New Challenges for the German Security Policy - IFSH

Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy
at the University of Hamburg (IFSH) in cooperation with
the German Armed Forces (Streitkräfteamt)
Master of Peace and Security Studies (M.P.S.)
Seminar Report
New Challenges for the German Security Policy
April 23rd-28th 2006
722-RI, Dr. Patricia Schneider/ Frank Hauenstein/ Friedhelm Dauns/
Patrick Söchting
1

Foreword
From April 23 rd to April 28 th 2006 the seminar group consisting of numerous students of the IFSH's
Master of Peace and Security post-graduate program as well as regular students of Hamburg
University participated in an international security policy program supported and organized by the
German Bundeswehr. The group visited several national and international security-related
institutions in Germany, Belgium an the Netherlands, such as the German Ministry of Defence in
Bonn, the German Bundeswehr Centre for
Verification at Geilenkirchen, NATO's
political Headquarters, and several EU
institutions in Brussels, NATO Air Base
Geilenkirchen, and NATO's Joint Force
Command Headquarters in Brunssum,
Netherlands.
Apart from that, cultural and social events
were also part of the program organized by
Patricia Schneider (IFSH), Captain
(German Army) Patrick Söchting
(Hamburg), Captain (German Army)
Frank Hauenstein and Friedhelm Dauns of
the German Office of the Armed Forces
(Streitkräfteamt St. Augustin).
Major topics of the seminar were the challenges that German and
international security policy are facing at the beginning of the 21 st
century, for example the transformation of the Bundeswehr, the European
Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) as well as the present and future of
transatlantic security relations.
The participants all took up the chance to engage critically in the
discussions at the end of every presentation and thus contributed to a successful and enjoyable week
in the students' academic
curriculum.
The M.P.S. students wish to
thank Frank Hauenstein,
Patricia Schneider, Friedhelm
Dauns and Patrick
Söchting for the professional
administration and planning
of the course.
Christian Hillmer
2

Contents
Foreword...............................................................................................................................2
The Information- and Media Centre of the German Armed Forces...............................................4
House of History ....................................................................................................................4
Oberst i.G. Gerd Müller, Streitkräfteamt of the German Armed Forces: Challenge of Information
Policies of the Armed Forces ...................................................................................................5
Dr. Andrew B. Denison, Director „Transatlantic Networks“: The American Foreign- and Security
Policy and its Meaning for Europe ...........................................................................................5
Dr. Aschot Manutscharjan:......................................................................................................6
The Russian Foreign- and Security Policy.................................................................................6
Dr. Kai Hirschmann, Streitkräfteamt: The New Challenges of Security Policy in Germany ............7
Center for Verification of the German Armed Forces, Geilenkirchen ...........................................8
NATO E-3A Component/AWACS, NATO Airbase Geilenkirchen..............................................9
European Parliament, Brussels...............................................................................................10
European Commission, Brussels ............................................................................................10
European Union Military Staff (EUMS), Brussels....................................................................12
NATO Headquarters, Brussels: „Evolution of NATO into the 21 st Century”...............................13
NATO Headquarters, Brussels: Relationships between NATO and the Broader Middle East ........13
Briefing and Discussion: Political Transformation of NATO, NATO Headquarters, Brussels .......14
NATO Joint Force Command, Brunssum, Netherlands.............................................................15
Federal Ministry of Defence, Bonn: The German Armed Forces on Mission...............................15
Federal Ministry of Defence, Bonn.........................................................................................16
3

The Information- and Media Centre of the German Armed Forces
April 23, 2006. Location: Gustav-Stresemann-Institut, Bonn
In the beginning, Captain Hauenstein (Seminarleitung) and Friedhelm Dauns (Sachbearbeiter
Öffentlichkeitsarbeit) who are in charge of conducting seminars for the Informations- und
Medienzentrale der Bundeswehr introduced themselves and their activities briefly.
Second, Mr. Hauenstein informed us briefly about the Informations- und Medienzentrale der
Bundeswehr, which is structured in three divisions: public relations, promoting secondary growth
and troop information. In the Informations- und Medienzentrale der Bundeswehr archives of
photographs and films of the Bundeswehr as well as of the NVA (Nationale Volksarmee) are
stored.
Third, after some time for first questions, we watched the film “Entschieden für Frieden, 50 Jahre
Bundeswehr”. Its main message was that the Bundeswehr’s role changed since the reunification
from the defense of its own and their allies’ frontiers to deployments abroad in cooperation with
NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) and UN (United Nations Organisation). The first
fighting mission of the Bundeswehr in the Balkans in 1993 represents a landmark in the history of
the Federal Republic of Germany and of its Armed Forces. Two conditions must be fulfilled for a
fighting mission to be called constitutional: There must be a UN mandate and the parliament must
have given green light for this certain action. What then followed were the most important historical
developments of the Bundeswehr between 1955, when the main goal was to have an army which
would be so strong that the risk to be attacked by the Soviets was as low as possible, and 2005,
when the Bundeswehr is at eye level with the other forces in NATO. The challenge for the
Bundeswehr since 1989/90 is to transform itself. In a first step, troops of the former German
Democratic Republic Armed Forces (National People’s Army, Nationale Volksarmee (NVA)) had
to be integrated into the Bundeswehr and the total number of soldiers had to be reduced. In a second
step, the whole Bundeswehr had to be transformed into effectively working Armed Forces which
must be simultaneously ready to have fighting missions and to perform humanitarian missions.
House of History
Andrea Pretis
April 23, 2006, Bonn
The second item on the arrival day was a visit at the Haus der Geschichte (House of History). The
museum, opened in 1994, offers a permanent exhibition displaying the German history from 1945
up to now. 4,000 square meters and 6,000 historical objects were awaiting us. In the entrance hall,
two skilled and charming guides divided us in two groups and led us through the fascinating world
of the past for one hour and a half. The journey began on the ground floor with the end of World
War II. The impression of this difficult period of time strengthened our guide by narrating his own
memories as a child born during the war. Slowly we worked our way up to the top crossing
decades with each floor. On the second floor we watched Germany recovering itself from the war
catastrophe and establishing democracy. The next levels showed the progression of the Cold War
Era and its impact on the rest of the world, especially Eastern Europe. At the same time, we could
admire the material and technical achievements of the proceeding 20 th century. Finally the last level
was reached and therewith the fall of the Iron Curtain, German reunification and the current period
of history. The present day exposition is characterised by the challenges and commitments of the
globalised world. What will the new historical era look like and what will we find in the exhibition
rooms of Haus der Geschichte in the coming years depends on how these challenges will be coped.
Karolina Zázvorková
4

