Diplomacy & Defense Think Tank News

Why is this election important for Britain?
It is important because it represents new political ground. Most of the elections since World War II have returned a clear Labour or Conservative majority. The last one didn’t and proved that a coalition government, which is very unusual in the UK, could actually govern for five years.
This election is a test of whether a multitude of opinions can be expressed without achieving a clear majority in Parliament. The British first-past-the-post system means that if there are only two parties you are going to have a clear majority. Now, in addition to the LibDems, UKIP probably won’t get any seats. The Scottish National Party will take what Labour used to have in Scotland away from them. So it’s becoming a multiparty system and this is the first test of how that multiparty system will evolve.
What is also interesting is that this election is not important for any policy reasons. The probability is that whoever wins, there will not be any big changes.

Why are neither Labour nor the Tories in a position to win a majority?
It’s because neither of them has any ideas. There is no electoral battleground and consequently the campaign has been virtually devoid of substance and the leaders have virtually nothing concrete to propose.

Is foreign policy a factor in these elections?
With respect to foreign policy, it is not important that Britain is not important. There is no question that Britain is in the midst of an identity crisis, but I think it is going back to what it always was, which is a kind of turntable, not really part of Europe, definitely part of the Atlantic, very much an offshore island and one that is capable of supporting a lot of globalized phenomena. France, on the other hand, could not possibly do that because it is at the heart of Europe. It is very strategic about its military. The Brits are not strategic about anything. The Brits are pathetic at strategy, but they are fantastic at keeping calm and carrying on, “muddling through.”
There is minimal substance to this election and very little at stake. The reason why it is said to be the most important British election in a generation has to do with how the political system works, but it’s not about the policies that will be implemented afterwards.

What does a waning Britain mean for the United States? Is the “special relationship” between the United States and Britain still special?
The “special relationship” is waning on both sides. There is an increasing feeling in Europe generally that the United States is simply not as much a part of the strategic equation globally as it used to be.
The United States is seen as having fallen short strategically ever since 9/11. Obama has tried to repair this by means of a strategic retreat. But there is certainly the conviction in Britain that they don’t wish to toady to the American superpower because the American superpower has got it wrong repeatedly. There is no scope for repeating what is perceived as Tony Blair’s rather slavish following of George W. Bush.
The special relationship was born out of a situation of absolute desperation, which was Winston Churchill needing the United States to get into World War II. Indeed, Franklin Roosevelt was quite reluctant to get into an alliance with Britain, which was seen very much as an imperial and imperialist power.
Britain today doesn’t have any significant capability to project power globally. The only member of NATO besides the US that has that ability now is France. Britain’s military is at its lowest level since the 18th century—since England lost the American colonies and the United States came into being. They have no aircraft carrier, they have no homegrown defense industry, and their nuclear capability is essentially controlled by the United States.
The EU has basically discounted Britain as a political actor. Britain does not have that much significance in NATO because its defense capability is quite limited.
From a policy standpoint, the special relationship with the United States is less and less meaningful because there is no appetite amongst the British public to have their government follow a policy made by people in Washington that they disagree with.
There have been articles saying that, viewed from Washington, the special relationship isn’t that special. Viewed from London it’s not really that special either. The fact that the Brits decided to become members of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank at the invitation of the Chinese—and against American wishes—just shows that they are going back to historical type, which is to be a kind of international platform. They have little or no domestic industry of their own, they don’t have much besides financial services and media and retail in terms of business sectors, but they are a very globalized place that is excellent at attracting wealth and talent.

Under David Cameron, defense spending has fallen below the suggested NATO minimum of 2 percent of GDP. Is that likely to change?
I don’t think so. If you look at France, there is an absolute determination across all party lines that France should remain globally important in terms of diplomacy and defense. The British version of that is: “We are important anyway. We have the English language. We used to have a big empire.” Britain tends to see things in historical terms. They have no plan for the future.
Cameron’s success in making a coalition government work has been actually pretty impressive. Not that he has got that much done, but he certainly has managed to stay in power and more or less keep the coalition together.

Cameron’s coalition with the LibDems is in question. Where will the LibDems throw their support now?
They’ll support whoever offers them a better deal. Nick Clegg has made it reasonably clear that he is going to feel free to swing to the left or swing to the right. It is pretty certain that neither Labour nor the Conservatives are likely to get a parliamentary majority that enables them to govern on their own. If either of them has a chance to do this, it is probably the Conservatives.
This morning’s polls gave 34 percent support for the Conservatives and 33 percent for Labour. These percentages don’t mean anything more in Britain than they do in the United States in terms of the popular vote. What counts is whether you win seats in Parliament in individual constituencies.
The LibDems are not going to be as big a force as they were, and the SNP could actually end up with more seats than the LibDems. But both the Tories and Labour have ruled out doing a deal with the SNP. Consequently, even with fewer seats than before, the LibDems could still be the kingmakers.

