is consistently applied to all function systems

ical efforts to achieve this. The same urgency of re-

the concept of inclusion is highly important and this is

forms applies to schools. Only if these conditions are

not only true from a descriptive and analytical point of

fulfilled, Germany can meet future demands on edu-

view. Inclusion is at the same time suitable as a nor-

cation and technology.

mative concept for shaping policies. Inclusion should be a key political postulate, spanning across all policy areas.

— The ‘professionalisation of everyone’ aptly describes modern society. Thanks to its system of professional and occupational education, Germany is closer to

— The university is the control centre of societal knowl-

reaching its goal here than is the case in the academic

edge. In a historical understanding, Germany can be

arena. But this position calls for continuous work on

seen as the country that has more than any other

quality to be maintained.

country relied on academic institutions, science, the

people who make a profession from this evaluative knowl-

One can, in turn, react to this new social inequality, which

edge but who do not belong to the profession that they are

is founded on the basis of equality of access to knowledge,

evaluating. This too is an aspect of the ‘professionalisa-

and mount an uprising of the ignorant against the knowl-

tion of everyone’. If everyone is a professional, there are

edge carriers, as well as a rebellion of the public against

no good reasons why somebody should be exempt from

the elite15, based on the universally shared expectation of

controls.

inclusion16. Today’s populism is in one respect exactly that, a public uprising, an uprising of non-knowledge

Knowledge and Inequality

against the privileges of knowledge.

In a significant way, knowledge is an equaliser, a resource that can be taken ownership of. On the basis of knowledge that one has acquired and is able to manage, one can then

PROF. DR RUDOLF STICHWEH (66) is a sociologist and Direc-

reclaim equality to those others who previously possessed

tor of the Forum Internationale Wissenschaft (FIW) of the Uni-

a superior status within society. But at the same time, the

versity of Bonn, which does research on the political, scientific,

ubiquity of the relevance of knowledge and the high eco-

and religious systems in present-day world society from a com-

nomic premium paid to those who acquired relevant

parative perspective. As a theorist, he continues the tradition of

knowledge, leads to an inversion to a certain extent in the

sociological systems theory, which builds on the work of Talcott

function of knowledge. In individual cases, knowledge al-

Parsons and Niklas Luhmann. His macrosociological work fo-

ways remains an equaliser, an opportunity for advance-

cuses on the structural history of human societies in the last

ment that can be made use of. But from a macrosocial per-

100,000 years, while trying to connect these long-term per-

spective, these advantages and mechanisms of knowledge

spectives with a theory of the modern functionally differentiat-

become the main cause of increasing social inequality.

ed world society of the past three hundred years.

205

what is your conviction

Knowledge Production

How We Must Act — Education (knowledge incorporated into people) and

societal significance of scientific knowledge and the

technology are the two most important determinants

connections from science to art and literature. It is in

of future social developments. Policy programmes

this domain that its global and historical significance

must focus on these two core aspects.

may be seen; however, these days are long gone when looking at present-day German universities. There-

— The inclusion revolutions of the eighteenth to the

fore, it should be a minimum goal until 2030 that three

twenty-first century (democratic revolution, educa-

or four German universities again take a place among

tional revolution, inclusion of the entire population in

the twenty to thirty best universities in the world. To-

economic activity) brought about modern society.

day, we are far from this goal. It needs significant polit-

When it is consistently applied to all function systems

ical efforts to achieve this. The same urgency of re-

the concept of inclusion is highly important and this is

forms applies to schools. Only if these conditions are

not only true from a descriptive and analytical point of

fulfilled, Germany can meet future demands on edu-

view. Inclusion is at the same time suitable as a nor-

cation and technology.

mative concept for shaping policies. Inclusion should be a key political postulate, spanning across all policy areas.

— The ‘professionalisation of everyone’ aptly describes modern society. Thanks to its system of professional and occupational education, Germany is closer to

— The university is the control centre of societal knowl-

reaching its goal here than is the case in the academic

edge. In a historical understanding, Germany can be

arena. But this position calls for continuous work on

seen as the country that has more than any other

quality to be maintained.

country relied on academic institutions, science, the

people who make a profession from this evaluative knowl-

One can, in turn, react to this new social inequality, which

edge but who do not belong to the profession that they are

is founded on the basis of equality of access to knowledge,

evaluating. This too is an aspect of the ‘professionalisa-

and mount an uprising of the ignorant against the knowl-

tion of everyone’. If everyone is a professional, there are

edge carriers, as well as a rebellion of the public against

no good reasons why somebody should be exempt from

the elite15, based on the universally shared expectation of

controls.

inclusion16. Today’s populism is in one respect exactly that, a public uprising, an uprising of non-knowledge

Knowledge and Inequality

against the privileges of knowledge.

In a significant way, knowledge is an equaliser, a resource that can be taken ownership of. On the basis of knowledge that one has acquired and is able to manage, one can then

PROF. DR RUDOLF STICHWEH (66) is a sociologist and Direc-

reclaim equality to those others who previously possessed

tor of the Forum Internationale Wissenschaft (FIW) of the Uni-

a superior status within society. But at the same time, the

versity of Bonn, which does research on the political, scientific,

ubiquity of the relevance of knowledge and the high eco-

and religious systems in present-day world society from a com-

nomic premium paid to those who acquired relevant

parative perspective. As a theorist, he continues the tradition of

knowledge, leads to an inversion to a certain extent in the

sociological systems theory, which builds on the work of Talcott

function of knowledge. In individual cases, knowledge al-

Parsons and Niklas Luhmann. His macrosociological work fo-

ways remains an equaliser, an opportunity for advance-

cuses on the structural history of human societies in the last

ment that can be made use of. But from a macrosocial per-

100,000 years, while trying to connect these long-term per-

spective, these advantages and mechanisms of knowledge

spectives with a theory of the modern functionally differentiat-

become the main cause of increasing social inequality.

ed world society of the past three hundred years.

205

Autorenseiten bei den aktuellen Textlängen 75 Doppelseiten oder 150 Seiten und weiter?

Bilder?

Zitate?

Democracy Returns to International Relations Nathalie Tocci

Democracy has made a comeback to international relations. With the confrontation between the United States and China, as well as Russia, reinterpreted as one between political systems and ideologies, democracy and authoritarianism have re-become dominant signifiers of international relations.

What does it mean for foreign policy?

Both during and especially after the end of the Cold War, values were at the forefront of US and European foreign policy. The US portrayed itself as a force for good in the world, with soft power as an integral component of its foreign policy influence, and an indispensable complement to its unmatched military capabilities. Europe too prided itself as a civilian and normative power in global affairs.

Those were the days of the liberal international order and the end of history.

By the 2010s, values started exiting the scene. The global financial crisis, the rise of multipolarity and the return of geostrategic rivalry spoke about the rise of powers that either openly defied liberal democratic values or just refuted the ideological and material hegemony of the West.

