Discussion Report: Farewell Generation Foreign Policy?

This event, which was co-organized by the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, the Chair for International Relations and Foreign Policy at the University of Trier and the ASKO-EUROPE FOUNDATION, dealt with the role of Parliament in the German public discourse on foreign policy. Scientists and parliamentarians discussed the significance of foreign policy in the broader German public debate as well as in the work of the Bundestag, how these issues are communicated to the wider public and finally which opportunities Parliament has at its disposal to exercise influence on the process of foreign-policy making. Participants were Dr. Stefan Mair and Prof. Hanns W. Maull, Niels Annen (SPD), Markus Loening (FDP) and Rainder Steenblock (Buendnis90/ Die Gruenen). The discussion was moderated by Prof. Volker Perthes. In the following report, we summarize the contents and the main results.

German Version of this Report [HTML]
Program of the Event [German Version only, PDF]

At the beginning Hanns Maull pointed to a contradiction in the German context between the high relevance of foreign policy on the one hand and the lack of sufficient resources allocated to foreign relations, defence policy and development aid on the other. Moreover, the awareness of foreign policy issues is rather low in the German public, according to Maull. He thus pleaded for greater discussion on the function of the Bundestag as a hinge between the government and society and how parliament fulfils this function. Volker Perthes agreed in principle and also proposed that the relatively low interest in foreign policy was at least partly due to a lack of "big issues" which had still characterized the Cold War era. Today, much of the foreign policy agenda is dominated by more routine and technical problems, especially in the area of European foreign policy making. Against this background, the panellists formulated a few questions which served as guidelines for the following discussions: If it is true that foreign policy is increasingly neglected by the electorate, then how attractive can it be for younger parliamentarians? Why is it so difficult to convince the electorate of the relevance of foreign policy issues and how can the communication in this regard be improved? Which role do the German media play in this communication process? And finally, how can members of parliament influence foreign policy-making?

Options for Exercising Influence
The first topic which was debated by the panellists concerned the options the Bundestag and its parliamentarians have to influence foreign policy-making in Berlin. Niels Annen, reflecting on his experience with the decisions to extend Germany's military engagements in Afghanistan, stated that it was more important to make one's standpoint clear in the intra-party debate rather than in the discussions in parliament itself. He conceded that Afghanistan might have been a special case because the media paid much attention to the relevant party conventions ahead of the decisions. Nevertheless, he said that this would still be a more general pattern. Hereupon Rainder Steenblock of the Green party, which is currently in the political opposition, raised the question if members of the governing political parties would really have an interest in openly criticizing the foreign policy of "their" government. Markus Loening, whose party is also in the opposition, added that parliament in recent months and years had been at pains to even make full use of those opportunities which it already possesses to influence policy-making. As an example, he quoted the so-called "Europe clause" in the German Basic Law (Article 23) which was included in the course of the Maastricht Treaty's ratification process and which grants parliament far-reaching rights to influence European policy-making of the German federal government.

Steenblock also pointed to the "information gap" between the government and the ruling parties on the one side and the parliamentary opposition parties on the other as an important obstacle to effectively exercise influence. Because of the fact that the government has access to more timely and substantive information in many policy areas it also has a crucial advantage which the opposition can only try to compensate through informal ways. As an example, he mentioned the collaboration among parliamentarians from different parties who hold the same position on a specific issue. In some areas, where the administration lacks expertise and resources, interested parliamentarians can also try to influence the early phases of the decision-making process at the working level of the administration. Steenblock stated that these informal ways would usually go unnoticed by the wider public and media. The more formal (and thus transparent) ways of influence-seeking are also rendered less important because in most cases, the Bundestag as an institution has only one option either "to take it or leave it". All aspects of a decision are formulated by the government so that parliament can only accept or reject - but not alter - it.

Annen also came back to the role of the media. He concluded that it would be far more effective to try to influence the public foreign policy discourse through the appearance in a political broadcast rather than in the Foreign Policy Committee in the Bundestag. Moreover, he stated that members of parliament occasionally have options which high-ranking officials do not have. As an example he mentioned a meeting - hypothetical or not - of a German parliamentarian with Hezbollah representatives. Such a meeting would immediately trigger a heated debate if it involved the German Foreign Minister, Annen said.

Missing Interest in Foreign Policy
The perceived disinterest of the general public as well as of many parliamentarians in foreign policy issues was the second major topic of the panel discussion. Markus Loening claimed that public interest in foreign policy usually only rises in conflict and crisis situations while the day-to-day and routine work, for instance in foreign trade or in energy policy, mostly remains unnoticed. In Loening's view the problem is that the majority of the population is unaware of the direct impact of international interdependence on ordinary citizens' lives, e.g. when it comes to energy security and energy prices. Moreover, he sees a specific German political culture at work which promotes a "Switzerlandization", that is a proclivity for foreign policy neutrality and abstinence. According to Leoning, this political culture is a result of the country's size - which means that most Germans already have enough internal problems to deal with - as well as its specific historical experience before and during World War II.

