40 Years Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy at the University of Hamburg 19712000 1974 2007 2003 2002 2009 19991979 2006 1994 1981 2001 1983 1977 1985 1997 IFSH 2008 1998 1984 1989 1995 1973 1986 2005 19751978 1982 1992 1990 2010 1980 1988 2004IFSH 1971-2011 +++ 40 Years +++ Research - Consultancy - Teaching 1976 1993 1972 19961987 1991 2011 Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy at the University of Hamburg Beim Schlump 83, 20144 Hamburg Phone: 0049-40-866 077 0, Fax: 0049-40-866 36 15 e-mail: [email protected] www.ifsh.de Editor: Susanne Bund Translation: MDS Editing and Translation Services, 53343 Wachtberg Production: Druckerei Schierhorn, Gilbertstraße 22, 22767 Hamburg Hamburg 2011 Reproduction, including excerpts, only with the permission of IFSH. IFSH Contents The Directors of IFSH since 1971 2 The IFSH 1971 – 2011 3 Disarmament and Arms Control 5 European Security Policy – 40 Years a Topic at the IFSH 11 Leadership Development and Civic Education in the German Armed Forces A Traditional Subject of Research at IFSH 16 Consultancy at the IFSH 21 The Research Programme of the IFSH 25 Internship, Study, Doctorates The Promotion of Junior Researchers at the IFSH 29 IFSH – 40 Years of Public Relations Work 34 IFSH Chronology 38 The Authors 40 1 IFSH The Directors of IFSH since 1971 Egon Bahr, 1984 - 1994 (Photo: Holger Noß) Count Wolf von Baudissin, 1971 - 1984 (Photo: Baudissin Dokumentationszentrum) Dieter S. Lutz 1994 - 2003 Reinhard Mutz, 2003 - 2006 Michael Brzoska since 2006 2 IFSH The IFSH 1971 - 2011 It is infinitely easy to argue about whether the world has become a more peaceful place over the last four decades and life in Europe safer. What is indisputable, however, is this: creating more peace and security remains a paramount task of responsible politics. Making a contribution to this through scientific research and teaching, the critical accom- paniment of political decision-making, and the elaboration of alternatives is the aim of our work at the IFSH. Change and continuity mark the work of this Institute in its concern with fundamental current questions of peace and security. There has been a change in world politics, especially in Europe and Germany, marked above all by the end of the Cold War and the division of Europe but also via the subsequent wars in Europe and on its periphery. Yet there has also been a shift in the topography of academic research: while in its early years the IFSH was somewhat isolated because of its location at Falkenstein, its high de- gree of practical orientation and its relative distance from university concerns, it is now – thanks to the establishment of the MPS study course, the increasing networking and acad- emisation and also not least through its move to the university area of Hamburg – an inte- gral part of academic life with all the manifold requirements of legitimation, networking and – above all – competition. The overview of the last four decades of IFSH in the follow- ing chapters illustrates this change using teaching activities and the promotion of junior researchers as examples. These facets of our work have taken on a prominent role for the IFSH over the last decade. The following thematic chapters also offer numerous examples of the changes that have taken place in the research work of the IFSH. But more strongly than this they exhibit continuity: disarmament and arms control, European security policy, leadership devel- opment and civic education within the armed forces, and the role played by armed forces were topics which the very first director of the IFSH, Count Wolf von Baudissin, dealt with. These are still topics dealt with by IFSH, albeit with a different weighting and new ap- proaches, and they are so because they still have high relevance for peace and security poli- cy. Certain examples, such as the nuclear-free world of US President Obama or the war in Afghanistan under German participation, attest to this. This combination of change and continuity is mirrored in the work programme at the IFSH. The current work programme “Trans-nationalization of risks of violence as a challenge to European peace and security policy” stands in the tradition of studying peace and security for and in Europe. At the same time, however, it also gives prominence to an element of current security-policy challenges that has dominated the political agenda Michael Brzoska since 2006 particularly since the attacks of 11 September 2001 but is also very closely linked to the changes caused by economic and social globalisation. 