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq followed by the burial of the “responsibility to protect” in Libya eroded Western support for military interventions. The far from stellar outcomes of the color revolutions in Eastern Europe, not to mention the Arab uprisings in North Africa and the Middle East, pointed to an entrenchment of authoritarianism. And the surge of nationalist populism in the West, including the election of Donald Trump, the Brexit referendum, and the authoritarian bents of the Polish and Hungarian governments spoke of a crisis of democracy, and spurred the sidelining of liberal values in Western foreign policy.

Now democracy is back to foreign affairs. Under the Biden administration, the strategic rivalry with China is no longer framed in transactional Trumpian terms and reduced to sectoral disputes, be it about tariffs, 5G, maritime security, cyber or arms control. These tensions and disagreements are grouped together under a common ideational umbrella: it is a conflict between political systems and ideologies. The political and ideological overtone that the US-China confrontation is acquiring does not exclude the existence of other power centers, of which the EU and Russia are two. However, these, while claiming their au-

tonomous “right to choose”, will be drawn to one side or the other because of the political values they represent.

The growing transatlantic convergence centered on the reassertion of liberal democratic values, on full display during President Biden’s first trip to Europe, indicates the direction of travel.

A return of values to the forefront of international relations does not signal a return to the past, however. Rather than the promotion of such values at the height of the liberal international order, liberal democracies are foremost concerned with their protection these days. This is where two apparently disconnected concepts find common cause: when President Biden talks about a “foreign policy for the middle class” and Europeans talk about “strategic autonomy”, deep down they have similar concerns in mind. Both goals speak to an international context in which external players that stand for different values seek to undermine liberal democratic ones in the West. Be this through traditional military means or, far more often, through hybrid security tactics and the weaponization of the economy, liberal democracies have to protect themselves from external interference. Failing to do so would hamper the security, rights and welfare of their citizens, and this would feed illiberal, undemocratic and nationalist forces in the West itself. In fact, there is an implicit conceptual link being drawn between the rise of authoritarianism worldwide and the appeal of illiberal and undemocratic forces at home.

The protection agenda inherent in European strategic autonomy and a US foreign policy for the middle class starts at home. It means strengthening human rights and rule of law, addressing inequalities; investing in research, innovation and industrial capabilities; and ensuring the safety and security of citizens. It means proving that liberal democracy delivers. On the flip side of the coin, it requires deterring and constraining assertively all those external attempts at interference and destabilization.

The “protection agenda” is ambitious and complex, but

“...proving that liberal democracy delivers.”

conceptually it is quite clear. The conceptual difficulty arises when we shift from the protection to the promotion of values. The foreign policy instruments developed for value promotion belong to a past era. Humanitarian interventions, sanctions, development and trade conditionality, and the socialization of elites through diplomacy and civil society support worked best at the height of the liberal international order. Applying those instruments in the same way still works in cases like Georgia or Ukraine, but in most others, it is either not possible or not as effective. One only needs to think of diverse cases such as Afghanistan, Belarus or Turkey to highlight the point.

We should welcome values back to the Western foreign policy script. Their crude sidelining, when the international debate focused almost exclusively on geopolitical

rivalry and transactional deals, brought liberal democracies to the brink of losing their soul. A healthy protection agenda, focused on rights, rules, equality, security and prosperity at home and in the multilateral system, is key.

Far more difficult is the reinvention of an effective value promotion agenda in a profoundly transformed world. It will require charting the way between principles and pragmatism, seeking to reconcile the apparent contradiction between the two. Saving the soul of liberal democracies will require as much protection as the reinvention of value promotion in international relations.

Ivan Krastev Founder and President of...

favorable terms, inevitable later. This warns not against over-reaction but against inaction.

But how should we judge if we are back to 1914 or to 1938?

How should we decide whether to fear an accidental war or destructive appeasement?

The historical comparison we choose very much depends on the history books we read at the moment. And what we read, as we have seen, is pre-determined by the historical anniversary that we are currently celebrating. To pretend to consult history in 2014 means to go back to the outbreak of the Great War. In this year any historical comparison other than the reference of WWI does not have a chance to be heard.

If Russia had decided to annex Crimea in 2038, the reaction of the west for good or bad could have been very different.

So, be aware what kind of books policy makers read or what kind of historical movies do they watch and never forget that historical anniversaries very often define what do we read or watch.

Diplomacy as the Art of Making the Right Historical Analogies Ivan Krastev

Democracy has made a comeback to international relations. With the confrontation between the United States and China, as well as Russia, reinterpreted as one between political systems and ideologies, democracy and authoritarianism have re-become dominant signifiers of international relations.

“How can we know the dancer from the dance”- asks William Butler Yeats and his question is particularly relevant for diplomacy. Is not diplomacy the art of making the right historical analogies?

Ever since Russia’s annexation of Crimea the question that haunts me is, does the fact that the annexation happened in 2014 the year Europe was commemorating the 100s anniversary of the World War I, defined the nature of Western response? Could it be that Americans and Europeans have fallen victim to a wrong historical analogy, and that the flood of books and films produced this year to mark the anniversary of the Great War have made them believe that what we should fear is not inaction but over-reaction?

Historical anniversaries are like carpet-bombing. They throw upon us “teachable lessons” in volumes of historical research, novels, conferences, films and exhibitions and demand unconditional surrender. Is it not just that these books we all read or at least read about fuel particular fears and make certain future developments look more real than others.

The power of historical anniversaries is so real that one can easily imagine that if a mass political protest has erupted in Moscow in the year 2017 (centenary of the Bolshevik revolution), we would have been tempted to believe that history has yet again changed its course and our view of what is happening on the streets would be dramatically shaped by the books about Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky that will top the bestsellers lists.

In their classic study, Thinking in Time, American political scientists Richard Neustadt and Ernest May have revealed that the choice of the proper historical comparison is at the heart of any crisis decision-making. Policy makers need history to make sense of the present.

At the time of the Cuban missile crisis the most important choice that President Kennedy had to make was the choice of proper historical analogy. He had to choose between a “Suez”, “Pearl Harbor” or “July Crisis “1914 analogy. The choice of comparison pre-determined his choice of strategy. Betting on “Suez” would have meant that Russian missiles were a game of distraction and the US

should be ready for Soviet actions somewhere in Europe.

If the Soviets were preparing a “Pearl Harbor” type of surprise, Americans had to choose to strike first.

Kennedy opted to view the Cuban Missile crisis in terms of the Great Powers politics of the summer of 1914 and he was determined not to make the mistakes that were made then. In a conversation with his brother Robert Kennedy the President clearly explained the logic of his choice and the sources of his decision. It was Barbara Tuchman’s popular book The Guns of August that shaped his opinion. “I am not going to follow a course”, confessed President Kennedy, “which will allow anyone to write a comparable book about this time, ‘The Missiles of October’ ”.

Tuchman’s book was published in 1962, on the eve of the 50 years anniversary of the outbreak of the First World War. If it was not for the coming anniversary, she could have written a different book and the course of the Cold War could have been different. If it was not for the imminent anniversary, the President could have decided not to read the book.

When confronted with foreign aggression and the violation of the borders of a sovereign state, European policy makers have to choose between two historical comparisons only: “July 1914” or “Munich 1938”. Neither analogy represents history as such; both recall a lesson instead, but different lessons.

