Diplomacy & Defense Think Tank News

Ny podcast om de politiske beslutninger, der dannede grundlag for Danmarks deltagelse i krigen i Kosovo

The definition of peace has shifted in the United Nations community from the absence of conflict to a more active, “positive peace.” Looking at peace from this perspective requires a shift in focus from identifying and combating the causes of wars to understanding the factors that foster peace and inclusivity. To view a holistic perspective of peace, it is necessary to explore the connections among culture, peace, security, and development.

The “culture of peace” recognizes the link between peace, development, and human rights. Defined in 1999, the term seeks to tackle the root causes of conflicts emphasizing the importance of dialogue, negotiation, and cooperation among individuals, groups, and nations.

On June 13, 2019, the first annual World Forum for the Culture of Peace took place in The Hague on “Peace Education for the Protection of Cultural Heritage.” It was organized by the Abdulaziz Saud Albabtain Cultural Foundation with support from IPI, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the University of Leiden, and the Carnegie Foundation.

High-level representatives from around the world discussed the importance of peace education for the protection of cultural heritage with a particular focus on Iraq, Yemen, and the Central African Republic. The day-long forum ended with “Messages for Peace” from global leaders including:

• María Fernanda Espinosa Garcés, President of the 73rd Session of the UN General Assembly (Video Message)
• Marzouq Al-Ghanim, President of the Kuwaiti National Assembly
• Abdulaziz Saud Albabtain, Chairman, Abdulaziz Saud Albabtain Cultural Foundation
• Faustin-Archange Touadera, President of the Central African Republic
• Marie-Louise Coleiro Preca, President Emeritus of Malta
• Abdullah Gül, Former President of Turkey
• Hassan Arfaoui, Representative of the President of Tunisia
• Laurence Konmla, Special Envoy of the President of Liberia
• Ammar al-Hakim, President of the Reform and Reconstruction Alliance of Iraq

In Session III of the forum, IPI President Terje Rød-Larsen moderated a panel on Promoting the Culture of Peace through Education.

Other Attendees Included:

• Joke Brandt, Representative of the Dutch Government and the Secretary-General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
• Erik de Baedts, President, Peace Palace / Carnegie Foundation
• Prince Turki Alfaisal Alsaud
• George Vella, President of Malta
• Haris Silajdžiž, Former President of Bosnia and Herzegovina
• Yousef bin Ahmad Al-Othaimeen, Secretary-General, Organization of Islamic Cooperation
• Taieb Baccouche, Secretary-General of the Arab Maghreb Union and Former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Tunisia
• Khaled al-Yamani, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Yemen
• Peter Maurer, President, International Committee of the Red Cross
• Hilal Al Sayer, President of the Red Crescent Society, Kuwait
• Leoluca Orlando, Mayor of Palermo
• Shaikh Mohammed Sabah Al-Salem Al-Sabah, Former Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Kuwait
• Ali Al-Shukri, Representative of President of Iraq
• Shaikha Mai bint Mohammed Al-Khalifa, President, Bahrain Authority for Culture and Antiquities, Kingdom of Bahrain
• Abdullah Lamlas, Minister of Higher Education and Scientific Research, Government of Kurdistan Region, Iraq
• Yusuf Goran, Minister of Higher Education and Scientific Research, Government of Kurdistan Region, Iraq
• Michael Frendo, Speaker Emeritus of the Parliament of Malta and former Minister of Foreign Affairs
• Hamed Al-Azemi, Minister of Education of the State of Kuwait
• Madame Sylvie Baipo Temon, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Central Republic of Africa
• Tokia Saïfi, Member of the European Parliament
• Moukadas Noure, Minister of Education of the Central African Republic
• Mounir Bouchenaki, Advisor to UNESCO for Cultural Heritage
• Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf, President of the International Court of Justice
• Carl Stolker, President of the University of Leiden

The UN Security Council is expected to renew the mandate of the United Nations–African Union Hybrid Operation in Darfur (UNAMID) in June 2019. As Sudan undergoes an uncertain political transition and security gains in Darfur remain tenuous, these negotiations represent a critical moment to reflect upon the Security Council’s strategic engagement in the country.