3 IFSH For years the name IFSH has stood for quality: in consultancy, in the public sphere, and in the media – and now, increasingly, also in academic and research circles. The directors Count Wolf von Baudissin, Egon Bahr and Dieter S. Lutz have all made substantial con- tributions to this, supported by the staff of IFSH, of whom too few are mentioned in the following texts. The good name and reputation that IFSH has established through its hard work over the years are as much an inspiration and obligation to all those working at the Institute as is their work on topics of existential significance. In the next forty years IFSH intends to continue being one of the best addresses in Europe at the interface of peace research and security policy. That is, unless the dream of comprehensive security comes true and our deliberations and research on its conditions and fundamental principles becomes un- necessary. Hamburg, July 2011 Michael Brzoska 4 IFSH Disarmament and Arms Control As processes through which to strengthen peace and security in international relations, disarmament and arms control pursue the same aims by different means: they are in- tended to lower the probability of war, decrease the extent of destruction and devasta- tion if political attempts to prevent war fail, and reduce the cost of maintaining military security (see boxes: “Disarmament” and “Arms control”). Disarmament refers to the removal of or reduction in existing stocks of weapons, military equipment and armed forces in negotiated and agreed amounts or to fixed upper limits. Such agreements usually entail reciprocal obligations. However disarmament can also take place unilaterally as an advance gesture and in expectation that the other side follow suit. By contrast, forced disarmament, which the winning side might impose on the party defeated in a war, does not generally count as disarmament. In order to ensure compliance, disarma- tims of the war made it impossible for them ment agreements are normally accom- to take on the role of accuser, there was not panied by regulations concerning veri- even pressure to try to justify the accumu- fication measures (the exchange of data, lation of military equipment. Measured on-site inspections). Apart from material against the fact that, after the sufferings restrictions on certain armaments, disar- of the First World War and the anti-war mament agreements can also set regional attitude of the masses in the countries that limitations. took part in it, disarmament conferences The fact that disarmament diplomacy took place on an almost permanent basis, did not gain entrance into international their results seem more than modest. Suc- politics until relatively late on was due to cesses, in the relative sense, were mainly the historical link between the state and reserved for humanitarian efforts. These military power on the one hand and, on led among other things to a comprehen- the other, to the fact that those governed sive codification of the international law were excluded from the business of gov- of wars (Hague Conventions on the Laws ernment. What country, what empire and Customs of War on Land 1899), the would ever have reached greatness and ban on war gas and bacteriological weap- renown in any other way than from bat- ons (Geneva Protocol 1925) and a general tlefield to battlefield? War was the proven proscription of war as a means of politics ultima ratio through which to decide ri- (Briand-Kellogg Pact 1928). Nonetheless, val claims between states and not an ille- a further six decades were to pass before a gitimate outrage, and, as long as this un- disarmament agreement – the American- derstanding prevailed, there was no rea- Soviet INF Treaty of 8 December 1987 on son to limit the means of war. And, more- the elimination of intermediate-range over, as long as the impotence of the vic- ballistic missiles equipped with nuclear 5 IFSH weapons in Europe – removed a modern, ing the strategic balance that is an impor- operationally ready weapon of war from tant psychological prerequisite, also for the arsenals at all for the very first time. the political principle of peace-building” (ibid., p. 5). The advantages of arms control Naturally peace is less in danger if it is not dependent on the will to maintain over disarmament it but rather on an inability to break it. The world crises of the early 1960s (Ber- This is where the disarmament postulate lin, Cuba) brought about and/or strength- draws the suggestive nimbus that adheres ened a change in thinking in the discus- to patent remedies. Nonetheless there sions on disarmament. The fixation on the is a real gulf between a system of states immediate reduction in armament levels whose members define their relationships right down to the maximum goal of gen- in terms of competition, rivalry and con- eral and complete disarmament faded into flict and a pacified world community from the background. Its place was taken by a which the means of military violence have modified, more complex approach which disappeared, a gulf which cannot be over- the English-speaking debate among prac- come by the intent to disarm however seri- titioners called “arms control” and Count ously this is intended.