What are the main issues in this election?
Personalities, taxes to some extent, and competency to run the economy. What you would expect to be the main issue after five years of rather ineffectual coalition government would be either a major, visionary strategy for Britain in the 21st century or the desire for some very strong, clear government policy that requires a majority for one party so it can implement its program. But there is no vision of any kind for Britain in the 21st century except muddle through, keep calm and carry on, and being a kind a globalized platform, which Britain is very good at.
Don’t forget: Britain is not a republic. Brits get one vote for one member of Parliament every five years and that’s it. So the British people are not especially politically engaged: they just want the freedom to earn a living, educate their children, amass some wealth, and go on holiday. The election is really about no more than that. And then it becomes, basically: Who do I have more faith in?

Action contre la Faim (ACF) et l’Institut de relations internationales et stratégiques (IRIS) présentent “GEOTALK, improving our world’s understanding” :

Conférence du 16 avril 2015 avec Gérard Prunier, Consultant international pour l’Afrique centrale et orientale, sur la situation en Somalie.
Introduction de Mike PENROSE, Directeur Général d’Action contre la Faim, France. Présentation de Marie SARDIER, Référente Sécurité Alimentaire et Moyens d’Existence, ACF.

Laurence Daziano a participé le mercredi 29 avril 2015 à l’émission « Culturesmonde » sur France Culture présentée par Xavier Martinet.

Cet article France Culture – Intervention de Laurence Daziano sur les nouveaux pays émergents est apparu en premier sur Fondapol.

Bei den Unterhauswahlen in Großbritannien am 7. Mai 2015 entscheiden die Briten auch über die...

Am 25. März 2015 startete eine saudisch geführte Koalition arabischer Staaten Luftangriffe auf den Jemen, um den Vormarsch der Houthi-Bewegung zu stoppen. Wenige Tage später gaben die Teilnehmer des Gipfeltreffens der Arabischen Liga ihre Entscheidung bekannt, eine gemeinsame arabische Armee aufzustellen. Dabei vertreten die beiden wichtigsten arabischen Ländern gegensätzliche Konzepte militärischer Kooperation: Ägypten setzt auf eine langfristig ausgerichtete, institutionalisierte Militärzusammenarbeit, um größere politische Bedeutung in der Region zu gewinnen; Saudi-Arabien dagegen zieht Ad-hoc-Koalitionen vor, um langfristige Abhängigkeiten von anderen Ländern zu vermeiden, nicht zuletzt von Ägypten. Beide Ereignisse deuten darauf hin, dass die Staaten der Region militärisch vermehrt miteinander kooperieren. Deutschland und die EU sollten dieser Entwicklung mit Skepsis begegnen. Die bisherigen Erfahrungen zeigen, dass regionale Konflikte durch solche Kooperationen eher verschärft als gelöst wurden.

Die Gefahr eines Nuklearwaffeneinsatzes ist wieder ins Blickfeld internationaler Politik gerückt. Im Januar 2015 stellte das renommierte Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists seine Doomsday Clock auf drei Minuten vor zwölf. Das heißt, die Atomwaffenexperten sehen die Welt so nah an der nuklearen Katastrophe wie zuletzt vor 30 Jahren. Nukleare Drohgebärden Russlands, der ungelöste Atomkonflikt mit Iran, aber auch der Rüstungswettlauf in Asien machen deutlich, dass Kernwaffen in der Sicherheitspolitik wieder eine wichtigere Rolle spielen. Vor diesem Hintergrund beraten seit dem 27. April bis zum 22. Mai Vertreterinnen und Vertreter der 190 Mitgliedstaaten des nuklearen Nichtverbreitungsvertrags (NVV) in New York, wie die nukleare Bedrohung begrenzt werden kann. Die größte Gefahr für das Nichtverbreitungsregime geht dabei von einer zunehmenden Polarisierung der Mitglieder aus, insbesondere zwischen Atomwaffenstaaten und Nichtatomwaffenstaaten.

Der Ausgang der britischen Unterhauswahlen im Mai 2015 ist ungewiss wie nie zuvor. Diese Unsicherheit speist sich aus drei längerfristigen Entwicklungen. Erstens verliert das traditionell stabile bipolare Parteiensystem an Bindewirkung, während mehrere kleine Parteien an Zustimmung gewinnen. Es drohen unklare Mehrheitsverhältnisse, eine schwierige Regierungsbildung und eine instabile Regierung. Zweitens werden sowohl in Schottland als auch in England die Grundstrukturen des Vereinigten Königreichs in Frage gestellt. Drittens entscheiden die Bürgerinnen und Bürger in der Wahl auch darüber, ob und mit welcher Zielrichtung sie in naher Zukunft über Großbritanniens EU-Mitgliedschaft abstimmen werden – und ob der Austritt des zweitgrößten EU-Staates damit zur realistischen Option wird.

