Advisory Board in discussion with Federal ministries and local as well as international experts on crisis guidelines

With a focus on the connection between domestic and foreign policy, various topics of international conflict management were on the agenda on July 23 in Erfurt, including the role of civilian crisis prevention in the face of the “Zeitenwende”, the effects of civilian crisis prevention at municipal and local level in Germany and the general role of civil society actors in conflict management.

Several discussion rounds with different topics and renowned guests from research, foreign, development and defence ministries and civil society organizations as well as local politicians and practitioners working with refugees enabled an exchange on the different perspectives on Germany’s international peace and crisis engagement and its future.

Among other things, the focus was on drawing on the potential of the Willy Brandt School of Public Policy (WBS), with its international orientation and diverse expertise from the “Global South”, as a platform for dialogue and thus allowing even more voices to be incorporated into the further development process. Thuringia, Erfurt, and the university were deliberately chosen as a venue with a high profile, to involve Central (East) German stakeholders and due to the timing of the upcoming state elections.

In the first panel discussion entitled “South-North Learning – How post-colonial approaches can inform international crisis prevention”, the speakers from the WBS came together and debated the role of persistent colonial legacies in the international (power) structure. They also discussed the possibilities of sustainably equalizing this imbalance, including the different levels of epistemic sovereignty between the Global North and the Global South, through postcolonial approaches. Criticism of the understanding of liberal peace, whose theory largely excludes the local, became highly cited. There was a clear call to counteract epistemic inequalities in particular with exchange, openness and individual, locally oriented approaches. Dr. Alejandra Ortiz-Ayala, Dr. Jalale Birru and Dr. Siddharth Tripathi moderated the discussion with Dr. Jasmin Lorch from the German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS).

Under the title “Peacebuilding – between fragility, geostrategy and the German ‘Zeitenwende’”, the second panel focused on the role of preventative approaches in the face of hybrid threats and the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine, among other things. In particular, the perspective of the Global South on the “Zeitenwende” and its implications, including increasing militarization and global risks with regard to grain supply, for example, were discussed. The participants examined what an integrated commitment to peace should look like. Transparency about German interests in the context of peace policy engagement abroad was also highlighted as particularly important. In this sense, lasting and credible engagement should be the goal, whereby Germany should behave both “bold and humble”. Dr. Gerrit Kurtz from the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP), Dr. Steve Wakhu from Leipzig University and Embu University, Ani Tovmasyan from Peacebuilding Practitioner and Prof. Dr. Solveig Richter from Leipzig University took part in the discussion. Advisory Board member Bodo von Borries acted as moderator.

The third discussion was dedicated to the topic of “The impact of civilian crisis prevention at municipal and civil society level (including displacement and migration)”. The Co-Chairman of the Advisory Board, former LKD Dipl. Krim. Lars Wagner moderated and discussed with Erfurt’s mayor Anke Hofmann-Domke and experts from the municipal sphere, Dr. Ulrike Gatzemeier from VFB Salzwedel and Reinhard Hotop from the Protestant Migration Service South Thuringia. The focus was on the importance of civilian crisis prevention and peacebuilding abroad for the German regional situation and local developments, challenges and trends with regard to displacement and migration. The panelists used practical examples to urgently illustrate the challenging situation at municipal level in this area. After a description of the situation from the perspective of the municipal level, concrete proposals for the further development of the guidelines and corresponding expectations were addressed.

The last panel, which took place as an open fishbowl discussion between the co-chair of the Advisory Board Dr. Kira Vinke, the departmental representatives and the experts present, dealt with the “Role of civil society actors in crisis prevention and conflict transformation”. Central topics included the different understandings of roles and possible role conflicts over resources as well as priorities that civil society and state actors bring to international peace engagement. The aim in this regard is to facilitate more dialogue and less bureaucracy, as well as to understand the internal and external dimensions of peace engagement as more closely intertwined.

The debate on the (re)gaining of public space for civil actors in the face of increasing polarization and radicalization was also a topic, as these local challenges in turn have an influence on civilian crisis engagement. Furthermore, the particular need to fully scientifically evaluate civilian crisis prevention projects in the future was made clear (see statement on the implementation of the guidelines). Andreas von Brandt, Federal Foreign Office (AA), Johannes Dopffel, Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) and Stephan Naundorf, Federal Ministry of Defense (BMVG) discussed on behalf of the ministries.

The Advisory Board supports the implementation and ongoing revision process of the crisis guidelines adopted by the Federal Government in 2017. These guidelines have strategically raised the Federal Government’s work in the field of civilian crisis prevention and peacebuilding to a new level and are an expression of its peace policy mission. Since their adoption, however, the world situation has changed considerably. The current revision process and the consultations taking place with various stakeholders from academia, civil society and parliament take this development into account.