The story of “July 1914” is the story of an accidental war.

The popular belief is that the war was caused by misunderstandings, miscommunications and the lack of trust between the Great Powers. In the collective imagination of Europe, the Great War represents “the collective suicide of Europe”.

The lesson of “July 1914” is a simple one: beware of over-reacting and give a chance to diplomacy. As is sometimes said, you might have decided to be a pacifist after the Second World War, but you were obliged to be a pacifist after the First World War. “Munich 1938” teaches us a different lesson. It teaches us that capitulating to the demands of a territorially aggressive dictatorship does not bring peace. Although it does avoid a war in the short term, it makes a larger war, on less

Ivan Krastev Founder and President of...

favorable terms, inevitable later. This warns not against over-reaction but against inaction.

But how should we judge if we are back to 1914 or to 1938?

How should we decide whether to fear an accidental war or destructive appeasement?

The historical comparison we choose very much depends on the history books we read at the moment. And what we read, as we have seen, is pre-determined by the historical anniversary that we are currently celebrating. To pretend to consult history in 2014 means to go back to the outbreak of the Great War. In this year any historical comparison other than the reference of WWI does not have a chance to be heard.

If Russia had decided to annex Crimea in 2038, the reaction of the west for good or bad could have been very different.

So, be aware what kind of books policy makers read or what kind of historical movies do they watch and never forget that historical anniversaries very often define what do we read or watch.

Diplomacy as the Art of Making the Right Historical Analogies Ivan Krastev

Democracy has made a comeback to international relations. With the confrontation between the United States and China, as well as Russia, reinterpreted as one between political systems and ideologies, democracy and authoritarianism have re-become dominant signifiers of international relations.

“How can we know the dancer from the dance”- asks William Butler Yeats and his question is particularly relevant for diplomacy. Is not diplomacy the art of making the right historical analogies?

Ever since Russia’s annexation of Crimea the question that haunts me is, does the fact that the annexation happened in 2014 the year Europe was commemorating the 100s anniversary of the World War I, defined the nature of Western response? Could it be that Americans and Europeans have fallen victim to a wrong historical analogy, and that the flood of books and films produced this year to mark the anniversary of the Great War have made them believe that what we should fear is not inaction but over-reaction?

Historical anniversaries are like carpet-bombing. They throw upon us “teachable lessons” in volumes of historical research, novels, conferences, films and exhibitions and demand unconditional surrender. Is it not just that these books we all read or at least read about fuel particular fears and make certain future developments look more real than others.

The power of historical anniversaries is so real that one can easily imagine that if a mass political protest has erupted in Moscow in the year 2017 (centenary of the Bolshevik revolution), we would have been tempted to believe that history has yet again changed its course and our view of what is happening on the streets would be dramatically shaped by the books about Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky that will top the bestsellers lists.

In their classic study, Thinking in Time, American political scientists Richard Neustadt and Ernest May have revealed that the choice of the proper historical comparison is at the heart of any crisis decision-making. Policy makers need history to make sense of the present.

At the time of the Cuban missile crisis the most important choice that President Kennedy had to make was the choice of proper historical analogy. He had to choose between a “Suez”, “Pearl Harbor” or “July Crisis “1914 analogy. The choice of comparison pre-determined his choice of strategy. Betting on “Suez” would have meant that Russian missiles were a game of distraction and the US

should be ready for Soviet actions somewhere in Europe.

If the Soviets were preparing a “Pearl Harbor” type of surprise, Americans had to choose to strike first.

Kennedy opted to view the Cuban Missile crisis in terms of the Great Powers politics of the summer of 1914 and he was determined not to make the mistakes that were made then. In a conversation with his brother Robert Kennedy the President clearly explained the logic of his choice and the sources of his decision. It was Barbara Tuchman’s popular book The Guns of August that shaped his opinion. “I am not going to follow a course”, confessed President Kennedy, “which will allow anyone to write a comparable book about this time, ‘The Missiles of October’ ”.

Tuchman’s book was published in 1962, on the eve of the 50 years anniversary of the outbreak of the First World War. If it was not for the coming anniversary, she could have written a different book and the course of the Cold War could have been different. If it was not for the imminent anniversary, the President could have decided not to read the book.

When confronted with foreign aggression and the violation of the borders of a sovereign state, European policy makers have to choose between two historical comparisons only: “July 1914” or “Munich 1938”. Neither analogy represents history as such; both recall a lesson instead, but different lessons.

The story of “July 1914” is the story of an accidental war.

The popular belief is that the war was caused by misunderstandings, miscommunications and the lack of trust between the Great Powers. In the collective imagination of Europe, the Great War represents “the collective suicide of Europe”.

The lesson of “July 1914” is a simple one: beware of over-reacting and give a chance to diplomacy. As is sometimes said, you might have decided to be a pacifist after the Second World War, but you were obliged to be a pacifist after the First World War. “Munich 1938” teaches us a different lesson. It teaches us that capitulating to the demands of a territorially aggressive dictatorship does not bring peace. Although it does avoid a war in the short term, it makes a larger war, on less

Diplomacy, War and Leadership James Stavridis

Democracy has made a comeback to international relations. With the confrontation between the United States and China, as well as Russia, reinterpreted as one between political systems and ideologies, democracy and authoritarianism have re-become dominant signifiers of international relations.

I recently published my tenth book, but my first work of fiction. It is entitled “2034: A Novel of the Next World War,” and is set about a decade from now. The book chronicles how the US and China could stumble into a global conflict that would be in the interests of neither nation. It is an imagined colossal failure of the norms of international law and diplomacy that we all respect and discuss annually at the Munich Security Conference.

People often ask me how I came to write a bestselling novel about a war in the future. The short answer is that I decided to write about the future because I was thinking about the past. I was focused on the rich body of Cold War literature that helped us all imagine how terrible a war between the US and Soviet Union would have been. Movies like “Dr. Strangelove” and “Fail Safe” alongside novels such as “On the Beach” and “The Third World War” presented doomsday scenarios. I believe they helped deter that war.

But today, the US and China have no such comparative body of literature, either in film or novel. Our collective imagination is failing us, and the nations feel at times as though they are sleepwalking to war. Disputes surrounding Taiwan, the South China Sea, human rights, cybersecurity, 5G networks, trade, and tariffs are all too real.

Much as the economies of Europe were intertwined just over a hundred years ago, the US and Chinese financial systems are highly interconnected today. But that interconnection did not stop an assassin’s bullet in Sarajevo in August 1914 from “turning out the lights” in Europe.

Militaries will always prepare for war with great energy and determination. Today both the US military and the People’s Liberation Army are doing so, expending vast amounts of resources to build global navies, hypersonic cruise missiles, military space systems, advanced unmanned vehicles, artificial intelligence capabilities and elite special forces units. As those militaries come into almost daily contact in the contested waters of the South China Sea, the likelihood for a miscalculation – a 21st cen-

tury version of the assassin’s bullet from 1914 – is rising inexorably.