Oberst i.G. Gerd Müller, Streitkräfteamt of the German Armed
Forces: Challenge of Information Policies of the Armed Forces
April 24, 2006, Gustav-Stresemann-Institut, Bonn.
On the occasion of the first 'official' presentation of the journey, Colonel Gerd Müller, head of
section of the Public Information Department in the Office of the German Armed Forces
(Streitkräfteamt), gave an insight into his department's work and structures, naming its three main
operational fields: Public Relations („Öffentlichkeitsarbeit“), Public Information Service
(„Informationsservice“), and Internal Information („Truppeninformation“).
In the second part of his presentation, Colonel Müller discussed examples of controversial political
topics that characterise the difficult relations between armed forces, media and the public: The
export of Eurofighter Aircraft to an instable region or country for instance – which is an exclusive
matter of economic export regulation politics and the German aircraft industry – would usually be
perceived as a German Bundeswehr topic by the public and thus cause negative associations with
the military, although the Bundeswehr is not involved in such an economic process.
Describing current challenges to the Bundeswehr's information policy, Colonel Müller focussed on
three main issues characterizing today's Bundeswehr:
Above all, the Bundeswehr considers itself as a parliamentary force which is strictly committed to
its constitutional framing and acts on the basis of the Defense Ministry's 2003 Agenda
(Verteidigungspolitische Richtlinien). In addition, the strict limits of the budgetary resources
provided by the legislative German Bundestag make up a big challenge to military planners.
Secondly, the German Bundeswehr is currently undergoing its most influential restructuring process
called the „Transformation der Bundeswehr“, which is aiming at more effective forces prepared for
both peacekeeping and peace-enforcing missions.
The third and final issue determining the Bundeswehr's daily business is designated by its numerous
international peacekeeping missions such as EUFOR in Bosnia, ISAF in Afghanistan, KFOR in
Kosovo, or the planned EU Mission to the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Information – as Colonel Müller put it – is a key factor for the effectiveness of Armed Forces,
especially in open societies with a quick flow of information. As a result, information work with
armed forces requires well-trained personnel and comprising awareness of the public and political
situation abroad as well as within Germany.
A lively and very controversial discussion arose in the context Colonel Müller's statements
concerning the German Air Security Act („Luftsicherheitsgesetz“), which was rejected by the
German Supreme Constitutional Court just recently.
Dalma Fabian, Christian Hillmer
Dr. Andrew B. Denison, Director „Transatlantic Networks“: The
American Foreign- and Security Policy and its Meaning for Europe
April 24, 2006, Gustav-Stresemann-Institut, Bonn.
Dr. Andrew B. Denison, Director of „Transatlantic Network“, mapped out, in terms of political
science, a realistic picture of transatlantic relations. Thereby he consistently used Robert Kagans
ideas of the USA acting in a Hobbes-like world and Europe aspired to peace in the spirit of Kant.
Moreover he described the transatlantic community as well, consisting of common prosperity,
freedom, peace and partnership. According to Dr. Denison the dominant challenges to this
partnership are proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to non-state actors and the protection
5