In this context, the International Peace Institute (IPI), the Stimson Center, and Security Council Report organized a workshop on May 23, 2019, to discuss UNAMID’s mandate and political strategy. This workshop provided a forum for member states, UN stakeholders, and outside experts to share their assessments of the situation in Darfur. The discussion was intended to help the Security Council make more informed decisions with respect to the strategic orientation, prioritization, and sequencing of the mission’s mandate and actions on the ground.

The workshop focused on the evolving political and security situation in Darfur, the implications of Sudan’s ongoing national political transition for the Darfur region, divisions within the international community, and the challenges facing the mission’s drawdown and reconfiguration. Among the recommendations emerging from the discussion were for the mandate to provide UNAMID the flexibility to maneuver, consolidate recent gains, and articulate a clear political strategy that prioritizes long-term peacebuilding and development.

Download

With a collective responsibility for 80% of global greenhouse gas emissions, while representing 80% of global wealth, it is imperative that the countries of the G20 throw their weight behind the implementation of both the Paris Climate Agree-ment and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Develop¬ment. In the past, the G20 has demonstrated that it can do that. The G20 Summit in November 2015 in Antalya, Turkey, provided strong support for the climate agreement signed a month later at the UN Climate Change Conference (COP21) in Paris. In 2016 in Hangzhou, China, the G20 adopted an Action Plan on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Develop¬ment and committed to “further align its work” with the 2030 Agenda. Even though both agendas have emerged in the multilateral context of the United Nations system, the G20 is expected to exert strong political leadership to address global climate change and to achieve sustainable development.
Yet, since 2017 the G20 has struggled to provide such leadership, as support for multilateral commitments, especially those involving ambitious climate actions, appears to be fading. Crucially, opposition to strong multilateral climate policy in the US and Brazil resorts to outright climate denialism at the highest levels of government. These developments are challenging the G20, and BRICS and the G7 for that matter, to sustain support for multilateral commitments on climate and sustainable development. The rise of populist and unilaterally minded parties in European club members may further the risk of side-lining climate and sustainability-related issues in the G20 process. This does not bode well at a time when the G20’s support could be a vital ingredient for the success of the United Nations’ summits on climate action and sustainable development, both scheduled to convene in New York in September 2019 – less than three months after the Osaka G20 Summit in Japan.
Following our analysis, we identify four ways forward that should be conducive to harnessing the G20’s economic weight and political clout to push more ambitious global action towards climate-friendly sustainable development, in spite of apparent discrepancies between domestic agendas and global understandings:

1. Strive for strong political declarations in support of the multilateral commitments on climate and sustainable development. Yet, focus at the same time on advancing specific issue-centred initiatives that are palatable to domestic audiences and compatible with the objectives of the Paris Agreement and 2030 Agenda, without framing them as “climate policy” or “sustainability policy”.
2. Embrace non-state and subnational actors as strategic partners to safeguard continuity in times of antagonistic member governments and volatile policies, as well as to build capacities and strengthen implementation of pertinent policies. The so-called G20 Engagement Groups representing business, labour, civil society, women and think tanks are key partners in this respect.
3. G20 workstreams should strive to co-produce specific climate- and sustainability-related initiatives across G20 workstreams as a means to overcome policy silos and to increase ownership and uptake beyond the “usual suspects”.
4. The Think20 (T20) should concentrate – rather than further expand – pertinent expertise and policy advice to leverage crosscutting action by G20 workstreams. Furthermore, detaching its working approach from the official G20 calendar could improve its ability to inform strategic agenda setting.