What I learned as SACEUR, is that there must be a coherent linkage between military capability and diplomatic activity. Some of the key tactical elements include ensuring that militaries have active communication and the ability to instantaneously connect over so-called “hotlines”; that there is firm civilian control over the military at the highest level, as well as strong tactical obedience all the way to the ships and aircraft in contact in the field; that objectives and “red lines” are clearly and directly communicated between nations by competent diplomats; and that there are ample opportunities to allow diplomats to do the hard, day-to-day work of meeting and airing differences.

I also learned the high value of alliances. When I led a coalition of more than 50 nations in the International Security Force Afghanistan as the strategic commander, I worked more on international relationships than on anything else. That meant flying to the capital of every nation in the coalition; meeting regularly with the Ambassadors of those nations in Brussels; paying my respects to the military leaders in their home countries; coordinating constantly with the diplomats of NATO, including of course my boss, the Secretary -General; and briefing the media in each country.

Finally, as I reflect on those days, I realize how important it is to find the balance between hard and soft power. You need both if you care going to create real security, because true security does not come solely from the barrel of a gun. Yet soft power alone will not suffice in many situations. Soft power without the ability to apply hard power is essentially no power.

Success a balance between hard military power but also requires humanitarian assistance, disaster relief, respect for human rights, economic assistance, infrastructure improvements, and communication the values of democ-

“...finding the right balance between hard and soft power is the key.”

racy, liberty, and freedom for which NATO stands. Think of it not as an “on and off switch,” but rather as a rheostat – you must have hard power, but finding the right balance between hard and soft power is the key. Some have called this “smart power,” and I agree with that idea fully.

Diplomats and warriors must work together to achieve lasting security, and if we are going to avoid a war with China, it will require hard efforts by both across the Pacific. That is the crucial lesson I learned in my time as SACEUR, and by using the wisdom of leaders like Ambassador Wolfgang Ischinger and attending the Munich Security Conference over the years. Leadership means warriors and diplomats working together in the cause of peace.

Diplomacy, War and Leadership James Stavridis

Democracy has made a comeback to international relations. With the confrontation between the United States and China, as well as Russia, reinterpreted as one between political systems and ideologies, democracy and authoritarianism have re-become dominant signifiers of international relations.

I recently published my tenth book, but my first work of fiction. It is entitled “2034: A Novel of the Next World War,” and is set about a decade from now. The book chronicles how the US and China could stumble into a global conflict that would be in the interests of neither nation. It is an imagined colossal failure of the norms of international law and diplomacy that we all respect and discuss annually at the Munich Security Conference.

People often ask me how I came to write a bestselling novel about a war in the future. The short answer is that I decided to write about the future because I was thinking about the past. I was focused on the rich body of Cold War literature that helped us all imagine how terrible a war between the US and Soviet Union would have been. Movies like “Dr. Strangelove” and “Fail Safe” alongside novels such as “On the Beach” and “The Third World War” presented doomsday scenarios. I believe they helped deter that war.

But today, the US and China have no such comparative body of literature, either in film or novel. Our collective imagination is failing us, and the nations feel at times as though they are sleepwalking to war. Disputes surrounding Taiwan, the South China Sea, human rights, cybersecurity, 5G networks, trade, and tariffs are all too real.

Much as the economies of Europe were intertwined just over a hundred years ago, the US and Chinese financial systems are highly interconnected today. But that interconnection did not stop an assassin’s bullet in Sarajevo in August 1914 from “turning out the lights” in Europe.

Militaries will always prepare for war with great energy and determination. Today both the US military and the People’s Liberation Army are doing so, expending vast amounts of resources to build global navies, hypersonic cruise missiles, military space systems, advanced unmanned vehicles, artificial intelligence capabilities and elite special forces units. As those militaries come into almost daily contact in the contested waters of the South China Sea, the likelihood for a miscalculation – a 21st cen-

tury version of the assassin’s bullet from 1914 – is rising inexorably.

What I learned as SACEUR, is that there must be a coherent linkage between military capability and diplomatic activity. Some of the key tactical elements include ensuring that militaries have active communication and the ability to instantaneously connect over so-called “hotlines”; that there is firm civilian control over the military at the highest level, as well as strong tactical obedience all the way to the ships and aircraft in contact in the field; that objectives and “red lines” are clearly and directly communicated between nations by competent diplomats; and that there are ample opportunities to allow diplomats to do the hard, day-to-day work of meeting and airing differences.

I also learned the high value of alliances. When I led a coalition of more than 50 nations in the International Security Force Afghanistan as the strategic commander, I worked more on international relationships than on anything else. That meant flying to the capital of every nation in the coalition; meeting regularly with the Ambassadors of those nations in Brussels; paying my respects to the military leaders in their home countries; coordinating constantly with the diplomats of NATO, including of course my boss, the Secretary -General; and briefing the media in each country.

Finally, as I reflect on those days, I realize how important it is to find the balance between hard and soft power. You need both if you care going to create real security, because true security does not come solely from the barrel of a gun. Yet soft power alone will not suffice in many situations. Soft power without the ability to apply hard power is essentially no power.

Success a balance between hard military power but also requires humanitarian assistance, disaster relief, respect for human rights, economic assistance, infrastructure improvements, and communication the values of democ-

“...finding the right balance between hard and soft power is the key.”

racy, liberty, and freedom for which NATO stands. Think of it not as an “on and off switch,” but rather as a rheostat – you must have hard power, but finding the right balance between hard and soft power is the key. Some have called this “smart power,” and I agree with that idea fully.

Diplomats and warriors must work together to achieve lasting security, and if we are going to avoid a war with China, it will require hard efforts by both across the Pacific. That is the crucial lesson I learned in my time as SACEUR, and by using the wisdom of leaders like Ambassador Wolfgang Ischinger and attending the Munich Security Conference over the years. Leadership means warriors and diplomats working together in the cause of peace.

Democracy Returns to International Relations Nathalie Tocci

Democracy has made a comeback to international relations. With the confrontation between the United States and China, as well as Russia, reinterpreted as one between political systems and ideologies, democracy and authoritarianism have re-become dominant signifiers of international relations.

What does it mean for foreign policy?

Both during and especially after the end of the Cold War, values were at the forefront of US and European foreign policy. The US portrayed itself as a force for good in the world, with soft power as an integral component of its foreign policy influence, and an indispensable complement to its unmatched military capabilities. Europe too prided itself as a civilian and normative power in global affairs.

Those were the days of the liberal international order and the end of history.

By the 2010s, values started exiting the scene. The global financial crisis, the rise of multipolarity and the return of geostrategic rivalry spoke about the rise of powers that either openly defied liberal democratic values or just refuted the ideological and material hegemony of the West.

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq followed by the burial of the “responsibility to protect” in Libya eroded Western support for military interventions. The far from stellar outcomes of the color revolutions in Eastern Europe, not to mention the Arab uprisings in North Africa and the Middle East, pointed to an entrenchment of authoritarianism. And the surge of nationalist populism in the West, including the election of Donald Trump, the Brexit referendum, and the authoritarian bents of the Polish and Hungarian governments spoke of a crisis of democracy, and spurred the sidelining of liberal values in Western foreign policy.