of the liberty order not to be sacrificed for security reasons and the protection of civil liberty laws
facing the danger of being sacrificed for security reasons. Dension stated
three main cultural and political values formed by the United States in its
history: First the belief that only limited state power is good state power,
second the freedom to preferring cooperation and coalition for practical
reasons rather than treaties under international law, and third economical
pragmatism, a world theatre as marketplace for gaining profit.
Transatlantic relationship gives limited opportunity to Europeans to influence
US policy. Dr. Denison illustrated, that strong economical bindings are a
common ground, although there are some communication problems leading
to misunderstandings. To prevent a friction between Europe and America in
the long run political burdens have to be borne and shared commonly. A
more explicit affirmation of US policy could consolidate the decreased
European influence, at the same time Europe should increasingly focus its policy on the world
outside the continent. The challenges of the 21 th century could only be faced together by Europe and
the United States.
In the following discussion the sustainability of US policy, especially with regard to the
proliferation crisis in Iran, the post war situation in Iraq and the vision of US administrators of a
united Europe, which is not the same as in Europe itself, and the political
power of the military economical complex were discussed briefly.
Dr. Aschot Manutscharjan:
The Russian Foreign- and Security Policy
April 24, 2006, Gustav-Stresemann-Institut, Bonn.
Dr. Manutscharjan, born citizen of the former part of the Soviet
Union Armenia, works as freelance journalist for several
scientific and well known journals and newspapers. He gave a
speech about the Russian foreign and security policy. With his
directly connected view to historical and recent developments in
Russia he spoke not only about scientific values but also about
his personal experience and observations within the breakdown
of the Sowjet Union and the development of the Russian Policy.
Irakli Sesiashvili, Dr. Marcel Dickow
At first he provided information about the historical development of Russia in the 1990ies. He
analysed the circumstances of the end of the Cold War and the relations between the Western and
the Eastern World. Thereby he described various political frictions of the breakdown of the Soviet
Union and the formation of the so called east-block countries.
Furthermore he concentrated on the Russian policy of the last 15 years and focused on the political
leadership of Vladimir Putin and additionally the political, social and economic development of the
Russia in that context. Accordingly, the speaker took a closer look to the political relations between
Russia and the United States of America by turning his attention to the interests - in the broadest
sense - of both countries in the Middle East .
During the speech of Mr. Manutscharjan, his audience questioned him about various points in his
explanations, especially about the future perspectives and possible developments of Russia and its
policy. Overall the speech of Mr Manutscharjan was very informative and clearly structured. He
covered the topic with his personal experiences as a journalist and citizen. Students liked most that
he was talking plain language. The students learned to develop a critical view towards the Russian
6

policy.
Irakli Sesiashvili, Anne-Katrin Stahn
Dr. Kai Hirschmann, Streitkräfteamt: The New Challenges of
Security Policy in Germany
April 24, 2006, Gustav-Stresemann-Institut, Bonn.
Dr. Kai Hirschmann’s presentation of the new challenges for the German security politics focused
on two central topics: failed states and terrorism, which are closely interrelated phenomena.
Hirschmann divided his presentation into three parts:
- introductory definitions and preconditions of failed states and terrorism (including
preconditions and tendencies, future conflict scenarios);
- Islamism and Jihadism as a worldwide ideology (including developing lines of Islamism, the
3-2-1-model of violence);
- manifestations of this ideology: from theory to practical issues (including the role of Al-
Qaeda as the provider organization to the international Jihad network).
Hirschmann started by distinguishing between terrorists on one hand
and guerilla or freedom fighters on the other. According to
Hirschmann, terrorism uses violence driven by political motivations. It
aims at a change of behavior/politics on the part of the enemy:
“Guerillas want to conquer the land, terrorists the brain and the
thinking.”
Hirschmann distinguished between old and new challenges, the
classical war between states and the conflicts in which at least one
party is sub-governmental. He brought up the question why states are failing. Important
preconditions date back to colonial times, when border lines were drawn without taking into
account ethnic communities, religious affiliations or other historically grown divides. Examples are
legion, Hirschmann named Nigeria, Iraq and Pashtunistan (Durand-Line). Other important factors
in failing states are governments that lack legitimacy as well as one ethnic group dominating others.
Yugoslavia and also Afghanistan serve as other examples for rivalry between local leaders
(Milosevic, Karadzic) or war lords (Dostum, Chan), who all had a vital political and economical
interest. Other states disintegrated as a result of the regime being undermined by organized crime
and mafia structures. In this respect the Islamism of Usama Bin Laden and Mohammed Al-
Zakharwi sticks out because it is almost purely based on a political background (with religious
justification).
The second part of the presentation dealt with Islamism, Jihadism and sectarian ideologies of
minorities that misuse and misinterpret Islamic tradition in order to achieve political goals. These
groups are to be distinguished clearly from the Islam itself.
Hirschmann then explained the 3-2-1-model of violence as a justification of Islamic terrorism: 3
enemies (the crusaders, the Jews and the governments cooperating with the infidel western nations)
have to be attacked by two different means (physical and mental: through soldiers and through
forcing schemes of behavior onto the enemies), and there is only one answer: the common defense
effort, which Islamists often call “Jihad”. The originator of this line of thought was said to be a man
named Sayed Kutub, an Egyptian middle school teacher, executed in 1966. According to
Hirschmann “Jihad” cannot be translated by “Holy war” but by “striving”.
The end of the presentation was marked by a couple of questions aiming at the 3-2-1-model, the
difference between Hamas and Jihad, the financial sources of Al-Qaeda, the parallels between
Afghanistan, Chechnya, Iraq and Bosnia-Herzegovina and terrorism research in Germany.
Thomas Wagner, Frank Reininghaus
7

