Development and Cooperation


	Contributions from the Column Focus Interview with Development Minister Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul: “Financial resources must not be pooled” Bastian Loges and Ulrich Menzel: State disintegration and humanitarian intervention Anne Jung: Neither war nor peace in Sierra Leone Interview with UNDP-Administrator Mark Malloch Brown: “Aid needs to be more evenly spread” Sheila Mysorekar: DynCorp and the privatisation of wa 4/2004		“Financial resources must not be pooled” For several years, those active in development have had to get used to working with soldiers. For German policy, the wars in Kosovo and Afghanistan have created new interfaces between the ministries in charge of development and defence. Development Minister Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul recommends strict adherence to the principle of subsidiarity. In other words, the military should only do what only the military can do. [ Interview with Development Minister Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul ] Mrs. Wieczorek-Zeul, who has the authority to issue a mandate for military intervention? That authority rests solely with the UN Security Council. So NATO or the EU are in no position to say “we’ll go ahead”? There was one case, the war in Kosovo, and that was an exception because of the danger of genocide. That must not be allowed to become the rule. But a precedent was set. The experience of the Iraq war shows that the concept of unilateral preventive strikes is flawed. The Iraq war was waged against the will of the international community. That cannot be compared to Kosovo. Moreover, especially in the light of globalisation, it is imperative that we apply generally accepted rules. Otherwise, the doors are wide open for despotic action. So when development workers and soldiers are to cooperate in acute crises, a clear international mandate is essential. There are lots of steps before that – all aimed at preventing states from failing. And there are lots of instruments that can be used. Misuse of oil money, for example, contributes to the creation of corrupt structures in many countries – as well as to the suppression of sections of the population. “Publish what you pay” – the rule that oil companies reveal what they invest in a country and developing countries reveal how much money is paid – is an instrument for helping to ensure that raw material production does not fuel further conflict and to safeguard that globally binding rules are in place, for social and environmental issues as well. That helps to curb violence. We need a kind of Global Council or UN Security Council for Economic and Social Policy to help steer globalisation. These are elements that must not be forgotten just because the debate about military intervention suddenly seems high on the agenda in the light of failing states. Development organisations fear their work may suffer if contact with the military gets too close. What conditions need to be met to ensure that doesn’t happen? There are two positions we need to consider for guidance in this context. One is the notion – currently gaining ground under US influence – that stability can be created by deploying military personnel and police. That is a “trendy” argument that really doesn’t hold much water. There may be cases where such action is inevitable but what is basically required is a stable democratic state in which government can serve the people in terms of education, health care, access to water and similar issues. At the other end of the scale is the notion that there should be no contact whatsoever between development workers and military, for fear – metaphorically speaking – of infection. But real life is not that simple, it does not provide blueprints. How do you deal in practice with the tension between the two trends – in Afghanistan, for example? Without the ISAF troops and their UN mandate, without a climate of security, the country’s reconstruction would be in jeopardy. But more is needed: access to schools, access to health care, rights for women, economic opportunities, investment. Returning refugees need to be integrated, the war on drugs must be waged. These are development challenges. Our policy on Afghanistan is based on consultation between the Foreign Office and the Ministries of Development, Domestic Affairs and Defence. But each ministry takes charge of its own duties. In that respect, nothing is shared. We felt it was important that Germany’s involvement in Kunduz should be covered by the ISAF mandate and that, unlike in case of the American Provincial Reconstruction Teams, development agencies should not be subordinate to military interests. Our arrangement is based on equality, with all sides being responsible for their own funding. Consultation is required, each ministry needs to know what the others are doing within the framework of our common policy – and each ministry has its own responsibilities within that framework. So Foreign Office, Development Ministry and Defence Ministry need to craft a joint policy for the country in question, but there must be no pooling of operational or financial resources? There must definitely be no pooling of financial resources. Otherwise, there would be a great danger of military missions being undertaken at the expense of development policy – especially because military action is always extremely costly. That is why I keep saying that development policy is the least expensive security policy for all of us. How about pooling human resources? When the Bundeswehr, the German armed forces, carry out civil assignments such as bridge-building in Afghanistan or the Balkans, should development workers be involved? The same principle applies: everyone does what is within their reach, capacity and area of expertise. There have been one or two so-called “CIMIC” operations – the acronym stands for civil-military cooperation – but they are less about reconstruction than about confidence-building by the armed forces in their area of deployment. But Bundeswehr CIMIC operations have been financed by your ministry in the past. The amount of money involved was small – really not worth getting worked up about. If a concrete request is received, it can be considered, and I remember that we did agree with some measures in the case of Kosovo. Altogether, the Bundeswehr only spent 35 million euros on CIMIC operations up to 2003 and that money didn’t all come from us. In this connection, I suggest that CIMIC operations should be evaluated in order to draw conclusions. The logic is probably that, directly after intervention, when the need for humanitarian aid is greatest, cooperation needs to be close for pragmatic reasons. Later, as reconstruction makes progress, the various agents can go their own ways again. It is a fundamental principle that humanitarian aid needs to be independent. How does cooperation work on the ground in Afghanistan? As far as I can judge from two visits to the country, it is going well. Certainly, a great deal more international involvement is needed to fight drugs, but we will press for progress on that. As far as Kunduz is concerned – which is a newer approach, an ISAF island, if you like – it is also going well. Reconstruction has already started. The European security strategy, which the Council approved last year, stresses that security policy should no longer be just a military matter. On the one hand, that can be interpreted as an upgrading