Foreign and Security Policy in 2009 Expectations, Challenges, Opportunities

Vor Mitgliedern des Unterhauses und des Oberhauses in London, Bundestagsabgeordneten und deutschen und britischen Europa-Abgeordneten hat Klaus-Dieter Frankenberger, zuständiger Redakteur der F.A.Z. für Außenpolitik über die Herausforderungen und Aufgaben gesprochen, die auf den neuen amerikanischen Präsidenten aus europäischer Sicht zukommen. Der Vortrag wurde in englischer Sprache gehalten und wird leicht gekürzt wiedergegeben.

I have been asked to speak about foreign and security landscape in 2009. I will do this in light of the changing of the guard that is imminent in Washington. The topic proposed by our host is expectations, opportunities and challenges. I could give you a short, but nevertheless correct answer: Expectations will be very high particularly if Barack Obama becomes the next president of the United States. Yes, Obama's election would create opportunities for Europe and the wider world to reconnect with the United States on a host of issues. And there is absolutely no shortage of challenges: The nuclear standoff with Iran, the world financial meltdown, climate change among them. Next year's inbox is overflowing.

But there is obviously one word missing from this title - „disappointment.“ Quite a few people in Europe, and certainly many in Germany, would be disappointed to learn that a President Obama could not walk on water, that he was not a savior and that he would even be willing to ask Germany to do more heavy lifting in Afghanistan. Europeans tend to forget that he would be president of the United States and not the president of their European continent.

I do not wish to psychoanalyze the thousands of Germans who turned out to hear Mr. Obama speak in Berlin last summer, that massive congregation of followers who acted as though he had come from the gates of heaven and not the streets of Chicago. Nor do I wish to draw any historical analogies. But when he mentioned Afghanistan and said more German help was needed, meaning more troops, the multitude fell silent. It was conspicuously the only silent moment in an event that was meant to showcase the candidate who would redeem the United States in the eyes of the world. So, we need to be aware that while challenges and opportunities certainly lie ahead, disappointments may not be too far behind.

Speaking of opportunities: Germany's foreign minister, the Social Democrat Frank-Walther Steinmeier, made an impression on me the other day when he spoke at a conference that my newspaper organized as part of celebrations to inaugurate the new U.S. Embassy in Berlin. During his address, he gazed into his crystal ball and what did Mr. Steinmeier see? Opportunities for 2009. Only opportunities. He even went so far as to declare 2009 as the year of opportunities. Because of the leadership changes in Russia and the United States that will have taken place by then. (Frankfurter Allgemeine Forum „Transatlantic Relations”)

I am not so sure that there is a lot to celebrate concerning Russia these days, and I hissed the warning flag concerning the U.S. already. But then Minister Steinmeier may have just been thinking merely about himself and what extraordinary opportunities the next year may have in stall for him. A few weeks after our conference, following a little Putsch, he was declared the SPD's official challenger of Chancellor Merkel in the election of a new Bundestag in September of 2009. Since then, I believe in the vision thing again if only for Mr. Steinmeier's personal purposes. But even he may be in for some disappointment or for more of the same. And others may be disappointed too, by the way, for Germany may not provide the kind of leadership next year which others want from us and which the challenges actually demand.

To say Europe is looking to the U.S. elections with great interest is the understatement of the decade. I have never seen anything like this before. The level of emotion, attention and coverage of the election campaign is unprecedented. And that may be with good reason. We all remember our experiences with the Bush administration and the low point in German-American relations for example that preceded and followed the war in Iraq. Today, the public and most policy-makers are yearning for a new beginning that will put the poisonous years behind us. It would definitely be good if we could rein in the anti-Americanism that has become so pervasive in all too many countries affecting too many policy areas.