Center for Verification of the German Armed Forces, Geilenkirchen
April 25, 2006
During our visit at the Bundeswehr Verification Center, on Tuesday the 25th of April 2006, we had
the opportunity to hear about the activity of the Verification Center, in general and about the main
treaties and international conventions on arms control and non-proliferation.
The Bundeswehr Verification Center is responsible for
checking whether the States parties have met or not met
their disarmament obligations comprised in 19
international treaties and conventions. The main treaties
are divided into regional arms control treaties like the
Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE), the
Vienna Document (1999) and the Open Skies Treaty, as
well as treaties prohibiting certain arms like “Small Arms
and Light Weapons” (SALW), the Ban on Anti-Personnel
Mines, the UN Weapons Convention, as well as non
proliferation treaties like the Chemical Weapons
Convention, the Biological Weapons Convention, the
Hague International Code of Conduct (HCoC), the
upcoming Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) or the
Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR).
Germany is leading about 400 inspections annually,
accompanies further 700 and accepts some 500 inspections
in its own territory. There is an unofficial agreement
regarding the CFE, that NATO member states do not
control themselves. The inspections focus on Russia,
Belarus, Ukraine, the Balkans, Caucasus and Central Asia.
The procedure of the inspections conforms to the principle
of declaration and verification.
In the discussion the questions aimed at the efficiency of the different treaties and conventions.
Some of the main treaties, like the CTBT or the adapted CFE had not yet entered into force as some
important nuclear powers refuse to ratify it because of political (e.g. USA, India, Pakistan, Israel) or
technical (e.g. Russia) reasons. Nevertheless, all international treaties and conventions regarding
arms control and non-proliferation depend on the consensus of the participating states to respect the
agreements entered into. Other questions regarded the fight against international terrorism and its
consequences for the disarmament policy, which changed the mission of the Bundeswehr
Verification Center. Its focus is now to ensure the non-proliferation of weapons and means of mass
destruction, to extend the international arms control system and to stabilise confidence building
between governments. Although several raised topics were still admittedly as problematic at the
moment, such as the gigantic storage in conventional ammunition, defective storage and
maintenance of ammunition in the case of security risks of organized crimes or terrorism, the new
mandate is reflected in the overall concept of the Verification Center: “Verification is our mandate,
confidencebuilding is our aim and cooperation is our way to achieve it”.
Dr. Marcel Dickow, Teodora Aurora Vrancean, Zhixian Xu
8

NATO E-3A Component/AWACS, NATO Airbase Geilenkirchen
April 25, 2006
On Tuesday the 25th of April 2006 the group
visited the NATO Air Base in Geilenkirchen
which is the E-3A Component´s main
operating base. Other operating bases are
located in Konya (Turkey), Preveza (Greece),
Trapani (Italy) and Oerland (Norway). After a
brief introduction to the site that is the place of
work for around 3000 military and civilian
personnel and after lunch in the officer´s club,
a presentation made the group familiar with the
origins, the organisation, the missions, tasks
and operations of the Component as well as
some technical aspects related to E-3A
operational activities.
The NATO E-3A aircraft – modified Boeing 707s – are flown by integrated multinational crews
from 12 nations, 17 women and men per aircraft. E-3A`s mission is “to provide a fully integrated,
interoperable, multinational and immediately available airborne surveillance warning and control
capability in support of Alliance objectives.” NATO´s Airborne Warning and Control System
(AWACS) plays a crucial role for the Alliance; whilst conducting a broad range of missions, its
major task is air surveillance. AWACS´ special radar system is able to detect air traffic at low
altitudes and over large distances. In the moment the fleet consists of 17 E-3A radar aircraft and
three cargo planes. Originally, in 1978, NATO decided on the acquisition of 18 aircraft, one was
destroyed by an accident meanwhile. E-3A`s budget for 2005 summed up to more than 250 Mio.
Euro; main contributions come from the United States and Germany.
AWACS supported for example operations in the Balkans in the 1990s as well as in Turkey
following Iraq´s invasion of Kuwait in 1990. NATO AWACS support has also been requested for
increasing security in the course of major public events like the Olympic games 2004 in Athens as
well as the World Football championship to start in June 2006 in Germany.
After the talk, the group watched a short documentary, “24
hours for Peace”, illustrating major tasks and activities of
NATO E-3A. The film focused on the daily life of the
personnel; it showed some manoeuvre scenes as well as the
difficult process of air refueling.
Finally all seminar participants had the chance of inspecting
an E-3A aircraft from the inside. Experts guided small groups
through the aircraft, gave technical information, explained the
crew´s various positions and tasks and answered the groups´
questions.
Zhixian Xu, Thomas Wagner
9