Wer sind diese „Wutbürger“ – das wurde immerhin zum „Wort des Jahres 2010“ gewählt – heute? Warum gehen sie auf die Straße und werden aktiv; wie kann man mit ihnen umgehen? Eine Expertentagung Hanns-Seidel-Stiftung ist mit einem Vortrag des Stuttgarter Kommunikationswissenschaftlers Prof. Dr. Frank Brettschneider den Rahmenbedingungen dieses Phänomens nachgegangen.

Am 26. Februar 2015 wurden per Präsidialerlass vorgezogene Präsidentschaftswahlen in Kasachstan für den 26. April 2015 angesetzt. Bereits am 14. Februar 2015 hatte der Rat der Vollversammlung der Völker Kasachstans den Präsidenten zu diesem Schritt aufgerufen.

  Joseph Henrotin, « Sur le remplacement des F-16 belges (et sur le « constructivisme » en études stratégiques) », DSI-presse.com, 22 avril 2015. Gilles Biaumet et Christophe Wasinski, « Remplacement des F-16 : la construction d’un besoin en matière d’armement« , Notes d’analyse du GRIP, 20 avril 2015. André Dumoulin, « Médias et sécurité-défense : de la visibilité PSDC (UE) et […]

André Dumoulin, « De la question de la résolution flamande sur le retrait des armes nucléaires américaines de Belgique, Emission « CQFD », RTBF-radio, 22 avril 2015. Joseph Henrotin, « Piratage de TV5 Monde : une illustration de la guerre hybride », Marianne, 11 avril 2015. Joseph Henrotin, « Yémen : comment Washington et Paris soutiennent l’Arabie saoudite », Marianne, 11 avril 2015. Joseph Henrotin, « Hebben […]

Indonesiens Präsident Joko Widodo, auch Jokowi, »will innenpolitische Stärke demonstrieren«, sagt...

Die europäischen Länder sind nicht bereit, in militärischer Hinsicht Autonomie abzugeben und eine...

Der Fachkräftemangel ist in aller Munde – doch was hat es tatsächlich damit auf sich: Welche regional- bzw. branchenspezifischen Ausprägungen sind festzustellen? Welche Rolle spielen Trends, wie demographischer Wandel, Akademisierung, Digitalisierung oder Urbanisierung? Zu diesen Fragen hat der Hanns-Seidel-Stiftung am 20. April in ihr Münchner Konferenzzentrum eingeladen.

This article originally appeared on open Democracy.

 

Four interlocking elements shape the global system: the neurobiological substrates of human nature (providing a more complex account of human nature), the persistence of global anarchy , which today coexists with conditions of instant connectivity and interdependence . 

In an era of widespread decentralization, formation of regional blocs, and popular uprisings the role of states will continue to evolve dramatically. While they will without doubt remain pivotal, their nature and the ways in which they deploy power are in a profound transition. 

In parallel to these developments, the discipline of International Relations can now benefit from a more complex understanding of human nature than what was previously held as perennially true. The role of rationality and egoism, long touted by the Realist school as critical to our understanding of human and state behaviour has become subject to significant criticism.

Neuroscience has contributed largely to providing a more nuanced view of humans and their neurochemistry. More circumspect accounts of human nature show that  emotionality  in fact plays a much more prominent role than previously believed, which overturns the conception of the foundations for interstate relations. A strong case can be made for the emotionality of states alongside a greater appreciation for the role of emotions in individual thought. These conceptions substantially undermine classical Realism in which the structure of IR itself was taken to be both zero-sum and analyzable in terms of pure rational self interest.

Alternatively, the theory of  Symbiotic Realism  adheres to our best neurobiologically-informed understanding of human nature, and offers the potential for a more collaborative conception of International Relations through the use of just power.

One important tenet of Symbiotic Realism is the acknowledgment that emotional vulnerabilities are shared by all parties, and that these can be orchestrated for good or for ill. While the human nature of classical Realism was fundamentally that of a pure rational egoist, Symbiotic Realism acknowledges the importance of symbiotic relationships in which both parties benefit from their willingness to interact cooperatively and compete in a non-conflictual way.

As such, Symbiotic Realism recognizes four interlocking elements which shape the global system: the  neurobiological substrates of human nature  (which provides a more complex account of human nature), the continuing persistence of global anarchy , which today coexists with conditions of instant connectivity and interdependence .