Danmarks udviklingssamarbejde har forandret sig markant over de senere år. Nedskæringer, omprioriteringer og kortsigtede interesser har stået i vejen for tydelige strategiske retninger og langsigtede mål. Dette DIIS Policy Brief opridser ti nødvendige skridt for at få udviklingspolitikken og -bistanden tilbage på et konstruktivt spor.

The Russian vision of the BSR after Crimea and Trump

Danmarks udviklingssamarbejde har forandret sig markant over de senere år. Nedskæringer, omprioriteringer og kortsigtede interesser har stået i vejen for tydelige strategiske retninger og langsigtede mål. Dette DIIS Policy Brief opridser ti nødvendige skridt for at få udviklingspolitikken og -bistanden tilbage på et konstruktivt spor.

Zusammenfassung:

DIW Berlin erwartet BIP-Wachstum von 0,9 Prozent für dieses und 1,7 Prozent für kommendes Jahr – Konjunkturbild ist unverändert: Binnenwirtschaft trägt das Wachstum, Auslandsgeschäft bleibt vor Hintergrund zahlreicher Risiken verhalten – Arbeitslosigkeit geht weiter zurück – Handelskrieg stellt bedeutendes Risiko für deutsche Wirtschaft dar – Kommunen müssen finanziell gestärkt werden     

Herr Michelsen, das Wachstum der deutschen Wirtschaft hat zuletzt deutlich an Schwung verloren. Wird das in diesem Jahr so weitergehen?

Wir haben in der Tat eine Verlangsamung der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung in Deutschland. Das hat sich schon im vergangenen Jahr abgezeichnet, als die Auftragseingänge und die Industrieproduktion graduell immer mehr abgeschmolzen und dann im Sommer auch das Wirtschaftswachstum zum Erliegen gekommen ist. Das Jahr 2019 ist dann aber äußerst positiv gestartet. [...]

Conventional economic wisdom has long maintained that there is a necessary trade-off between pursuit of the efficiency of a system and any attempts to improve equity between participants within that system. Economist Robert Lucas demonstrated the implications of this common economic axiom when he wrote: “Of the tendencies that are harmful to sound economics, the most seductive, and in my opinion the most poisonous, is to focus on questions of distribution [...] the potential for improving the lives of poor people by finding different ways of distributing current production is nothing compared to the apparently limitless potential of increasing production.” (Lucas, 2004)
Indeed, many economists have suggested that too little inequality or too generous a distribution of benefits may undermine the individual’s incentive to work hard and take risks. Setting aside the harsh rhetoric used by Lucas, the practical and ethical acceptability of such a trade-off is debatable. Moreover, evidence from recent decades suggests that the trade-off itself is, in many cases, entirely avoidable.
A large body of research has shown that improved competition and economic efficiency are indeed compatible with government efforts to address inequality and reduce poverty, as assessed in a World Bank report (World Bank, 2016). Contrary to another common belief about economic interventions, this research indicates that such policy interventions can be tailored to succeed in all countries and at all times; even low- and middle-income countries in times of economic crisis can successfully pursue policies to improve economic distribution, with negligible negative impacts on efficiency and, in many cases, even positive ones. Some examples of such pro-equity and pro-efficiency measures include those promoting early childhood development, universal health care, quality education, conditional cash transfers, rural infra-structure investment, and well-designed tax policy.
Overall, four critical policy points stand out:

1. A trade-off is not inevitable. Policymakers do not need to give up on reducing inequality for the sake of growth. A good choice of policies can achieve both.
2. In the last two decades, research has generated substantive evidence about which policies work to foster growth and reduce inequalities.
3. Policies can redress the inequalities children are born into while fostering growth. But the wrong sets of policies can magnify inequalities early in life and thereafter.
4. All countries can, under most circumstances, implement policies that are both pro-equity and pro-efficiency.