European Parliament, Brussels
April 26, 2006
The group of visitors had the opportunity to meet the Vice-President of the European Parliament
Mrs. Dr. Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann and to talk with her about current problems and challenges of
the Parliament and of the European Union.
Dr. Kaufmann welcomed the group in a conference room
and introduced herself and her major activities as a Vice-
President of the European Parliament. She started her
political career in the German party “Partei des
Demokratischen Sozialismus”(PDS) and was a member of
the PDS Executive in the period 1991-1993 and 2000-
2002. In addition Mrs. Dr. Kaufmann was a Federal Vice-
Chair of PDS between 1993 and 2000. She had an observer
status at the European Parliament in the period 1991-1994
and later on in 1999 she became a member of it as a deputy
of the Confederal Group of the European United Left –
Nordic Green Left. Dr. Kaufmann was also member of three core delegations and respective
commissions: Convention for the Charter of Human Rights of the EU, Vice-Chair of the European
Parliament delegation (2000) and Constitutional convention
(2002-2003).
Mrs. Kaufmann pointed out the relevance of the work of the
Constitutional Convention and expressed her personal
disappointment with the two refusals of the European
Constitution in France and in the Netherlands. She offered
various possible explanations and explained the resulting
dilemma for the EU. The Vice-President did not support the
general redefinition of the content of the Constitution since
this will take another couple of years to be completed, because the constitution already reflects a lot
of bargaining, compromise and “package deals”. She stressed the importance of the EU
Constitution for the future of Europe. She also outlined the shortcomings of EU’s visa and data
security policy. She saw no chance for Russia in the near future to enter the European Union.
Concerning the CIA-Committee of the EU Parliament, Dr. Kaufmann revealed that there were
several cases of abduction of European citizens through the US CIA-agents and made clear that the
EU Parliament would undertake a thorough investigation about it.
Alexander Tsukev, Qin Yunfeng
European Commission, Brussels
April 26, 2006
Mrs. Trautmann from the external speaker team provided us with a warm welcome and an
introduction to the European Commission. She started with the challenges of work at the
Commission and therefore, gave us an interesting insight into daily life at the Commission. Apart
from the many languages present at the Commission, cultural diversity plays an important role –
creating challenges and making work more interesting at the same time. Responding to questions
raised by the group, Mrs. Trautmann explained the role of interpreters and translators at the EU
institutions. Another aspect raised by the group was the chance of employment at the European
Commission. Here Mrs. Trautmann spoke freely about the enrollment process and the difficulties
for applicants without working experience.
10

In the following, she presented the work of the European organs. It is difficult to actually define the
EU, for it is neither a state nor a loose federation of states. In terms of economics, the EU is more
intertwined than the United States and Canada; in terms of politics though it is far away from
forming a unity. Nevertheless, no market can survive without political and legal foundations and
thus, the EU politics are more and more touching rather sensitive areas of national politics and
sovereignty. Therefore, the constant balancing between state and EU interests is the main conflict
the EU institutions have to manage. The European Council is representing the interests of the
member states, whereas the European Parliament represents the European people. The Commission
takes care of the interests of the EU. It is not surprising that sometimes all the three institutions are
working on the same topics – according to their competences and interests.
Mrs. Trautmann then concentrated on the Commissioners: first, the EU Parliament needs to approve
the Commissions president and then the national governments present their candidate to the
Parliament. The Parliament can only approve or disapprove the Commission as a whole. Although
the candidates are selected by their national governments, it is important to note that they are
expected to act independently – integrity towards the EU is considered their most important asset.
Manipulations of commissioners by their governments are unlikely for the system and the fear of
bad reputation are widely preventing this. In the end, the discussion dealt with the current
Commission and the problems and challenges it is facing.
Speaker: Ms. Daniela Tidten, CFSP and ESDP – New Developments
Ms. Tidten introduced the topic of Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and European
Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) by talking about different military and civilian crisis
management operations which have been organised under ESDP. Under ESDP, which is a part of
CFSP belonging to the EU’s second pillar, the European military Committee (EUMC), the
European Military Staff (EUMS) as well as the Committee for Civilian aspects of management
(CIVCOM) develop positions which are then forwarded to the Political and Security Committee
(PSC). The PSC amongst others has the political control and strategic leadership of crisis
management operations under the responsibility of the Council.
Crisis management and conflict prevention are also been worked on in the Commission. The “grey
area” of competence between Council and Commission needs to be considered as a problem.
However, the Commission, but not the Council is supposed to be responsible when EU-law
provides a legal basis for Commission action.
The Commission administers the budget of CFSP. This increased noticeably in 2006 to 102,3
Million Euros. But compared to the Commissions Budget on External Relations of 7 billion Euros
the financial budget is relatively small.
The Commission is also active in election observation as a tool of crisis prevention. The recent
observation missions have been sent to Africa and Latin America. The EU moreover cooperates
with other organisations in this field. They share tasks: e.g. there will not be an observation mission
sent to a country where the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) observed
elections.
Since the EU is developing military capabilities as part of ESDP the question of competition
between EU and NATO is often raised. The EU, with its traditionally strong “soft power” might be
creating unnecessary double structures; especially since the Berlin Plus agreement enabled the EU
to access NATO capabilities. However, a close cooperation between NATO and EU is also facing
problems: when PSC and NATO Council meet, Malta and Cyprus can not take part, since they are
not NATO members and NATO is strict on its nondisclosure policy.
The forthcoming EU-mission to the Democratic Republic of Congo might be a practical test for
ESDP: there have been difficulties with the allocation of troops, but it can not be judged whether or
not this mission will be successful, since the date for the elections is still unknown. The EU looks
after non-member countries to get involved in EU-missions through e.g. providing French speaking
police officers for the Congo mission.
Although the European Constitutional Treaty would have eliminated the pillar structure of the EU,
11