Now democracy is back to foreign affairs. Under the Biden administration, the strategic rivalry with China is no longer framed in transactional Trumpian terms and reduced to sectoral disputes, be it about tariffs, 5G, maritime security, cyber or arms control. These tensions and disagreements are grouped together under a common ideational umbrella: it is a conflict between political systems and ideologies. The political and ideological overtone that the US-China confrontation is acquiring does not exclude the existence of other power centers, of which the EU and Russia are two. However, these, while claiming their au-

tonomous “right to choose”, will be drawn to one side or the other because of the political values they represent.

The growing transatlantic convergence centered on the reassertion of liberal democratic values, on full display during President Biden’s first trip to Europe, indicates the direction of travel.

A return of values to the forefront of international relations does not signal a return to the past, however. Rather than the promotion of such values at the height of the liberal international order, liberal democracies are foremost concerned with their protection these days. This is where two apparently disconnected concepts find common cause: when President Biden talks about a “foreign policy for the middle class” and Europeans talk about “strategic autonomy”, deep down they have similar concerns in mind. Both goals speak to an international context in which external players that stand for different values seek to undermine liberal democratic ones in the West. Be this through traditional military means or, far more often, through hybrid security tactics and the weaponization of the economy, liberal democracies have to protect themselves from external interference. Failing to do so would hamper the security, rights and welfare of their citizens, and this would feed illiberal, undemocratic and nationalist forces in the West itself. In fact, there is an implicit conceptual link being drawn between the rise of authoritarianism worldwide and the appeal of illiberal and undemocratic forces at home.

The protection agenda inherent in European strategic autonomy and a US foreign policy for the middle class starts at home. It means strengthening human rights and rule of law, addressing inequalities; investing in research, innovation and industrial capabilities; and ensuring the safety and security of citizens. It means proving that liberal democracy delivers. On the flip side of the coin, it requires deterring and constraining assertively all those external attempts at interference and destabilization.

The “protection agenda” is ambitious and complex, but

“...proving that liberal democracy delivers.”

conceptually it is quite clear. The conceptual difficulty arises when we shift from the protection to the promotion of values. The foreign policy instruments developed for value promotion belong to a past era. Humanitarian interventions, sanctions, development and trade conditionality, and the socialization of elites through diplomacy and civil society support worked best at the height of the liberal international order. Applying those instruments in the same way still works in cases like Georgia or Ukraine, but in most others, it is either not possible or not as effective. One only needs to think of diverse cases such as Afghanistan, Belarus or Turkey to highlight the point.

We should welcome values back to the Western foreign policy script. Their crude sidelining, when the international debate focused almost exclusively on geopolitical

rivalry and transactional deals, brought liberal democracies to the brink of losing their soul. A healthy protection agenda, focused on rights, rules, equality, security and prosperity at home and in the multilateral system, is key.

Far more difficult is the reinvention of an effective value promotion agenda in a profoundly transformed world. It will require charting the way between principles and pragmatism, seeking to reconcile the apparent contradiction between the two. Saving the soul of liberal democracies will require as much protection as the reinvention of value promotion in international relations.

splitterseiten

deliberate decompression and than back to focus (oder der ElmauWalk&TalkEffekt) oder die Welt und Du

trust/values

Deutschland als weltweiter Innovationsführer Von Bill Gates

In den letzten drei Jahrzehnten haben sich Gesundheit

fünf Jahren werden dieses Jahr sterben – vor allem in är-

und Wohlbefinden der Menschen erheblich verbessert. Vor

meren Ländern und meist an Ursachen, die vermeidbar

allem in Entwicklungsländern haben wissenschaftlicher

gewesen wären. Hunderte Millionen andere Kinder wer-

Fortschritt und gemeinsame Anstrengungen von Regierun-

den weiterhin unnötig an Krankheiten und Mangelernäh-

gen extreme Armut, Kinder- und Müttersterblichkeit sowie

rung und den häufig dadurch entstehenden lebenslangen

die Häufigkeit von Krankheiten wie Tuberkulose und Ma-

kognitiven und physischen Beeinträchtigen leiden. Schät-

laria deutlich reduziert. Auch HIV ist heute kein Todesur-

zungen der Weltbank zufolge leben noch 750 Millionen

teil mehr. Mit einem 99-prozentigen Rückgang der Polio-

Menschen in extremer Armut – vor allem bäuerlich-länd-

Fälle steht die Welt kurz davor, eine der bedeutendsten

liche Familien in Subsahara- Afrika und Südasien. Das be-

Infektionskrankheiten auszurotten. Nach den Pocken ge-

deutet, dass sie mit umgerechnet weniger als 1,90 US-Dol-

schieht dies erst zum zweiten Mal.

lar pro Tag auskommen müssen.

An diesen Errungenschaften ist Deutschland maßgeblich

Die Weltgemeinschaft muss daher weiterhin und ver-

beteiligt. 2016 war es eines der wenigen Länder, die

stärkt auf Maßnahmen setzen, die sich als effektiv erwie-

0,7 Prozent oder mehr ihres Bruttonationaleinkommens

sen haben. Darüber hinaus müssen wir jedoch noch einen

für Entwicklungshilfe ausgaben. Obwohl dieses UN-Ziel

Schritt weitergehen. Wenn wir den Fortschritt beschleu-

seither knapp verfehlt wird, ist Deutschland in absoluten

nigen und die bestehenden Herausforderungen bewälti-

Zahlen das zweitwichtigste Geberland weltweit und

gen wollen, gilt es, weitere wissenschaftliche und techno-

kommt somit gleich nach den Vereinigten Staaten, deren

logische Durchbrüche zu erzielen und dafür zu sorgen,

Beitrag jedoch an der Wirtschaftsleistung gemessen

dass alle gleichermaßen vom Nutzen des Fortschritts pro-

wesentlich geringer ausfällt.

fitieren. Dabei können Deutschland und Europa als Ganzes einen wichtigen Beitrag leisten, wenn sie auf dem Weg

Auch anderweitig hat sich Deutschland für die weltweite

in eine bessere Welt im Jahr 2030 als Vorbilder agieren.

Gesundheit und Entwicklung als führend erwiesen. Im

Dazu braucht es politische Maßnahmen und Instrumente

Rahmen der G7-Präsidentschaft 2015 und der G20-Präsi-

zur Förderung von Forschung und Entwicklung, die Ant-

dentschaft 2017 machte

worten auf die weltweit drängendsten offenen Fragen und

750 Millionen Menschen leben in

sich Deutschland für den

Probleme geben.

extremer Armut – vor allem bäuer-

Kampf gegen gesundheit-

lich- ländliche Familien in Sub-

liche Bedrohungen wie

Warum wir Innovationen so dringend brauchen

sahara- Afrika und Südasien. Das

potenzielle Pandemien

Malaria etwa ist eine dringliche Frage, die die Bedeutung

bedeutet, dass sie mit umgerechnet

oder die zunehmende Re-

von Forschung und Entwicklung besonders gut veran-

weniger als 1,90 US-Dollar pro Tag

sistenz gegenüber lebens-

schaulicht. Diese parasitäre Erkrankung wird von Moski-

auskommen müssen.

wichtigen Medikamenten

tos übertragen und trat früher fast überall auf, auch in

wie Antibiotika stark. Au-

Südeuropa. Noch immer fordert Malaria viele Todesopfer:

ßerdem bewies es durch die Aufnahme von zahlreichen

Von den etwa 200 Millionen jährlich nachgewiesenen Fäl-

Asylbewerbern und Flüchtlingen seine Führungsstärke in

len (von denen im Übrigen 90 Prozent in Afrika auftreten)

der Weltgemeinschaft.

führen jedes Jahr 450 000 zum Tod. 70 Prozent der Opfer sind Kinder unter fünf Jahren.