Nach langem Hin und Her hat sich die Bundesregierung zu einem Fachkräfteeinwanderungsgesetz durchgerungen. Grundsätzlich ist es zu begrüßen, dass die Zuwanderung von Fachkräften aus Drittstaaten erleichtert werden soll. Die Menschen und deren kulturelle Vielfalt bereichern Deutschland, und wirtschaftlich profitieren wir alle: Zuwanderer können Arbeitsmarktengpässe abmildern – also die Jobs annehmen, für die es hierzulande nicht genug geeignete Bewerberinnen und Bewerber gibt. Entweder, weil die Konjunktur punktuell so brummt, dass kurzfristig nicht alle Stellen besetzt werden können. Oder, weil wir langfristig als älter werdende Gesellschaft schlichtweg nicht mehr genug Nachwuchs für bestimmte Berufe haben.

Photos

jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery("#isloaderfor-dqkiuy").fadeOut(2000, function () { jQuery(".pagwrap-dqkiuy").fadeIn(1000);});}); Event Video: 

Session 1 | Session 2 | Session 3

Amid growing global concerns of terrorism, conflict, and crime, young people are frequently considered a problem or a risk factor, and, as a result, are often excluded from institutions and marginalized from peacebuilding processes.

This phenomenon and ways to address it were the theme of the 49th IPI Vienna Seminar held on June 12th in partnership with the Austrian Federal Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Defense. IPI Vice President Adam Lupel opened the discussion by saying that “young people do not simply represent the future, they are the present.” He also noted that the seminar fell on the 40th anniversary of the United Nations in Vienna and provided an opportunity to reflect on the unique contributions of Vienna Based Organizations to the Youth, Peace, and Security agenda.

Martin Nesirky, Director of the UN Information Service in Vienna, said that despite the fact that Vienna Based Organizations such as the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA) and the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), focus on prevention, the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are the common thread between Vienna and New York. This thread “runs through everything that we’re trying to do in our work on raising the visibility of the Vienna Based Organizations this year,” he said.

Keynote speaker Samuel Goda, Special Representative of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Chairperson-in-Office on Youth and Security, said that portraying youth as a challenge “is a myth and wrong assumption. At the end of the day, we cannot demonize young people [but] we should also not idealize them. Violent youth identities, however, are more often systematically shaped from above. It is primarily governments and political leaders who seek to mobilize, and often to manipulate, the role and function of youth for political ends.”

He proposed three steps in advancing a global Youth, Peace, and Security agenda—investing in young people’s capacities, eliminating structural barriers that limit youth participation, and establishing partnerships and collaboration “where young people are viewed as equal and essential partners for peace.”

Jean-Luc Lemahieu, Director of the Division for Policy Analysis and Public Affairs of the UNODC, emphasized how we must debunk the assumption that youth are inherently violent.  “Fragility by itself is not necessarily an open door towards criminality… There is no country in the world which does not have crime.” What matters instead, he said, is the resilience of the country. “If people have no way of getting their entrepreneurial energy in a direct manner involved in helping the country move forward in ways we all would prefer, then we have definitely work at hand. And as you can see, we do have a lot of work, I can tell you. And the biggest stakeholders are undoubtedly the young people.”

Participants in the discussion said that obstacles to youth engagement included lack of political will, gender discrimination, and insufficient funding. One youth representative said that there were not enough forums where young people could meet up, and that they felt excluded from political decision-making. Participants explained that youth and government authorities often have a relationship of mutual distrust. They pointed out that when a country is in a fragile period, its youth may be seen as vulnerable to joining a violent gang.

Creative solutions to these challenges should be found by addressing unfulfilled needs, participants said. Why, for example, might young people feel the need to join a gang? If they are seeking a sense of belonging, introducing sports could be a positive solution, one participant explained. Panelists spoke further on how to strengthen youth expertise and increase youth political participation by investing in programs such as Model UN to involve young people at all levels in discussing conflict resolution and peacebuilding.