it would not have changed the effective procedures. The main change would have been the creation
of the position of the European foreign minister. The phase of reflection which was announced after
the rejection of the treaty through France and the Netherlands has so far unfortunately hardly been
used for national and international discussions.
European Union Military Staff (EUMS), Brussels
Yvonne Eifert, Tanja Gey
26 April, 2006, Vertretung des Landes Bremen.
Speaker: Gerard Heckel, Alexandre de Bordelius (operations), Caroline Boisseau (policy and plans)
The presentation dealt mainly with the forthcoming
military operation of the European Union (EU) in the
Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). The core aim of
the operation is planned to be a contribution to the
upcoming elections in DRC. The European Union
operation in DRC should be complementary to the United
Nations Organisation Mission in the Democratic
Republic of Congo (MONUC). Two missions of the EU
within the framework of the European defence and
security policy (EDSP) were introduced: the European
Union Police Mission in Kinshasa (EUPOL Kinshasa) in
April 2005 and the European Union security sector reform mission in the Democratic Republic of
Congo (EUSEC DR Congo), which was launched on 8 June 2005 for a period of 12 months and has
recently been prolonged till the end of 2006.
On 23 March 2006 the Council of the EU approved the concept of possible support to the MONUC
mission under the name EUFOR DR Congo. The parliamentary decision, whether or not Germany
will send its Armed Force to the region is expected for 19 May 2006. Since Germany is supposed to
provide the mission’s headquarter, it is facing some pressure lately, especially from the media.
However, it is not expected that the German parliament will reject a German participation. The EU
operation will aim to provide timely and focused support to MONUC. It will involve the
deployment of an advanced element to Kinshasa of approximately 400-450 military personnel and
the availability of a battalion -size "on-call" force "over the horizon" outside the country, but
quickly deployable.
One of the big challenges faced is to rebuild the Congolese Armed Forces (in the scope of EUSEC
Congo). This reform progress is not finished yet and will definitely not be finished till the upcoming
elections; rebel armies are still active in the region as well as private armies which often operate for
officials.
EUFOR RD Congo foresaw the participation of non-EU member states as well. The official
planned duration of the mission is supposed to be 4 months.
The EU’s fight against terrorism was also discussed. The Council of Europe’s action in this area is
threefold: strengthening legal action against terrorism; safeguarding fundamental values and
addressing the causes. In comparison to the NATO strategy the EU’s is not a proactive one (no
”preventive” force included).
The EU is also active in disaster response, e.g. after the Tsunami, December 2004. One of the main
problems in this area is strategic airlift which has the biggest shortfalls. Nevertheless, the EU’s
development here is in full activity.
Tanja Gey, Alexander Tsukev
12

NATO Headquarters, Brussels: „Evolution of NATO into the 21 st
Century”
Dr. Knut Kirste, German Info and Liaison Office, Public Policy Division.
April 27, 2006
The visit to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation’s (NATO) Headquarters in Brussels, Belgium
took place on the 27 th April 2006. First theme offered for discussion was the transformation of the
organisation beginning from the end of the Cold War till present time. Dr. Kirste divided his
presentation into three parts: evolution, enlargement and the agenda of the NATO meeting in Sofia,
Bulgaria.
The first part touched upon the evolution of the Alliance. The changes within the organisation were
needed to adopt NATO to the new challenges of the freedom and security in the world. From the
military defense organisation it now perceives itself as a collective security alliance; from a
Eurocentric organization it became global, engaging in the field of cooperation, conflict prevention,
stabilization and peace building. These all required changes in the strategy, technological
improvements, intensive training of the soldiers not only in the spheres of military techniques, but
also in peace building and peacekeeping.
After the enlargement of the institution including 10 more member-states with 52 million people,
the new frontiers were confronted with unstable neighborhood and former enemies. Ensuring the
security in the Atlantic region, NATO established the Partnership for
Peace Program with 20 countries from the Mediterranean and Eurasia.
The possibility to discuss the issues of common interest in the Council
and carry out joint military and peacekeeping operations raise the
awareness among partnership states about the NATO as an
organisation and established an environment of mutual trust and
cooperation. According to the speaker, such improvements untied
NATO’s hands. It is now geographically unrestricted. Action can
rather be taken wherever and whenever needed. At the same time,
NATO’s global participation on territories like Afghanistan, and
cooperation with countries like Australia, both lying far beyond the
North-Atlantic region, produce political disputes on how far the
organisation will enlarge, while risking to lose its natural roots as the
North-Atlantic Alliance.
All these issues were intensively discussed by the 26 NATO Foreign Ministers on the meeting in
Sofia, Bulgaria on 27 th April 2006. The core topic on agenda, as Dr. Kirste pointed out, concerned
the strengthening of the NATO relations with non-member states, such as Japan, South Korea, New
Zealand and Australia. Also the NATO’s Training Initiative together with capacity-building in the
frames of enlargement to Africa and Middle East were as well the focus of vigorous debate.
Teodora Vrancean, Nodira Inoyatova, Frank Reininghaus
NATO Headquarters, Brussels: Relationships between NATO and the
Broader Middle East
Mr. Alberto Bin, NATO Political Affairs Division & Multilateral & Regional Affairs Section
Mr. Alberto Bin gave a short introduction into the relationship between NATO and the Broader
Middle East, before answering students´ questions.
Starting in 1994, the NATO regarded the Southern Mediterranean Rim as an area of potential
instability; therefore two instruments were introduced to countries in that area, the Mediterranean
Dialogue (MD) and the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative (ICI). These two were aiming at two
separate groups of countries, and both contained a different approach from the EU approach
13