It is true: George W. Bush was the worst possible president for major parts of Europe's citizenry, including the British public, in terms of style, politics, policies, rhetoric, and even demeanor. I do not mean this so much as a value judgment, simply as a statement of fact. To some extent, our response also reveals something about ourselves. We jumped at the opportunity to take the moral high ground. A lot of people still believe we can just talk radical Islamists out of their terrorist business. It is true that at least in Germany, people, politicians and the government refused to go along with the American script. When this script was changed at the beginning of President Bush's second term, we did not bother to listen anymore. Everything coming out of the White House was considered irrelevant, evil, foolish, dangerous or all of the above. And so the overwhelming majority of Germany and the citizens in all other European country are rooting for Barack Obama. And he may very well become the 44th president of the United States.

Clearly, a Barack Obama in the White House would restore a lot of good will toward the United States practically overnight. Imagine an African-American in the White House - what a change in sentiment this would cause! With both Bush and the unipolar moment both relegated to history, we could be friends again. We could then take on climate change, end wars, toast the power of diplomacy, and cherish multilateralism (as both John McCain and Barack Obama are pragmatic multilateralists). Or so the expectations go. There would be a readiness to reengage on major issues. Both candidates have said they are prepared to listen and be persuaded by America's allies. We will see. One thing is certain: Isolation and unilateralism should play no role in the next administration even, though, we know that the one is ingrained in the collective American psyche, and the other is part of super power mindset.

As I indicated earlier, one test case of how far this new spirit of harmony would go is Afghanistan. At the end of the day, policies will matter more than charming personalities. Assuming that a President Obama largely carried out what candidate Obama has indicated, we may be in, surprise, surprise, for an early little friction. This friction could get very intense. If he really asked Germany to contribute more - personally, I think Germany could and should do more given how high the stakes are, not the least for NATO - he may be probably cold shouldered. I do not foresee the government making any major new commitments, on top of what had just been agreed, in the months leading up to our own elections next September. But at least it must not waver and give in to a public that is highly skeptical of our military presence in Afghanistan, if not hostile to it.

Maybe the new president should pick some other issue to demonstrate the regained vitality and merit of the transatlantic relationship all together. But if Mr. Obama decided to proceed with Afghanistan head on, as it is his stated foreign policy priority, then he must take a careful, almost schmoozing approach to some of America's European allies. They need to be asked in a non-demanding fashion what they would be prepared to do and what they are not prepared to do. Certainly, I see room to apply the German saying „Der Ton macht die Musik“ .

*****
Could Iran be that better issue? I have my doubts here, too. Maybe, the next administration will pursue as a policy that grand bargain which many have repeatedly asked the outgoing administration to pursue. I do not know if Iran's Islamist clerics can be engaged over the country's nuclear ambitions. I have my doubts. Diplomacy has so far not been a tremendous success. And I am not sure Bush's successor will start his new career with a grand move toward Iran. But he will certainly face the same basic question that Bush did: What are the United States and its allies prepared to do to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear capability?
One needs to assume that time is running out. Sooner or later, we will be faced with what Bob Blackwill and others have called the binary moment: Accept a nuclear Iran and the devastating strategic consequences are all too obvious. Or employ military means to prevent this from happening and risk a fall-out of catastrophic proportions. So the issue is: Can we agree on a sanctions regime - with or without Russia and China - that really can make a difference, one that really inflicts economic pain? Such an approach will inflict pain on economic and commercial interests in our countries, too. Given next year's dismal economic outlook, would anybody place a high bet on European support here? My country will not be too keen to tighten sanctions, in whatever institutional format, and then face again the wrath of major German companies that do business in Iran. Again, it may be possible to do so, but it needs careful preparation and improved public diplomacy.

This brings me to Russia. Both Europe and the wider West have to come up with a way to respond to a newly assertive, if not outright aggressive Russia. In my judgment, we need a strategy that does not reward aggression with cooperation and that engage with Russia solely on the Kremlin's terms as that is what it wants. We have to do two things: define our bilateral, regional and international interests vis-à-vis Russia clearly and pursue them as consistently as we can.