Exclusion itself is a form of violence, discussants noted, and to counter it, we must listen to the diverse viewpoints of young women and men and not only amplify those of the elite youth who are already engaged in conversations around peacebuilding. To better integrate youth, they recommended increasing opportunities for young workers, and partnering with young people to make policy decisions. It was noted that young people are “multipliers” in that they bring positive examples back to their communities.

Young people can engage in important dialogue to fight corruption, organized crime, and terrorism, and work towards building more peaceful, just, strong institutions as long as their ideas are heard. This can happen through enhanced investment in their education, including their viewpoints, clear two-way communication, improving media skills, focus on increasing women’s involvement, and efforts to build youth networks.

The seminar’s final panel featured four young practitioners working to build and sustain peace in different regions and country contexts. IPI Senior Policy Analyst Lesley Connolly asked the panel about their personal experiences, motivations, challenges, and to share practical ways to support young people in preventing violence, crime, and corruption and fostering security.

Nour Barakeh, Collaborator on the SDG 5 Thrive! Project, said one drawback in peacebuilding work is that “you can’t work in political-related issues without putting yourself in danger.” But she highlighted how multimedia outreach such as theatre had helped to break down walls and build trust in communities where she had worked. “We need to remember that stories have a powerful, magical way of affecting people,” she said. The aim of her organization is to inspire people around the world to act on “issues that matter,” and to do so, she said, “We raised voices, especially [because] we come from current conflict areas.” Her theatre piece received a “very effective response,” from people who told her that they had learned something new and “deep” about conflict, since “it’s not a lecture, it’s not an information[al presentation], it’s only talking to their minds and their emotions.”

Ms. Barakeh said that she measured success as being able to make a “shift in our value system” and “change behavior.” To do this in conflict situations, she explained that “we need to speak the language of people in our work.” One successful approach had been an interactive dance and theatre game.

Ayten Birhanie, Executive Director of the Peace and Development Center in Addis Ababa, emphasized that “youth are not a homogenous group,” that “they have different needs and demands,” and that youth “should also have the space to define their own issues rather than finding the issues for them.” Youths, he said, need “an enabling environment.” We must create a “political safe space for their dialogue.” In addition, he said that new kinds of exposure and integration of resources from other organizations’ best practices could help make a difference.

Suad Mohamed, a pharmacist and Interpreter for the Austrian Red Cross and Diakonie Refugee Service in Vienna, listed three levels to consider when working with the younger generation—family and safety, the education system, and the social system. Understanding these, she said, could help guide strategies on how to interact with youth, because “if the basic [system] is not there, then corruption or violence can form.” She expressed her hope that international organizations could give youth a better platform to exhibit their talent and experience. “We need more support,” she said.

Ms. Mohamed also spoke about the perception of refugees in the public eye. Her aim was to change the view of immigration at hiring agencies in Austria. Despite what the media may portray in local communities, “refugees are qualified,” she said. By presenting the stories of hardworking individual refugees to a greater audience, she said, she could communicate that “these people are not ignorant, they need education” along with funding and resources.

Juma Mwangi, a Community Youth Leader and boda boda driver in Nairobi, said that he tries to be a “role model for these youths who I grew up with, and… bring them back from doing crime, being radical, and joining all these groups such as Al Shabab.” He said that a dropout, former gang member, criminal, or someone doing drugs, “can also be a leader and bring peace to our area.” Lately his work has focused on bridging the gap between youth and police, since “it is not easy for our youth to sit in the same place as a policeman.” These dialogues try to show them that “police are also human like us and here to provide security and to keep law and order.”

One challenge he faced in his work was that many youths in his area were not employed. “As much as we can, we try to show them their natural skills and try to show them that they can employ themselves,” despite the fact that “we lack the government support we need,” he said. “I’m trying to show them that if you employ yourself, you have the money and you have the skills, you don’t need to join this group and be a radical or join crime.” Other challenges include the political environment, finance, and hate speech on social media, as well as a lack of understanding the political environment. “Most organizations that come to Majengo come with concepts from boardroom decisions, they don’t know what we go through, they don’t know what we need, and they’re coming to tell us.”