towards these countries.
As the name implies, the Mediterranean Dialogue offers a dialogue to countries adjoining or close
to the Med. Presently there are seven members, from Morocco and Mauritania in the West via
Algeria and Tunisia to Egypt, Jordan and Israel in the East. The aim is to prevent misunderstanding
of NATO´s politics, procedures and military interests. At the same time NATO-Alliance leaders
decided to reach out to the broader region of the Middle East through the Istanbul Cooperation
Initiative , by promoting practical bilateral cooperation with interested countries of the region,
starting with countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), i.e. Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman,
Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. Both the Mediterranean Dialogue and the Istanbul
Cooperation Initiative are open to all interested countries that share common values with NATO
(e.g. humanitarian rights and democracy).
Mr. Bin gave a few examples for cooperation between NATO and its partners, e.g. disaster
management, air traffic management, public diplomacy and defense reforms, before he offered the
students an opportunity to launch their questions.
Frank Reininghaus
Briefing and Discussion: Political Transformation of NATO, NATO
Headquarters, Brussels
Mr. Michael Rühle, Head, Policy Planning & Speechwriting Section, Political Affairs and Security
Policy Division
April, 27, 2006
Mr. Rühle started his briefing with the affirmation that NATO is about to overcome its Eurocentrism
and to become a more functional defined organization. This will mean to complement its
military transformation with a decisive move towards a more frequent and frank political debate.
That NATO has to become more political is seen as a lesson learned from the Iraq controversy in
spring 2003. The most severe breakdown of the transatlantic consensus and the deepest crisis in
NATO’s recent history was not caused by a lack of collective military power, but by fundamental
political difference over its use. Against this background, Mr. Rühle named three dimension of
NATO’s political transformation. On the first hand, the NATO has to become a forum for a broader
strategic debate, a forum in which the Allies shape common perspectives and approaches to wider
issues. According to Mr. Rühle, a so called “culture of debate” has emerged in the last two years.
Examples like, NATO’s decision to support the African Union’s peacekeeping mission in Darfur, or
to provide humanitarian relief to the victims of the earthquake in Pakistan, showed how quickly a
seemingly distant issue can become relevant to the Alliance. Informal meetings, like NATO Foreign
Minister meeting in Sofia, 27-28 April 2006, are seen as “building blocks” for NATO Summits.
Furthermore, the nature of the NATO’s current mission and future military operations require
NATO to seek a closer cooperation with other international institutions (European Union, United
Nations) as well as NGOs, in order to articulate a political strategy that shapes the context in which
it operates military and to avoid a so called “mission creep”. The riots in Kosovo in spring 2004
were a stark reminder of how quickly NATO troops can become hostage in unresolved political
issues. According to Mr. Rühle a third reason for a more political NATO stemmed from the
changing institutional setting, and particularly, the European Union’s emergence as an independent
military actor. A pragmatic strategic partnership between NATO and the European Union and a
more structured relationship with the United Nations will help to avoid rivalries and competition in
this complex security setting. However, NATO is already emerging as a major enabler of the United
Nations.
Despite the risk, that dialogue does not always facilitate consensus, but deepens existing rifts,
Mr.Rühle said, there was not a real alternative to a more political NATO, even if this is a very
sensitive and difficult issue. He concluded with the wish that “the end of discussion will not be
victory, but enlightenment” and a more functional defined Alliance with global partners.
Teodora Vrancean, Nodira Inoyatova, Frank Reininghaus
14

