Publikationen

Nach dem Amtsantritt von Barack Obama am 20. Januar 2009 sollte sich Europa auf eine Neuausrichtung der amerikanischen Außenpolitik einstellen, die vor allem die engsten demokratischen Verbündeten stärker einbeziehen, aber auch in die Pflicht nehmen wird. Die Hoffnungen - ja die Euphorie, die sich mit dem ersten schwarzen US-Präsidenten verbinden - korrelieren dabei mit den unglaublich großen Schwierigkeiten und Herausforderungen vor denen Obama steht - innenpolitisch, was die Wirtschaftslage angeht, haushaltspolitisch, was die Finanzkrise betrifft und außenpolitisch, was die zwei Konflikte im Irak und in Afghanistan angehen, ebenso wie die vielen ungelösten Fragen im Nahen Osten und im Verhältnis zu Russland. Hierfür braucht er Partner und Freunde. Die Bedingungen für eine Wiederbelebung des transatlantischen Verhältnisses sind jedenfalls so gut wie lange nicht mehr. Auch die amerikanische Idee einer "Liga der Demokratien" könnte mit einer Neuausrichtung der US-Außenpolitik unter dem neuen Präsidenten eine Wiederbelebung erfahren. Ein solches "Bündnis der Demokratien" geistert seit geraumer Zeit sowohl auf republikanischer als auch auf demokratischer Seite durch die Gazetten. Diese solle die Vereinten Nationen "nicht verdrängen, sondern ergänzen" und immer dann tätig werden, wenn "diese versagen". Damit greift McCain stellvertretend eine Debatte auf, die sich seit dem Ersten Weltkrieg wie ein roter Faden durch die amerikanische Außenpolitik zieht. So machte Präsident Woodrow Wilson im April 1917 vor dem amerikanischen Kongress deutlich, dass "die Welt sicher für die Demokratie gemacht werden" müsse. Zudem plädierte er für die Gründung einer Liga der Nationen, denn "ein unverbrüchliches Zusammenwirken für den Frieden kann nur durch eine Partnerschaft demokratischer Nationen sichergestellt werden". (...)

Russia put forward a proposal for a new pan-European security architecture back in June 2008. It calls for a treaty that is binding under international law to be signed by all countries from "Vancouver to Vladivostok". In view of the continent's unsolved security issues, there is certainly a need to discuss possible ways to improve the European security architecture. The idea initially met with a muted international response, but attention has increasingly been paid to it since the war in Georgia. Cyprus, Italy, Spain, Germany and especially France have at least shown they are willing to discuss it. At the Meeting of NATO Foreign Ministers on 3 December, NATO also said it was open to a debate. What exactly is Medvedev proposing? What issues would be worth discussing and where are the stumbling blocks? And what are Russia's motives in putting forward its proposal? The Russian President justifies his proposal by saying that the existing European security architecture has not managed to implement the goal of the Charter of Paris for a New Europe, namely of creating a united, free and secure Europe. In order to do that, he suggests holding a pan-European summit with all countries from "Vancouver to Vladivostok". The goal would be to prepare and adopt a security treaty that would be binding under international law.

I should like to begin by saying that the expectations which many Europeans have of the American presidential elections fundamentally changing Washington's foreign policy are not, in my opinion, going to be met. There will always be issues in the transatlantic relationship which will lead to discussions, differences of opinion and occasional quarrels. No matter who wins the election, we are not going to suddenly enter transatlantic paradise! Especially since the next President will be faced with far greater challenges than many of his predecessors in view of the dramatic crisis in the American financial system, comparable in scale only to the Great Depression of 1929. Regardless of the results of the elections, I therefore expect a return to multilateralism. Yet this also means that both John McCain and Barack Obama will call on the Europeans to take on more responsibility. Or, to put it in more concrete terms: the next President will expect greater support from the Europeans in Iraq and in Afghanistan. (...)

Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen, Colleagues, It is an honour and a pleasure for me to be allowed to give the dinner speech here tonight. The title of the conference - "Regional Security Policy at the Greater Horn of Africa. Analysis of regional conflicts and the path for political solutions" - already shows what a comprehensive and ambitious approach the organisers have taken to this issue. I cannot and therefore would not wish to presume to be able to come even close to providing any solutions to the crises at the Horn of Africa. That would, incidentally, also go way beyond the scope of a dinner speech. Nevertheless, I would like to take the liberty of briefly addressing a few points and problems in the presence of this impressive array of experts. The Greater Horn of Africa region (which includes the multiethnic states Ethiopia and Eritrea, the failing state Somalia and the small state Djibouti) is undeniably a chronic hot spot. Of course, the dominant crises in the region are the ongoing violent conflicts in parts of Somalia and the unresolved border dispute between Ethiopia and Eritrea. The two rivals have now accumulated a vast number of states which are supporting one of the two sides in Somalia. The less than 2,000 African Union troops have so far contributed little in the way of de-escalation and are mainly preoccupied with defending themselves. (...)