Youth have a large role in peacebuilding, he said, because “when students start protesting, the country starts burning.” But, he continued, “I was amazed to find that a person like me can stand and make a change in a place like Nairobi.”

The Vienna Seminar is annually co-organized by IPI and the Austrian Federal Ministry of Defence and the Austrian Federal Ministry for Europe, Integration, and Foreign Affairs. This year the seminar featured voices from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the Council of Europe, UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), the Ban Ki-Moon Centre for Global Citizens, the Peace and Development Center, the Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation, and the World Federation of UN Associations, and youth activists, among others.

Other Participants Included:

• Karin Proidl, Director of International Organizations, Austrian Federal Ministry for Europe, Integration and Foreign Affairs
• Monika Froehler, Chief Executive Officer, Ban Ki-moon Centre for Global Citizens
• Phillipe Tremblay, Head of the External Co-Operation Section, Office of the Secretary General, Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe
• Gordana Berjan, Executive Director, European Youth Centre, Council of Europe
• Anna-Katharina Deininger, Focal Point on Youth and Security, Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe
• Sarah Smith,‘Building Peace’ Programme Officer, Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation
• Margaret Williams, 16+ Forum Coordinator and Senior Policy Officer, World Federation of UN Associations
• Andreas Riecken, Director-General for EU and Multilateral Affairs, Austrian Federal Ministry for Europe, Integration and Foreign Affairs

Related Coverage:

• Vienna Seminar – Youth, Peace and Security
• “Partnering with Young People for Prevention: Sustaining Peace and Addressing Violence, Crime and Corruption”

The world order is changing. But what is order and how do we understand it?

Derzeit kochen die Emotionen in der öffentlichen Debatte hoch, wenn es um Themen wie hohe Wohnkosten, Lohn- und Vermögensungleichheiten und ähnliche soziale Aspekte geht. Revolutionäre Ideen kommen auf, die das ganze System in Frage stellen. Doch um es vorweg zu nehmen: Wir haben bereits das richtige Modell. Die soziale Marktwirtschaft ist eigentlich eine Erfolgsgeschichte. Ihr verdanken wir das Wirtschaftswunder Deutschlands nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg und auch noch viele weitere wirtschaftlich starke Jahre. Doch in den vergangenen Jahren wurde die soziale Komponente unseres Systems stark vernachlässigt. Ihre Ausgestaltung muss daher an einigen Stellen dringend justiert werden.

Warum es so notwendig ist, soll anhand einiger Fakten deutlich werden: Einem seit neun Jahren anhaltenden wirtschaftlichen Aufschwung und kontinuierlichen Beschäftigungsrekorden stehen in Deutschland einer der größten Niedriglohnsektoren in Europa und eine steigende Armutsrisikoquote gegenüber. Rund 40 Prozent der Deutschen besitzen keine Ersparnisse und keine Altersvorsorge und in keinem anderen Land Europas ist es so schwer, über Bildung den sozialen Aufstieg zu schaffen, wie die OECD regelmäßig konstatiert.

Angesichts dieser widersprüchlichen Entwicklungen ist es wenig erstaunlich, dass aktuell so heftig über das Funktionieren der sozialen Marktwirtschaft debattiert wird. Und da aktuelle Konjunkturprognosen auf ein Nachlassen des Wirtschaftsbooms hindeuten, wird diese Debatte auch nicht so schnell verebben. Wenn es während des Booms nicht gelungen ist, das Leben für untere Einkommensschichten zu verbessern, wie soll es dann in der nächsten Rezession gelingen? Die Folge wird eine zunehmende Polarisierung in unserem Land sein und es ist dringend geboten, diesen Unmut ernst zu nehmen.