of development policy, on the other, there is the concern that development policy is being increasingly side-lined as an independent field of policy. I am always in favour of focussing on the opportunities. One may not agree with every element of the strategy but in contrast to the national security strategy of the United States, the European one aims at prevention, at fighting poverty and the causes of terrorism. It gives precedence to civil action and sees military intervention only as a last resort. The American security strategy still clings to the concept of the preventive strike, even to the extent of sanctioning the use of nuclear weapons. That is very dangerous and flies in the face of international law. As an ultimate consequence, it could be cited by other countries that signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty trusting the nuclear powers’ assurance that they would reduce their nuclear potential. But how do EU foreign, security and development policy interact? That depends not just on the strategy but also on the people who put it into practice. If a commissioner makes the most of the opportunities offered, it will bear fruit. If the main actor is weak, however, it will be more difficult and then the development ministers of the member states will have to push harder. Also, there is the question of finance – something I keep a very close eye on: new funds need to be made available for every new EU assignment. So budget lines are required. Our insistence that the African Peace Facility – a good thing in itself – should have its own budget line, its own independent funding, has already had an effect. We must not permit a shift in funding. And what we try to do at national level – that is to develop a preventive security strategy through inter-ministerial consultation – needs to be done at the European level as well. The Development Assistance Committee of the OECD is discussing whether the eligibility criteria for official development assistance (ODA) should be modified in the light of military cooperation. What is your stand on this issue? We take a very cautious view of that. One thing that has to be said at the outset is that there are some questionable elements in the civil sector as well. According to all the estimates, the United States will show a marked ODA increase in 2003 – because the government is funding reconstruction in Iraq in the wake of destruction. I think that needs to be viewed separately, even though we are not dealing with military activity in this case. Even from a financial viewpoint, everything points to the fact that efforts should be geared to prevention. Keeping the American forces in Iraq alone costs four billion US dollars a month. That is more than my entire annual budget and, annualised, is almost as much as the whole international community spends on development cooperation in a year. I fully endorse what UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan says: we must not let war divert us from our main task, which is to reduce poverty and hunger – because poverty and hunger are the real weapons of mass destruction. And what about the ODA criteria? As far as the OECD debate is concerned, I think any measure to inform security forces with respect to constitutional law, democracy and human rights can be regarded as development expenditure. What we definitely want to prevent – and what no one could want – is a situation where money spent on military operations, military equipment and the likes might be included in the category of “development aid”. Anyone who talks to soldiers about the Kunduz mission is likely to meet with scepticism concerning development policy. Is there a possibility of, metaphorically speaking, embracing the Bundeswehr more firmly in order to exert more influence. I don’t think it’s a question of embracing. We are facing new situations, which every arm of government needs to address. I have always taken the view that both the military and the peace movement need to review their position – because peacekeeping is not war, thank heavens. The same re-think can also be seen in society – and it needs to be translated into action, of course, by everyone in the field. The important thing is not petty jealousies, it’s the fact that progress is being made for the people of Kunduz. In my experience, inhibitions are overcome more readily in a crisis region when people really get down to work. Would you like to see the Ministry of Defence take more interest in development issues? There are no problems at all at the political level. Defense Minister Peter Struck and I have drafted the Kunduz concept together. Every element carrys both of our signatures. Now the requirements must be observed on the ground, they are not a matter for individual discretion. It helps, of course, for each side to see the different viewpoints. Hence our involvement in the Federal College for Security Policy Studies (Bundesakademie für Sicherheitspolitik), where we have a special representative and where we participate in conferences and training programmes. All in all, you subscribe to the principle of subsidiarity: that the military should only do what only the military can do. Precisely. What about personnel security? Aid organisations have been worried that if they work too closely with the military, they will be considered party to the conflict. That is a concern we address, for example, by ensuring that the “three pillars” in Kunduz are independent. Sadly, however, the belief that those who are unarmed are not attacked has long been shown to be wrong. Since the bombing of the UN headquarters in Baghdad, at the latest, everyone has had to accept that neutral actors can also be targeted. But that is not to say that development workers will all work with armed soldiers at their side in the future. Because Bundeswehr missions need parliamentary approval, however, the public debate on the issue is naturally more vigorous. What we must also appreciate, though, is that development workers take a great risk – so their deployment needs to be considered just as carefully. NGOs need to decide whether they should deploy their people or not and I assume responsibility for the implementing organisations working for our government. That is why I have not yet sent any development workers to Iraq. It would be irresponsible. Because of the threat of terrorism, voices are sometimes heard in the foreign policy debate proposing that development policy should be confined to North Africa and the Middle East, to countries like Sudan, because that is where the greatest threat comes from. In my view, two things are needed to combat terrorism in the Middle East. The fact that there is no conceivable military solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is appreciated full well by the Foreign Office. Peace there would reduce the potential for violence and remove a core topic of aggressive propaganda. The second thing is support for modernisation and reform in favour of civil society. That is our job. Anyway, the main thrust of our work – without neglecting other regions – relates to Africa. In the sub-Saharan countries, nearly half of the population are under 15 today. The world will not become more peaceful unless this generation is given schooling, job prospects and a future. Questions by Hans Dembowski and Tillmann Elliesen. Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul is Germany’s Federal Minister for Economic Cooperation and Development.