Die humanitären Krisen, die hinter diesen Migrationsund Fluchtbewegungen stehen, erinnern uns jedoch da-

In den letzten 15 Jahren haben wir bedeutende Fort-

ran, dass noch viel Arbeit vor uns liegt. Immer noch müs-

schritte im Kampf gegen Malaria gemacht, jedoch gerät

sen frappierende Ungerechtigkeiten beseitigt werden,

diese Dynamik gerade ins Stocken. Zwar verfügen wir

damit die Gesundheit und das Wohlbefinden der Ärmsten

über hocheffiziente Instrumente, doch brauchen wir aus

verbessert werden und unsere Welt eine stabilere und

unterschiedlichen Gründen neue. Zuallererst, da der

friedvollere wird. Geschätzte fünf Millionen Kinder unter

Kampf gegen Malaria ein gnadenloser Wettlauf gegen die

importance of institutions

europe

alive

and

kickin‘

Diplomacy, War and Leadership James Stavridis

Democracy has made a comeback to international relations. With the confrontation between the United States and China, as well as Russia, reinterpreted as one between political systems and ideologies, democracy and authoritarianism have re-become dominant signifiers of international relations.

I recently published my tenth book, but my first work of fiction. It is entitled “2034: A Novel of the Next World War,” and is set about a decade from now. The book chronicles how the US and China could stumble into a global conflict that would be in the interests of neither nation. It is an imagined colossal failure of the norms of international law and diplomacy that we all respect and discuss annually at the Munich Security Conference.

People often ask me how I came to write a bestselling novel about a war in the future. The short answer is that I decided to write about the future because I was thinking about the past. I was focused on the rich body of Cold War literature that helped us all imagine how terrible a war between the US and Soviet Union would have been. Movies like “Dr. Strangelove” and “Fail Safe” alongside novels such as “On the Beach” and “The Third World War” presented doomsday scenarios. I believe they helped deter that war.

But today, the US and China have no such comparative body of literature, either in film or novel. Our collective imagination is failing us, and the nations feel at times as though they are sleepwalking to war. Disputes surrounding Taiwan, the South China Sea, human rights, cybersecurity, 5G networks, trade, and tariffs are all too real.

Much as the economies of Europe were intertwined just over a hundred years ago, the US and Chinese financial systems are highly interconnected today. But that interconnection did not stop an assassin’s bullet in Sarajevo in August 1914 from “turning out the lights” in Europe.

Militaries will always prepare for war with great energy and determination. Today both the US military and the People’s Liberation Army are doing so, expending vast amounts of resources to build global navies, hypersonic cruise missiles, military space systems, advanced unmanned vehicles, artificial intelligence capabilities and elite special forces units. As those militaries come into almost daily contact in the contested waters of the South China Sea, the likelihood for a miscalculation – a 21st cen-

tury version of the assassin’s bullet from 1914 – is rising inexorably.

What I learned as SACEUR, is that there must be a coherent linkage between military capability and diplomatic activity. Some of the key tactical elements include ensuring that militaries have active communication and the ability to instantaneously connect over so-called “hotlines”; that there is firm civilian control over the military at the highest level, as well as strong tactical obedience all the way to the ships and aircraft in contact in the field; that objectives and “red lines” are clearly and directly communicated between nations by competent diplomats; and that there are ample opportunities to allow diplomats to do the hard, day-to-day work of meeting and airing differences.

I also learned the high value of alliances. When I led a coalition of more than 50 nations in the International Security Force Afghanistan as the strategic commander, I worked more on international relationships than on anything else. That meant flying to the capital of every nation in the coalition; meeting regularly with the Ambassadors of those nations in Brussels; paying my respects to the military leaders in their home countries; coordinating constantly with the diplomats of NATO, including of course my boss, the Secretary -General; and briefing the media in each country.

Finally, as I reflect on those days, I realize how important it is to find the balance between hard and soft power. You need both if you care going to create real security, because true security does not come solely from the barrel of a gun. Yet soft power alone will not suffice in many situations. Soft power without the ability to apply hard power is essentially no power.

Success a balance between hard military power but also requires humanitarian assistance, disaster relief, respect for human rights, economic assistance, infrastructure improvements, and communication the values of democ-

“...finding the right balance between hard and soft power is the key.”

racy, liberty, and freedom for which NATO stands. Think of it not as an “on and off switch,” but rather as a rheostat – you must have hard power, but finding the right balance between hard and soft power is the key. Some have called this “smart power,” and I agree with that idea fully.

Diplomats and warriors must work together to achieve lasting security, and if we are going to avoid a war with China, it will require hard efforts by both across the Pacific. That is the crucial lesson I learned in my time as SACEUR, and by using the wisdom of leaders like Ambassador Wolfgang Ischinger and attending the Munich Security Conference over the years. Leadership means warriors and diplomats working together in the cause of peace.

speak

softly

and

carry

a

big

stick

Diplomacy, War and Leadership James Stavridis

Democracy has made a comeback to international relations. With the confrontation between the United States and China, as well as Russia, reinterpreted as one between political systems and ideologies, democracy and authoritarianism have re-become dominant signifiers of international relations.

I recently published my tenth book, but my first work of fiction. It is entitled “2034: A Novel of the Next World War,” and is set about a decade from now. The book chronicles how the US and China could stumble into a global conflict that would be in the interests of neither nation. It is an imagined colossal failure of the norms of international law and diplomacy that we all respect and discuss annually at the Munich Security Conference.

People often ask me how I came to write a bestselling novel about a war in the future. The short answer is that I decided to write about the future because I was thinking about the past. I was focused on the rich body of Cold War literature that helped us all imagine how terrible a war between the US and Soviet Union would have been. Movies like “Dr. Strangelove” and “Fail Safe” alongside novels such as “On the Beach” and “The Third World War” presented doomsday scenarios. I believe they helped deter that war.

But today, the US and China have no such comparative body of literature, either in film or novel. Our collective imagination is failing us, and the nations feel at times as though they are sleepwalking to war. Disputes surrounding Taiwan, the South China Sea, human rights, cybersecurity, 5G networks, trade, and tariffs are all too real.

Much as the economies of Europe were intertwined just over a hundred years ago, the US and Chinese financial systems are highly interconnected today. But that interconnection did not stop an assassin’s bullet in Sarajevo in August 1914 from “turning out the lights” in Europe.

