| |
Debate
NGO assessment of the new German government
UNESCO Convention on Cultural Diversity
Pakistan’s state and Kashmir’s earthquake
12/2005 |
|
[ Interview with Reinhard Hermle, VENRO ]
“We have to accept responsibility”
The statement on development in the coalition agreement of Christian Democrats and Social Democrats in Germany largely promises to carry on the previous government’s policy. In several paragraphs, however, the paper stresses some new directions (see p. 447 in this edition). D+C/E+Z discussed civil society perspectives with Reinhard Hermle, Chairman of the Association of German Development NGOs (VENRO).
During the coalition negotiations, you sent letters to the chairpersons of the political parties and made suggestions for future German development policy. Did you receive any replies?
We did receive replies but they were of a rather general nature. The party chairpersons expressed thanks for the proposals and ensured that they would be taken into account during the negotiations.
Are your suggestions reflected in the coalition agreement?
Overall, the agreement makes rather general statements. But our positions are on the whole reflected.
In your opinion, should the agreement have made more tangible commitments?
In many places, yes. But it seems to be typical of coalition agreements that they are essentially limited to outlining the general framework along with some normative statements and avoid going into too much detail – as applies also to the foreign and development section of the new coalition agreement.
In some places, however, the agreement is quite clear. For example, the second sentence on development states that development deficits in poor countries threaten peace and prosperity in Europe. How do you see that issue?
In the agreement, the connection between foreign, security and development affairs is made several times, reflecting, in part, problems faced by developing countries. These links, however, also stem from the intention to achieve better coherence between these areas of policy. Doing so makes sense and is something non-governmental organisations have always demanded. Nevertheless, what I find irritating in the agreement, is its focus on security, which is largely based on our own situation in the rich countries. From a development perspective, I feel the security situation of people in developing countries must be included.
I miss an adequate balance in this respect.
In your letter to the party chairpersons, you wrote that non-governmental organisations would not stand in the way of sensible cooperation between development and security agencies. In your view, what would such cooperation have to look like?
First of all, it is important to acknowledge that neither development policy-making nor foreign and security policy-making will bring about security on their own. Cooperation is necessary. However, one must carefully define what contribution each ministry concerned is capable of making. To do so, you need an over-arching concept. But that does not exist, as far as I can tell – and I definitely have not found one in the coalition agreement. Rather, I note, in several instances, an emphasis on strengthening military capabilities in cases of crisis rather than on civil and developmental aspects. In the section on global issues, for example, a comprehensive security concept is actually mentioned. But it is not fully defined. The section touches upon the three important areas of policy – foreign affiars, secrity and development –, but it does not consider the security needs of the poor living in developing countries.
Will the ministries concerned have to cooperate more closely in defining such a concept?
Yes, indeed. There is actually a cooperative approach for civil crisis prevention in the Federal Government’s Action Plan, which will now be implemented, according to the coalition agreement. This is certainly very important. But there is an unmet corresponding need for dealing with the non-civil components of crisis prevention and handling.
Where does the coalition agreement set the right directions and where do you see deficiencies?
The section on development mentions the most important points with the right intentions. The paragraphs on trade and development, however, do not go far enough. I would have appreciated clearer statements with regard to the current world trade negotiations. The agreement basically repeats the run-of-the-mill positions on further opening of markets and cutting subsidies. However, it is not clear how the future government would envisage a good result of the Doha round. I would have also liked the coalition parties to say something about how strongly, in their view, the opening of markets must be based on reciprocity, and which concessions they want to make to developing countries. The key words here would be “special and differential treatment”.
You want German development cooperation to focus more on social services such as primary education, water supply and health care. Wouldn’t it make better sense to spend money on supporting the private sector and thus enable developing countries to fund such services themselves in the longer run?
We have to do the former without neglecting the latter. For the poorest countries especially, the chances of building up basic social services and encouraging rural development are limited. They still need a great deal of external support. Of course, this does not rule out investing in building up the economic base too. But first, certain preconditions must be met. Economic expansion will not be possible without healthy and well-educated people, for example. And to the extent that developing countries are unable to support themselves, support from international donors is required.
In view of the huge deficit in the Federal Budget, the coalition agreement states that no line-ministry is entitled to steady budgetary growth over the next few years. Why should an exception be made for development affairs?
We spend more than 98 percent of the budget on German interests and needs. To justify development assistance, I feel it suffices to say that we spend money for purposes we consider ethically important. We stand up for people who, for whatever reason, are not in the position to adequately fend for themselves. Furthermore, because of our lifestyle, we are deeply indebted to the poor countries on environmental terms. We have to act. Moreover, action is in our own best interest because it promotes security.
Ulrich Beck, the noted sociologist, said with regard to the youth riots in France that the Third World has arrived in Europe a long time ago. Shouldn’t we focus more on marginalised people in Europe rather than on the rest of the world?
The assessment is correct, but the conclusion is wrong. We do not face the alternatives of “either – or”. We must not rule out doing both. And it would be similarly short-sighted not to take account of the recent refugee dramas that happened in the Spanish exclaves of Ceuta and Melilla in Morocco. It will not do for us to only focus on what is happening in the suburbs of our metropolitan areas. Rather, we must also consider what is happening on Europe’s fringes and beyond. Otherwise, the pressure we are under will only grow. Let me stress once more that it is appropriate and dignified for a rich country like the Federal Republic to assume its share of responsibility for humankind in general.
Reinhard Hermle
was interviewed by Tillmann Elliesen.
Dr. Reinhard Hermle
is head of the Development Policy department at Misereor, the Catholic charity, and has been chairman of VENRO for six years. He will not stand again at the VENRO elections this month.
hermle@misereor.de
|
