|
|
| |
| |
Editorial
10/2005 |
|
Permanent challenge
After Germany’s indecisive election, it remains to be seen who will govern the country next. Coalition talks (involving various parties) will most likely drag on for quite some time. Nonetheless, any future government will probably tackle an issue that Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul, the outgoing (and perhaps future) development minister, summed up with the catchword “anchor countries”. Her emphasis was on Germany’s need for a strategy designed for dealing with major developing countries and emerging markets that are not only decisive for the future of their geographical region but will also increasingly leave their mark on multilateral affairs and the world economy.
The Development Ministry first published its concept last winter. It was also outlined by the minister in an essay in D+C/E+Z in May. She met with criticism domestically. Opponents stated that countries such as China, India, Brazil or South Africa no longer need support to reduce poverty. Moreover, they argued that Germany’s tight budget could not supply the necessary funds for any broad impact on nations of such huge dimensions. Even though there is some substance to both arguments, they do not really challenge the case for a coherent anchor country strategy. There is more at stake than poverty alleviation narrowly defined. Indeed, the strategy is about shaping globalisation in international fora such as the United Nations or the World Trade Organisation, where Germany needs allies. For this purpose, cooperation must be reliable and long-term – unlike the short-breathed (and ultimately unsuccessful) ad-hoc alliances Germany forged in its attempt to gain a seat on the Security Council. Moreover, the idea is to promote guiding principles as the social market economy or democracy based on participation in major countries that do not only matter because of their own vast populations but also in terms of their impact on neighbours.
Wieczorek-Zeul likes to stress the relevance of multilateral politics, whereas her opponents in parliament, so far, have favoured bilateral cooperation with a view to safeguarding German interests. In respect to the anchor countries, however, Wieczorek-Zeul has also defined German priorities for bilateral action – with more in mind than just gaining multilateral influence. Obviously, opposition and government have not been that far apart in the past. And that makes sense, as Germany really has to deal with the global system’s rising giants.
All summed up, the anchor country issue is probably less controversial among the political parties than among different government departments. It highlights the fact that development policy needs the context of coherent foreign policy – and that the latter will make only little sense without a stringent approach to the former. Indeed, Germany does not possess abundant expertise on aspiring powers such as China or India. Development agencies are among the few German institutions that command systematic knowledge and contacts. It would be foolish not to let them act as door openers for other actors from the private and public sector. After all, cooperation with anchor countries does not go against the grain of the principle mission of agencies such as KfW development bank, German Technical Cooperation (GTZ), InWEnt (Capacity Building International) or the German Development Service (DED). According to World Bank data, middle income countries do not only produce 90 percent of developing countries GDP but also house 70 percent of our planet’s poor. These countries may not need German money to fight poverty, but they must put in place systems to prevent deprivation – and their governments appreciate competent advice.
Dr. Hans Dembowski
Editor in Chief of D+C Development and Cooperation/E+Z Entwicklung und Zusammenarbeit
euz.editor@fsd.de
|
|
|