Ein Blick auf den Niedriglohnsektor soll exemplarisch das Problem verdeutlichen. Richtig ist, dass die Arbeitslosenrate so niedrig ist wie kaum jemals zuvor. Doch trotz Wirtschaftsboom bekamen im Jahr 2017 rund acht Millionen abhängig Beschäftigte einen Niedriglohn, wohlgemerkt: für ihre Haupttätigkeit. Das sind beinahe drei Millionen mehr als im Jahr 1995. Jeder vierte Arbeitnehmer, vorwiegend Frauen, Alleinerziehende und Migrantinnen und Migranten arbeiten hauptberuflich für weniger als 10,80 Euro die Stunde, also 60 Prozent des Medianstundenlohns; das übertrifft deutlich den europäischen Schnitt, wo nur ein Sechstel im Niedriglohnsektor beschäftigt ist. Niederschmetternd ist vor allem der Befund, dass in Deutschland zwei Drittel der Beschäftigten im Niedriglohnsektor den Aufstieg in höhere Lohnsegmente nicht schaffen. Erwerbstätigkeit allein bietet also keinen umfassenden Schutz vor Einkommensarmut mehr.

Langfristig hauptberuflich im Niedriglohnsektor zu arbeiten bedeutet aber, dass diese Menschen früher oder später auf Sozialleistungen angewiesen sein werden, weil sie die steigenden Mieten nicht bezahlen können und wegen der geringen Rentenansprüche Grundsicherung in Anspruch nehmen müssen. Das Armutsrisiko in unserer Gesellschaft steigt entsprechend, während gleichzeitig die Wirtschaft boomt. Lag die Armutsrisikoquote Mitte der neunziger Jahre noch bei elf Prozent, war sie 20 Jahre später im Schnitt auf rund 17 Prozent gestiegen. Im Klartext heißt das: Der vielbeschworene Aufschwung der letzten Jahre ist bei vielen nicht angekommen.

Doch was heißt dieser Befund für die Politik? Wie können wir verhindern, dass die soziale Marktwirtschaft weiter ausgehöhlt wird? Wie kann die Ungleichheit reduziert werden, damit weniger Menschen auf Leistungen des Sozialstaats angewiesen sind? Unterschiedliche soziale Leistungen müssen wieder besser aufeinander abgestimmt werden. So kann es nicht sein, dass Geringverdienenden nicht viel bleibt, wenn sie besser bezahlte Jobs finden, weil ihnen Sozialleistungen gestrichen werden. Wo bleibt da der Anreiz, mehr oder besser bezahlt zu arbeiten, wenn es sich nicht rechnet? Doch es wird auch nichts nützen, allein das Sozialsystem zu reformieren; das hieße, nur an den Symptomen herumzudoktern und nicht an den Ursachen.

Vier Ansätze in den Bereichen Arbeit, Bildung, Steuern und Alterssicherung müssten meines Erachtens verfolgt werden, um unsere Marktwirtschaft sozialer zu machen. Zum einen sollten wir darauf hinarbeiten, dass wieder mehr Arbeitsverträge mit Tarifbindung abgeschlossen werden. Kaum ein Arbeitsvertrag im Niedriglohnsektor hat eine Tarifbindung – diese sinkt von Jahr zu Jahr. Viele Arbeitnehmerinnen und Arbeitnehmer haben daher wenig Verhandlungsmacht gegenüber ihren Arbeitgebern. Die Einführung des Mindestlohns im Jahr 2015 hat in Deutschland zwar die Löhne erhöht, am Umfang des Niedriglohnsektors aber nichts geändert.