NATO Joint Force Command, Brunssum, Netherlands
April 27, 2006
The Joint Force Command (JFC) in Brunssum, Netherlands is the subdivision of the Supreme
Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, which was previously (1962) answerable for the defence
planning and was located in France. The massive placing of the nuclear assets in the Central Europe
and withdrawal of France from the military component of NATO were preconditions of moving the
Headquarters (HQ) to Brunssum.
The NATO transformation is affecting this subdivision till now. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall,
the focus of the HQ moved from massive retaliation doctrine inherited in the Art.5 of the NATO
Treaty to the flexible response. New range of the mission includes humanitarian assistance, peaceenforcement
and collective defense, as well as peace-keeping operations.
The Art.5 missions can be authorized by the UN, OECD or EU mandates and employ the resources
and instruments even from non-member states. For example in Afghanistan, the ISAF mission,
authorized by UN Security Council Resolutions, involve cooperation of 36 contributing nations, of
which only 26 are NATO member-states. Today the spectrum of JFC in Brunssum embraces the
International Security Assistance Force with 9000 soldiers on the ground, NATO Response Force
and Deployed Joint Task Force continuum to ensure the ability to react rapidly and in short time in
case of catastrophe or conflict, accession and integration of the NATO new members helping them
to achieve higher military and preparation standards, assisting in the Dialogue between NATO and
its partner-states, including Russia, Ukraine and Mediterranean through training and cooperation.
New demands and security challenges require adaptation of new methods and instruments, as well
as much higher and professional training of the soldiers, who must be peace-keeper, peace-enforcer
and peace-builder at the same time. This is obviously seen in the Afghan mission, where ISAF and
Provincial Reconstruction Teams’ soldiers have to combine military and civilian tasks while
helping the Afghan government to rebuild its states. Although the stability and development of
Afghanistan might take at least 15 more years, the little changes, such as new schools and hospitals,
electricity, rising percentage of girls visiting school and the appreciation of the people show that the
NATO is needed.
Nodira Inoyatova, Qin Yunfeng, Mayeul Hieramente
Federal Ministry of Defence, Bonn: The German Armed Forces on
Mission
Lieutenant Colonel Volker Bergander
April 28, 2006
At the Ministry of Defence, Lieutenant Colonel Volker Bergander
provided us with a warm welcome and introduced the „Führungsstab
der Streitkräfte“, Department V 3.
Main interest of this department is the accomplishing of international
operations. Therefore, Lieutenant Colonel Bergander gave us an
overview over current German operations worldwide. Of special
interest was the planned operation to the Democratic Republic of
Congo (DRC), where Germany is supposed to secure the coming
elections as well as the mission to Afghanistan. Since Lieutenant
Colonel Bergander proved to be an expert as regards to Afghanistan,
he concentrated on that mission. The landing point for German
troops is not Afghanistan, but an airport in Uzbekistan. The main
tasks for the Germans in the framework of a NATO mission (ISAF)
are to help the Afghanistan government to consolidate a rule of law
15

and to rebuild the infrastructure. Other important aspects are the spread of media and the rebuilding
of schools – with special focus on girls' education. Responding to questions from the audience, he
also touched briefly on the exit strategy for Germany which is planned for 2010. He himself
considered this plan to be too optimistic and did not hesitate to criticise some of the strategies and
actions of the mission.
Apart from the missions themselves, Lieutenant Colonel Bergander talked openly about the
problems they are facing. One problem is that although Germany has quite a number of professional
soldiers, only a part of them is able to be sent off for missions – due to physical fitness or other
reasons. Therefore, some soldiers are sent from one operation to another, whereas some others are
stationed only within Germany.
Another aspect is that every four months, the soldiers are drawn out of the region due to their right
to domestic vacations. To not make it too hard on them, they are not sent back after their two week
holiday. Thus, a complete new team is sent to the region – without the experience of the previous
one, which makes it almost impossible to create an “institutional memory” preventing the team to
be as efficient as it could be. At the end, problems such as child soldiers facing Bundeswehr troops
in an operation and right wing extremists in the army as regards to international operations were the
main topics of discussion.
Yvonne Eifert, Patrycja Sokolowska
Federal Ministry of Defense, Bonn
Lieutenant Colonel Horst-Dieter Rückert
April 28, 2006
The second meeting at the Ministry of Defence was with Lieutenant
Colonel (LTC) Horst-Dieter Rückert from the armed forces.
He showed us a short movie clip about the federal Ministry of Defense
and explained us about the structure and executive group of Ministry of
Defense.The Federal Ministry of Defense assists the Minister in fulfilling
his many and varied responsibilities. It consists of the executive group, the
civilian directorates and the military staffs. The Ministry performs the
specific functions of the technical department for military defense,
concentrating its efforts on planning and politico-military matters, the
supreme command, the supreme authority for Bundeswehr administration
including the armaments organisation with a focus on procurement for the
armed forces.
He told us about the Federal Minister of Defense and the executive group.
A Federal Minister of Defense is at the head of the Ministry of Defense.
He is a member of the Federal Government. In peacetime, he is the Commander-in-Chief of the
Armed Forces and hence also the highest disciplinary superior of all military personnel. In addition,
he is the head of the federal defense administration and thus the superior of all civilian employees
of the Bundeswehr and the Ministry. Two Parliamentary State Secretaries assist the Minister in
fulfilling his governmental duties. They maintain permanent contact with the Bundestag, Bundesrat
and parliamentary groups, and represent the Minister in these bodies. Two Permanent State
Secretaries assist the Minister in performing technical control of the Ministry and exercising
peacetime command authority. A very interesting point was about two official seats of the Ministry
of Defense. In addition to his official seat in Bonn, the Ministry has a second official seat in Berlin.
We heard, that the decision to run the Ministry from two official seats is based on the provisions of
the Bonn-Berlin Act dated 26 April 1994. The clearly larger part of the Ministry with
approximately 3,000 posts is based at the first official seat in Bonn. Co-operation between the two
official seats is based on advanced telecommunication links which, among other things, enable
electronic workflow management among all workstations independent of the place of work. Despite
of the good communication system the two seats cost a lot of money. Only the Bundestag can
decide the relocation of the seat of the ministry. Patrycja Sokolowska
16