Militaries will always prepare for war with great energy and determination. Today both the US military and the People’s Liberation Army are doing so, expending vast amounts of resources to build global navies, hypersonic cruise missiles, military space systems, advanced unmanned vehicles, artificial intelligence capabilities and elite special forces units. As those militaries come into almost daily contact in the contested waters of the South China Sea, the likelihood for a miscalculation – a 21st cen-

tury version of the assassin’s bullet from 1914 – is rising inexorably.

What I learned as SACEUR, is that there must be a coherent linkage between military capability and diplomatic activity. Some of the key tactical elements include ensuring that militaries have active communication and the ability to instantaneously connect over so-called “hotlines”; that there is firm civilian control over the military at the highest level, as well as strong tactical obedience all the way to the ships and aircraft in contact in the field; that objectives and “red lines” are clearly and directly communicated between nations by competent diplomats; and that there are ample opportunities to allow diplomats to do the hard, day-to-day work of meeting and airing differences.

I also learned the high value of alliances. When I led a coalition of more than 50 nations in the International Security Force Afghanistan as the strategic commander, I worked more on international relationships than on anything else. That meant flying to the capital of every nation in the coalition; meeting regularly with the Ambassadors of those nations in Brussels; paying my respects to the military leaders in their home countries; coordinating constantly with the diplomats of NATO, including of course my boss, the Secretary -General; and briefing the media in each country.

Finally, as I reflect on those days, I realize how important it is to find the balance between hard and soft power. You need both if you care going to create real security, because true security does not come solely from the barrel of a gun. Yet soft power alone will not suffice in many situations. Soft power without the ability to apply hard power is essentially no power.

Success a balance between hard military power but also requires humanitarian assistance, disaster relief, respect for human rights, economic assistance, infrastructure improvements, and communication the values of democ-

“...finding the right balance between hard and soft power is the key.”

racy, liberty, and freedom for which NATO stands. Think of it not as an “on and off switch,” but rather as a rheostat – you must have hard power, but finding the right balance between hard and soft power is the key. Some have called this “smart power,” and I agree with that idea fully.

Diplomats and warriors must work together to achieve lasting security, and if we are going to avoid a war with China, it will require hard efforts by both across the Pacific. That is the crucial lesson I learned in my time as SACEUR, and by using the wisdom of leaders like Ambassador Wolfgang Ischinger and attending the Munich Security Conference over the years. Leadership means warriors and diplomats working together in the cause of peace.

power of language

ich

bin

ein

Berliner

language of power

i

am

not

convinced

198

III Technologische und wissenschaftliche Veränderungen art of the meeting

199

Diplomacy, War and Leadership James Stavridis

Democracy has made a comeback to international relations. With the confrontation between the United States and China, as well as Russia, reinterpreted as one between political systems and ideologies, democracy and authoritarianism have re-become dominant signifiers of international relations.

I recently published my tenth book, but my first work of fiction. It is entitled “2034: A Novel of the Next World War,” and is set about a decade from now. The book chronicles how the US and China could stumble into a global conflict that would be in the interests of neither nation. It is an imagined colossal failure of the norms of international law and diplomacy that we all respect and discuss annually at the Munich Security Conference.

People often ask me how I came to write a bestselling novel about a war in the future. The short answer is that I decided to write about the future because I was thinking about the past. I was focused on the rich body of Cold War literature that helped us all imagine how terrible a war between the US and Soviet Union would have been. Movies like “Dr. Strangelove” and “Fail Safe” alongside novels such as “On the Beach” and “The Third World War” presented doomsday scenarios. I believe they helped deter that war.

But today, the US and China have no such comparative body of literature, either in film or novel. Our collective imagination is failing us, and the nations feel at times as though they are sleepwalking to war. Disputes surrounding Taiwan, the South China Sea, human rights, cybersecurity, 5G networks, trade, and tariffs are all too real.

Much as the economies of Europe were intertwined just over a hundred years ago, the US and Chinese financial systems are highly interconnected today. But that interconnection did not stop an assassin’s bullet in Sarajevo in August 1914 from “turning out the lights” in Europe.

Militaries will always prepare for war with great energy and determination. Today both the US military and the People’s Liberation Army are doing so, expending vast amounts of resources to build global navies, hypersonic cruise missiles, military space systems, advanced unmanned vehicles, artificial intelligence capabilities and elite special forces units. As those militaries come into almost daily contact in the contested waters of the South China Sea, the likelihood for a miscalculation – a 21st cen-

tury version of the assassin’s bullet from 1914 – is rising inexorably.

What I learned as SACEUR, is that there must be a coherent linkage between military capability and diplomatic activity. Some of the key tactical elements include ensuring that militaries have active communication and the ability to instantaneously connect over so-called “hotlines”; that there is firm civilian control over the military at the highest level, as well as strong tactical obedience all the way to the ships and aircraft in contact in the field; that objectives and “red lines” are clearly and directly communicated between nations by competent diplomats; and that there are ample opportunities to allow diplomats to do the hard, day-to-day work of meeting and airing differences.

I also learned the high value of alliances. When I led a coalition of more than 50 nations in the International Security Force Afghanistan as the strategic commander, I worked more on international relationships than on anything else. That meant flying to the capital of every nation in the coalition; meeting regularly with the Ambassadors of those nations in Brussels; paying my respects to the military leaders in their home countries; coordinating constantly with the diplomats of NATO, including of course my boss, the Secretary -General; and briefing the media in each country.

Finally, as I reflect on those days, I realize how important it is to find the balance between hard and soft power. You need both if you care going to create real security, because true security does not come solely from the barrel of a gun. Yet soft power alone will not suffice in many situations. Soft power without the ability to apply hard power is essentially no power.

Success a balance between hard military power but also requires humanitarian assistance, disaster relief, respect for human rights, economic assistance, infrastructure improvements, and communication the values of democ-

“...finding the right balance between hard and soft power is the key.”

racy, liberty, and freedom for which NATO stands. Think of it not as an “on and off switch,” but rather as a rheostat – you must have hard power, but finding the right balance between hard and soft power is the key. Some have called this “smart power,” and I agree with that idea fully.

Diplomats and warriors must work together to achieve lasting security, and if we are going to avoid a war with China, it will require hard efforts by both across the Pacific. That is the crucial lesson I learned in my time as SACEUR, and by using the wisdom of leaders like Ambassador Wolfgang Ischinger and attending the Munich Security Conference over the years. Leadership means warriors and diplomats working together in the cause of peace.

Diplomacy, War and Leadership James Stavridis

Democracy has made a comeback to international relations. With the confrontation between the United States and China, as well as Russia, reinterpreted as one between political systems and ideologies, democracy and authoritarianism have re-become dominant signifiers of international relations.

I recently published my tenth book, but my first work of fiction. It is entitled “2034: A Novel of the Next World War,” and is set about a decade from now. The book chronicles how the US and China could stumble into a global conflict that would be in the interests of neither nation. It is an imagined colossal failure of the norms of international law and diplomacy that we all respect and discuss annually at the Munich Security Conference.

