[ Kerstin Müller, from Germany’s Federal Foreign Office ]

“We need integrated approaches”

Ms Müller, the African Union has created new institutions over the last two years, the first peer reviews are being carried out as part of the work by NEPAD, and there are increased efforts to resolve Africa’s internal conflicts. How stable, in your opinion, is the process for political consolidation in Africa which these events reflect?
The important thing now is to put the AU agencies in a position, with regard to both funding and staff, where they can carry out their responsibilities. Until now, the area of peacekeeping has dominated heavily, partly because of the AU’s Sudan operation. Other tasks, such as the entire area of conflict prevention, require further funding and staff. So the AU intends to increase its budget six-fold for the coming year, from USD 50 million to approximately USD 300 million. It is important that we support the AU in its implementation of the NEPAD programme, and also in the area of peacekeeping and in its further institutional development.

For this we need, on Germany’s part, not only the financial resources, but also the organisational and human resources. We have already achieved a great deal: German Technical Cooperation (GTZ) is supporting the AU, the Ministry of Defence is helping with logistics and personnel, and the German Development Ministry (BMZ) and German Federal Foreign Office have made considerable financial resources available – almost Euro 100 million to date within the EU, and bilaterally approximately Euro 10 million. But we still need to increase our efforts considerably.

As long as the AU itself is not able to exert political pressure and promote conflict resolution, does Africa need lead nations to do this?
There will not be lasting peace in Africa’s regions of conflict until countries learn from experience that confidence-building and cooperation result in compromises which offer their citizens greater security and prosperity than unilateral actions. This is why I gave so much support to the Conference on the Great Lakes Region in Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania. It is a learning process for all countries and their governments. We should not be discouraged by setbacks such as the reports of further intervention by Rwanda in DR Congo, even if we consider that Rwanda’s action is unacceptable.

Lead nations are of course important as “anchors of stability” too. South Africa is an example of this. In the end, however, as many countries as possible must feel responsible for the numerous peace initiatives in Africa. NEPAD, which emphasises good governance, is so important for precisely this reason. It makes countries exporters of stability in their own sub-region and beyond.

African countries have repeatedly opposed clear sanctions against Sudan by the UN Security Council and the Human Rights Commission. Is Darfur not the best example that Africa is still a long way from dealing responsibly with crises?
The African Union has been trying hard for several months to find a solution to the Darfur crisis. It is acting as mediator in the negotiations between the parties to the conflict and it has established a mechanism to monitor the observance of the ceasefire. Germany is supporting the AU in its efforts politically, financially, in material terms and with human resources, and it will soon offer logistical support too. Despite this, the humanitarian and human rights situation in Darfur is disastrous. Parallel to the committed efforts by the AU, the Federal Government is supporting the continuance and increase of pressure on all parties to the conflict, particularly on the Sudanese government. The international community must do more here. I am of course thinking mainly of the UN Security Council, but the EU also has the opportunity to exercise further pressure. At the end of the day, it is about finding a political solution to the conflict. The Federal Government is lending its support to this. But the parties to the conflict will not change their behaviour unless pressure is put on them to do so. I find it significant that we were successful in setting up an international commission of enquiry, which will present a report in January clearly naming those responsible for human rights violations.

The policy on Africa concerns many departments, above all those dealing with foreign, development and security policy. There are sometimes complaints that there is a lack of coherence in Germany’s policy on Africa. What is your view?
Germany’s policy on Africa is based on a division of labour and this has proved successful on the whole. But from time to time, ministries may have concentrated too much on their specific attitudes and priorities over recent years.

How could greater coherence be achieved?
Given the current conflicts and the potential for crisis in Africa, on the one hand, and the recently awakened interest of many African governments in consolidation and sustainable development of the African continent, on the other hand, we must define shared goals more clearly than previously and proceed strategically. Just recently I have become more involved in this. It is no longer adequate to respond to the network of risk factors with uncoordinated activities and mechanisms. We need instead a consistent political overall plan, based on the broad definition of security, which was also used as the basis for the European Security Strategy of December 2003. This includes the economic, ecological, cultural and societal dimension as well as classic political-military security. Only the right policy mix does justice to both the development needs of the partner countries and also our own security and stability interests. GTZ is carrying out numerous projects in the area of security and stability, the EU’s Peace Facility for Africa is funded by the European Development Fund – all this is pointing in the right direction and shows that we are finding the necessary answers. All departments and the implementation organisations too know that what we need are co-operation and integrated approaches rather than demarcation and the return to vested competencies.

Development organisations often have strong reservations about cooperating too closely with security forces. Can you understand the concerns of development promoters?
Even non-government organisations, which are concerned that the security policy could swallow up development policy, no longer question the fact that security and development are mutually dependent. We need new alliances in times of global challenges, because development cooperation is part of our foreign and security policy. Development cooperation can only achieve something in fragile states if these countries are at the same time stabilised with regard to their security situation. On this basis, our government is taking a coherent approach which combines development policy with foreign and security policy, includes all stakeholders and makes use of their strengths and opportunities. This is made clear in the Action Plan “Civilian crisis prevention, conflict resolution and post-conflict peace-building”, which the Federal Government has started to implement.

Last summer, the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee (DAC) reached agreement to extend the criteria for development assistance to certain seurity measures. Some OECD countries advocate not weakening the division between development financing, on the one hand, and expenditure on security policy, on the other. Do you consider this strict division to be sensible?
The statistics on development assistance expenditure are an important framework of reference for decision makers and enjoy a high level of credibility. To retain this credibility, careful thought must be given to which security-related expenditure should be taken into account. I believe that the rule of law and functioning constitutional structures are a requirement for sustainable development; expenditure in this area is one element of responsible funding. So I welcome the fact that a consensus has been reached which takes into account measures to reform the security sector, such as the creation and reform of the police and justice systems and civil measures to overcome conflict. I have the impression that the discussion on further matters is being carried out very responsibly by the DAC. I am sure that the official development assistance (ODA) figures will also give an accurate picture of development assistance in the future.

The British government has established two funds, the Global Conflict Prevention Pool and the Africa Conflict Prevention Pool, which fund strategies jointly developed by the foreign, defence and international development ministries. Is this a model Germany should consider?
The British model has proved to be a success. The approach challenges defence, foreign and development departments to work together more closely and to integrate their policies. The German government’s objective is also co-ordination as well as coherent and effective action. In the “Civil Crisis Prevention Action Plan”, it invites the departments to investigate setting up jointly managed funds for crisis prevention following the British model and, if appropriate, to carry out a pilot project. Our inter-ministerial round table on civil crisis prevention has begun work on this.

Questions by Tillmann Elliesen.