Rainder Steenblock also mentioned the low level of polarization of foreign policy as another explanation for the limited interest given to these issues in the public sphere. The media usually prefers reporting on conflict-prone topics. Annen then raised a further problem: The Foreign Policy Committee in the Bundestag is quite often (though mistakenly) perceived as a "travel agency for political veterans." Loening agreed and assigned some of the responsibility to the media which in his view often asks the older and thus better known politicians to comment on foreign policy developments. This would further erode the interest of younger parliamentarians. Even more significant, according to Loening, is the fact that the Foreign Affairs Committee disposes over a very limited budget to oversee, at least in comparison to the Development Committee. Because there is a clear link between money and power, this situation reduces the incentives for younger parliamentarians to engage in foreign policy. At the same time this asymmetry of material resources reflects a structural deficit of German foreign policy.

Public Opinion
The third topic of the panel discussion was the relationship between the Bundestag and the electorate. Volker Perthes asked how parliamentarians can help raise public interest in foreign policy matters. Annen replied that he saw the main problem with the media. As long as the media portray foreign policy issues in only 30-second sequences, it would be very difficult to explain political complexities to the public. The disputed military missions of the German Armed Forces (Bundeswehr) is the only topic to which the media usually pays closer attention even though this aspect only represents a small fraction of the many facets of Germany's foreign policy agenda. Annen also pointed to the fact that the level of public interest in foreign policy issues strongly depends on the composition of each electoral district - the younger and the more educated the population is, the more it will be interested in political affairs (Annen mentioned his own electoral district in Hamburg-Eimsbuettel as an example).

In this context, Perthes pointed to another contradiction: While the public support for Germany's military deployments has constantly been declining, the majority of all political parties in the Bundestag (except for the Leftist Party) continues to support these missions. He mentioned Afghanistan as a case in point. Loening acknowledged that Germany's politicians had so far failed to better explain the rationale for their decisions. In this regard, he saw the specific challenge to strike the right balance between populism on the one side - which means to simply act according to e public surveys - and ignoring public opinion on the other. Yet, he said that it is fully acceptable for parliamentarians to decide against the majority of the population when the responsibility for Germany's soldiers as well as for its international partners also has to be taken into account (as is the case in Afghanistan). Loening pleaded for a stronger engagement by every parliamentarian to communicate foreign policy issues to his or her respective electoral district. He suggested regular events and discussion rounds on these issues "at home" as one promising way to do this.

Rainder Steenblock added some remarks about his party's recent experience when its own rank and file protested against the party leadership's course on Afghanistan. Still he opined that members of parliament should not simply bow to public pressure but should inform themselves and make up their own minds.

Acquiring Information
The fourth and final topic of the discussion was the question of how members of the Bundestag acquire their information and which role the scientific community and political consultancy play in this regard. Steenblock turned to the work in the Foreign Affairs Committee of parliament, stating that the committee is usually not the place to acquire new perspectives or new information. In his opinion, it is more important to travel to the concerned regions and countries and to meet the involved actors in order to get a first hand picture of the situation. Loening also emphasized the importance of personal networks and exchanges.

Due to the substantial work load and many other responsibilities of politicians apart from foreign policy issues, all discussants said that they expect short and accessible information and advice from the scientific community. Loening also voiced the expectation that political scientists should work closer to the political realities than had hitherto been the case. As a positive example, he mentioned the work of the political foundations abroad. In a similar fashion, Steenblock suggested that scientists should enhance their exchanges with scientists in other countries. Niels Annen voiced somewhat different expectations than Loening: From his point of view scientists should present their proposals independently of diplomatic considerations and constraints.

Conclusions
There was agreement among the panellists that foreign policy in Germany lacks the attractiveness and attention in the public discourse as well as in the parliamentary work which it deserves. The discussion concentrated on the reasons for this public neglect. Two principal "culprits" were identified in the course of the event. The first and more fundamental is the prevailing political culture in Germany which tends to neglect profound debates on foreign and security policies since the Second World War and instead focuses the public's on internal problems.. Secondly, the media seems to have perpetrated this political culture because it has selectively focused on conflict-prone topics such as foreign military deployments. Also, the fact that political decisions are frequently made in informal channels rather than in formal and transparent forums - as was stressed by the panellists - is likely to be a hindrance to an open, public debate on foreign policy.

The discussion revealed quite a few aspects which could help to overcome the current situation of foreign policy neglect. Yet these aspects were only touched upon but not fully elaborated during the discussion. One relevant question is which strategies the political parties in the Bundestag could employ in order to promote the foreign policy awareness in the broader public. Also, it would be worthwhile to look at the role of the media and ask why many aspects of foreign policy making seem to be so unattractive to them.