People often ask me how I came to write a bestselling novel about a war in the future. The short answer is that I decided to write about the future because I was thinking about the past. I was focused on the rich body of Cold War literature that helped us all imagine how terrible a war between the US and Soviet Union would have been. Movies like “Dr. Strangelove” and “Fail Safe” alongside novels such as “On the Beach” and “The Third World War” presented doomsday scenarios. I believe they helped deter that war.

But today, the US and China have no such comparative body of literature, either in film or novel. Our collective imagination is failing us, and the nations feel at times as though they are sleepwalking to war. Disputes surrounding Taiwan, the South China Sea, human rights, cybersecurity, 5G networks, trade, and tariffs are all too real.

Much as the economies of Europe were intertwined just over a hundred years ago, the US and Chinese financial systems are highly interconnected today. But that interconnection did not stop an assassin’s bullet in Sarajevo in August 1914 from “turning out the lights” in Europe.

Militaries will always prepare for war with great energy and determination. Today both the US military and the People’s Liberation Army are doing so, expending vast amounts of resources to build global navies, hypersonic cruise missiles, military space systems, advanced unmanned vehicles, artificial intelligence capabilities and elite special forces units. As those militaries come into almost daily contact in the contested waters of the South China Sea, the likelihood for a miscalculation – a 21st cen-

tury version of the assassin’s bullet from 1914 – is rising inexorably.

What I learned as SACEUR, is that there must be a coherent linkage between military capability and diplomatic activity. Some of the key tactical elements include ensuring that militaries have active communication and the ability to instantaneously connect over so-called “hotlines”; that there is firm civilian control over the military at the highest level, as well as strong tactical obedience all the way to the ships and aircraft in contact in the field; that objectives and “red lines” are clearly and directly communicated between nations by competent diplomats; and that there are ample opportunities to allow diplomats to do the hard, day-to-day work of meeting and airing differences.

I also learned the high value of alliances. When I led a coalition of more than 50 nations in the International Security Force Afghanistan as the strategic commander, I worked more on international relationships than on anything else. That meant flying to the capital of every nation in the coalition; meeting regularly with the Ambassadors of those nations in Brussels; paying my respects to the military leaders in their home countries; coordinating constantly with the diplomats of NATO, including of course my boss, the Secretary -General; and briefing the media in each country.

Finally, as I reflect on those days, I realize how important it is to find the balance between hard and soft power. You need both if you care going to create real security, because true security does not come solely from the barrel of a gun. Yet soft power alone will not suffice in many situations. Soft power without the ability to apply hard power is essentially no power.

Success a balance between hard military power but also requires humanitarian assistance, disaster relief, respect for human rights, economic assistance, infrastructure improvements, and communication the values of democ-

“...finding the right balance between hard and soft power is the key.”

racy, liberty, and freedom for which NATO stands. Think of it not as an “on and off switch,” but rather as a rheostat – you must have hard power, but finding the right balance between hard and soft power is the key. Some have called this “smart power,” and I agree with that idea fully.

Diplomats and warriors must work together to achieve lasting security, and if we are going to avoid a war with China, it will require hard efforts by both across the Pacific. That is the crucial lesson I learned in my time as SACEUR, and by using the wisdom of leaders like Ambassador Wolfgang Ischinger and attending the Munich Security Conference over the years. Leadership means warriors and diplomats working together in the cause of peace.

198

III Technologische und wissenschaftliche Veränderungen genius loci

199

Diplomacy, War and Leadership James Stavridis

Democracy has made a comeback to international relations. With the confrontation between the United States and China, as well as Russia, reinterpreted as one between political systems and ideologies, democracy and authoritarianism have re-become dominant signifiers of international relations.

I recently published my tenth book, but my first work of fiction. It is entitled “2034: A Novel of the Next World War,” and is set about a decade from now. The book chronicles how the US and China could stumble into a global conflict that would be in the interests of neither nation. It is an imagined colossal failure of the norms of international law and diplomacy that we all respect and discuss annually at the Munich Security Conference.

People often ask me how I came to write a bestselling novel about a war in the future. The short answer is that I decided to write about the future because I was thinking about the past. I was focused on the rich body of Cold War literature that helped us all imagine how terrible a war between the US and Soviet Union would have been. Movies like “Dr. Strangelove” and “Fail Safe” alongside novels such as “On the Beach” and “The Third World War” presented doomsday scenarios. I believe they helped deter that war.

But today, the US and China have no such comparative body of literature, either in film or novel. Our collective imagination is failing us, and the nations feel at times as though they are sleepwalking to war. Disputes surrounding Taiwan, the South China Sea, human rights, cybersecurity, 5G networks, trade, and tariffs are all too real.

Much as the economies of Europe were intertwined just over a hundred years ago, the US and Chinese financial systems are highly interconnected today. But that interconnection did not stop an assassin’s bullet in Sarajevo in August 1914 from “turning out the lights” in Europe.

Militaries will always prepare for war with great energy and determination. Today both the US military and the People’s Liberation Army are doing so, expending vast amounts of resources to build global navies, hypersonic cruise missiles, military space systems, advanced unmanned vehicles, artificial intelligence capabilities and elite special forces units. As those militaries come into almost daily contact in the contested waters of the South China Sea, the likelihood for a miscalculation – a 21st cen-

tury version of the assassin’s bullet from 1914 – is rising inexorably.

What I learned as SACEUR, is that there must be a coherent linkage between military capability and diplomatic activity. Some of the key tactical elements include ensuring that militaries have active communication and the ability to instantaneously connect over so-called “hotlines”; that there is firm civilian control over the military at the highest level, as well as strong tactical obedience all the way to the ships and aircraft in contact in the field; that objectives and “red lines” are clearly and directly communicated between nations by competent diplomats; and that there are ample opportunities to allow diplomats to do the hard, day-to-day work of meeting and airing differences.

I also learned the high value of alliances. When I led a coalition of more than 50 nations in the International Security Force Afghanistan as the strategic commander, I worked more on international relationships than on anything else. That meant flying to the capital of every nation in the coalition; meeting regularly with the Ambassadors of those nations in Brussels; paying my respects to the military leaders in their home countries; coordinating constantly with the diplomats of NATO, including of course my boss, the Secretary -General; and briefing the media in each country.

Finally, as I reflect on those days, I realize how important it is to find the balance between hard and soft power. You need both if you care going to create real security, because true security does not come solely from the barrel of a gun. Yet soft power alone will not suffice in many situations. Soft power without the ability to apply hard power is essentially no power.

Success a balance between hard military power but also requires humanitarian assistance, disaster relief, respect for human rights, economic assistance, infrastructure improvements, and communication the values of democ-

“...finding the right balance between hard and soft power is the key.”

racy, liberty, and freedom for which NATO stands. Think of it not as an “on and off switch,” but rather as a rheostat – you must have hard power, but finding the right balance between hard and soft power is the key. Some have called this “smart power,” and I agree with that idea fully.

Diplomats and warriors must work together to achieve lasting security, and if we are going to avoid a war with China, it will require hard efforts by both across the Pacific. That is the crucial lesson I learned in my time as SACEUR, and by using the wisdom of leaders like Ambassador Wolfgang Ischinger and attending the Munich Security Conference over the years. Leadership means warriors and diplomats working together in the cause of peace.

198