And we should not allow the Russian leadership to divide us in Europe and across the Atlantic. Successful Russian tactics in that regard will prevent us from finding the right and common answer in our response to Russia's assertiveness.
What we surely should not do is weaken our position by repeatedly telling the Russians how much we need their gas and oil. This will only embolden them. Appeasement and commercially motivated kowtowing are not an option. They represent a form of shortsightedness that can have potentially devastating consequences for us and for others. We should refrain from bilateralism and stop encouraging Russia from indulging in its Soviet nostalgia. Not everything the West has said and done vis-a-vis Russia merits an award for skilled statesmanship. But many accusations made by Russian leaders do not pass even the most superficial test of scrutiny.

If Russia wants to take cooperation and integration seriously, we will be all too willing to accommodate it. But we cannot accept a Russia that is determined to treat Ukraine as its chasse gardée. We know Ukraine is the big prize in Eastern Europe, but it is not up to the Kremlin to decide where it belongs and which institutions it will ultimately join. If Senator McCain follows George Bush, those European politicians past and present who are all too willing to sympathize with Russia's interests may find little to cheer about. It is highly likely, that with a President McCain Russia may become a very divisive transatlantic issue, indeed. And, by the way, both candidates are in favor of bringing Georgia and the Ukraine into NATO.

Conventional wisdom says the West is on the brink of losing its political and economic clout while authoritarian powers are on the rise. As one author suggested, now it is the time of the rise of the rest, after that of the West and the U.S. before it. There is strong evidence to support that. For this reason, it is imperative to reaffirm and strengthen those institutions through which we have pursued our security, political, and economic interests in the past so well, at least most of the time. There is no better time to do this than 60 years after the founding of NATO and 20 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Yes, 20 years will have passed come next year since that night in November 1989. Since then, the process of globalization has accelerated and with it the redistribution of economic power and influence. This remains true today even or particularly in light of the convulsion that may usher in a new financial order. Two things are clear to me: We need to invest more political will in efforts that will ensure that the European Union can act more forcefully, coherently and convincingly. In saying this, I hope you will not mistake me for an EU theologian who only intends to preach the gospel of the Lisbon treaty to you. And I assure our British friends that I do understand the nature and the pre-eminence of national sovereignty that you so cherish.

But tomorrow's world will put a premium on European coordination, cooperation, and, yes, community action. Acting separately, we will become prey by the really big ones. We need to get over with this treaty of Lisbon business, if only for the reason to address the really pressing issues. If the treaty fails, there will be a new period of EU malaise, introspection, and distraction at a time when we least can afford it.

Facing the issues I talked about and other geopolitical challenges, it is of crucial importance that the United Kingdom, France, and Germany continue to work and act together. If and when the Big Three come up with a common position, there is a much greater chance that the EU arrives at a common position and, even more important, makes an impression on our friends, competitors, and adversaries. We need to stick together over Iran and be prepared to act on what we say; we need present Russia with a common position and do not fall into separate camps. Where we disagree, no effort should be spared to work toward convergence of positions.

The other aspect that I want to emphasize pertains to the Atlantic community and the West in general. Notwithstanding the strategic and political-cultural differences across the Atlantic that we have witnessed, we really need to undertake a major effort to inject new life into the transatlantic relationship. This relationship is indispensable for all of us. One does not need to embrace the concept of a league of democracies to understand how important it is when Western democracies work together. The results are clear: from Afghanistan to the joint approach taken to the financial crisis. If this needs some sort of new institutional underpinning, we should not shy away from reflecting upon it. It would be foolish and harmful to let this opportunity slip away. At least, this is the moment to think about it. We should be realists on what we can achieve alone. We should be more realists on what we must do together.

Let me end with a former senior American diplomat in Bonn, J.D. Bindenagel. The other day, he gave an international forum his recipe for reengagement: „Take America's global power, military strength and market economy, combine them with European democracy and its social market economies, then frame these assets in our common commitment to the rule of law and human rights, and we have the strongest countervailing power to the geopolitical challenges facing us.“ I am not sure if he would us those exacts words in light of today's financial market disaster, but his recipe makes for a good ending, anyway.