 

Emotionality, individuals, and states

Neuroscience and advanced brain-scanning technology has helped to elaborate our understanding of human nature in at least two important ways. The first is to lessen the role of reason in human decision-making, in large part by demonstrating the immensely  important role of emotions . The second is to name and characterize aspects of the ego that do not manifest straightforwardly in terms of self-interest or power-seeking. With regard to the first of these, there is growing consensus in both neurological and psychological research that human beings have long overestimated the role of reason in their thoughts. Reason has an important role, but comes into play more rarely than is usually understood, and typically only after emotions have had their say.

The circumstances necessary for reason can best be realized where  just power  is consistently employed. The term “just power” is defined here as the exercise of power that respects human dignity and international norms, is savvy with regard to current global conditions, and protects the national interest. In these conditions, emotions will inevitably be present and have causal efficacy, but their effects will be accommodated rather than downplayed or ignored. Just power generates stability as well as a wider recognition of the equal availability and legitimacy of this stability.

This consideration does not override the basic tenet of international politics that self-interest is the fundamental attribute of human nature nor the argument about emotionality. This self-interest evolved according to selection pressures in precisely the same ways as all other features of human beings, and these attributes are marked by a strong inclination towards self-preservation. The fundamental nature of these emotions also highlights the importance of group inclusion and a narrative of identity in fully developed human beings. Therefore, these attributes might broadly be construed as egoist in the sense that they are required for individual human flourishing, yet they simultaneously indicate an irreducible interdependence of people which undermines a simplistic conception of self-interested rational actors.

Although states differ in many ways from individuals, it is worth noting that the decisions that inform interstate relations are ultimately in the hands of individual human beings, even in cases of collaborative decision-making. Evidence for the  emotionality of states  is ubiquitous if we realize that genuine existential threats to states are far less common than challenges to a state’s self-conception. In contemporary events, it is often issues with a state’s self-conception that results in conflict.

For example the desire for vengeance across generations is very difficult to characterize in terms of (purely) rational actors, but is sufficiently  emotionally compelling  to motivate some of the world’s longest-standing and most intractable conflicts.

 

Modern states, power, and sustainability

The game-theoretic interpretation of Classical Realism was characterized by a structural situation in which each actor was forced to act egoistically in order to avoid being taken advantage of or defeated by free-riders. Typically these actors were seen as rational and egotistical states and the zero-sum assumption that underpinned this idea meant that one party’s gain implied another’s loss.

Symbiotic Realism also recognizes the inherent propensity of actors to be egoistic yet in a more accommodative manner as implies a wider appreciation for cultural synergy and recognizes the possibility to move beyond a zero-sum scenario.

Globalization has greatly increased the interdependence between actors in areas such as environmental integrity, the stability of financial markets or the control of nuclear proliferation. This theory remains realist in the sense that it acknowledges an important role for rational self-interest, but Symbiotic Realism is better attuned to the realities of an interdependent world and emphasizes that  mutual benefits  should be possible in collaborative circumstances.

Cultural borrowing  has been a source of great gain for centuries and now the opportunities for such shared benefits are more readily available than ever. Despite the significantly anarchic circumstances of contemporary interstate relations, connectivity and increasing interdependence now ensure that more intercultural exchanges are inevitable, and that problems of governance will arise (and are already arising) that cannot be resolved unilaterally. To put this in a simple scenario: suppose that “A” discovers a highly advanced and effective technology for mitigating carbon pollution, while actor “B” but not “A” has the resources and infrastructure to implement this technology successfully. In an arrangement in which both A and B will have absolute gain—that is, both will gain more than they lose if the technology is shared, Symbiotic Realism can overcome the zero-sum limitations of Realism. The pressing policy objective for the future will thus be to create the conditions in which such good faith arrangements are encouraged and implemented.

Just power includes conceptions of “hard,” “soft,” and “smart” power, with additional parameters of respect for human dignity, and a basic guarantee of justice and compliance with international law. These are the necessary conditions for this good faith to become the norm between states. Power conscientiously exercised in this way provides assurances to all the parties in the system and to would-be collaborators that their contributions will not be used unfairly. In order to be sustainable in our radically interdependent world, uses of power must be demonstrably just, as the misuse of power quickly destabilizes interstate relations.

The recent reporting of extensive torture in the name of security, and the violation of international norms should be examined in exactly this light. Such actions radically undermine the possibility of good faith agreements in the international theatre.

While Realism asserts an almost exclusive focus on the balance of power with an implicit assumption about the malign intentions of other powers, Symbiotic Realism is more nuanced in this view and alludes to the inescapable interdependence now predominant in the international system. The new climate of international relations imposes new mechanisms of deploying power. Manifestations of power that uphold robust regard for human dignity and respect for international norms enable the  sine qua non  trust that is necessary for mutually beneficial decisions. When such just power is exercised and recognized to be operational, the conditions are created for collaboration and the possibility of absolute gain among actors.

 

 

>> Back to GCSP Staff Publications