Dass Arbeit sich wieder mehr lohnt, erfordert nicht nur, dass der Niedriglohnbereich deutlich schrumpft, sondern auch, dass Menschen bessere Aufstiegschancen bekommen. Dazu sollten, und das ist mein zweiter Punkt, mehr Anreize zur Weiterbildung geschaffen werden. Zum einen für Geringqualifizierte, die häufig im Niedriglohnsektor arbeiten. Zum anderen aber auch für die besser Qualifizierten, da es angesichts der Globalisierung und des digitalen Wandels unvermeidlich sein wird, sich kontinuierlich weiterzubilden. Das Prinzip des lebenslangen Lernens sollte von Arbeitgeber- wie von Arbeitnehmerseite verinnerlicht werden. Dafür muss die Politik die Voraussetzungen schaffen, indem sie die entsprechenden Angebote unterstützt. Zusätzlich könnte aber auch für jeden einzelnen ein Lebenschancenkonto Anreize schaffen, die Möglichkeiten wahrzunehmen: für Weiterbildungen oder Existenzgründungen.

Des Weiteren sollte das Steuersystem grundlegend reformiert werden. Einkommen auf Arbeit in Deutschland werden ungewöhnlich stark besteuert, Einkommen auf Vermögen dagegen ungewöhnlich gering. Das sollte dringend geändert werden. Um Arbeit auch wieder lohnenswert zu machen, vor allem für Frauen, die den Großteil der Teilzeitbeschäftigten stellen, sollte das Ehegattensplitting abgeschafft werden. Das wird nicht nur dafür sorgen, dass die Zahl der Erwerbstätigen steigt, sondern schützt diese Frauen auch vor Altersarmut.

Zum vierten schlage ich einen Staatsfonds vor, ähnlich dem Staatsfonds in Norwegen. Dieser Staatsfonds erwirbt strategisch Anteile an privaten Unternehmen – ohne sich in die privatwirtschaftlichen Entscheidungen einzumischen –, um an deren Erfolg teilhaben zu können und die erzielten Renditen zu nutzen, um die soziale Absicherung der eigenen Bevölkerung zu gewährleisten. Gerade in einer alternden Gesellschaft wie unserer könnte ein solcher Staatsfonds einen wertvollen Beitrag zur Absicherung im Alter leisten.

Wir müssen uns klarmachen, dass Beschäftigungsrekorde und eine entsprechend niedrige Arbeitslosenquote zwar erstrebenswert sind. Aber es ist nicht zwangsläufig sozial, was irgendeine Arbeit schafft. Sozial ist, was gute Arbeit schafft. Zu diesem Anspruch der guten Arbeit sollten sowohl Löhne gehören, von denen Menschen ihren Lebensunterhalt bestreiten können, als auch die Chance des beruflichen und gesellschaftlichen Aufstiegs. Ansonsten verdient unsere Marktwirtschaft den Titel soziale Marktwirtschaft nicht.

Dieser Text von Marcel Fratzscher ist am 7. Juni 2019 als Gastbeitrag im IPG-Journal erschienen.

The UN Security Council is expected to renew the mandate of the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA) in June 2019. Amidst the potential stagnation of Mali’s peace process, concerns over rising violence against civilians, and continued weaknesses of the Malian government in providing basic services, the upcoming negotiations on MINUSMA’s mandate represent a critical moment to reflect upon the Security Council’s strategic engagement in the country.

In this context, the International Peace Institute (IPI), the Stimson Center, and Security Council Report organized a workshop on May 13, 2019, to discuss MINUSMA’s mandate and political strategy. This workshop provided a forum for member states, UN stakeholders, and outside experts to share their assessments of the situation in Mali. The discussion was intended to help the Security Council make more informed decisions with respect to the strategic orientation, prioritization, and sequencing of the mission’s mandate and actions on the ground.

The workshop highlighted several tensions in the Security Council’s approach to pursuing peace and security in Mali, specifically the tensions inherent in a conflict that is simultaneously transnational and hyper-localized. It also highlighted the debate around whether the mission should focus more on the north or the center of Mali. Participants largely agreed that MINUSMA’s current mandate remains relevant but also put forward several proposals to further strengthen and adapt the mandate in the interest of advancing the mission’s political strategy and achieving the Security Council’s objectives in the coming year. Recommendations included expanding MINUSMA’s political work to the center of the country and supporting a national dialogue, making protection of civilians a strategic priority, increasing support to justice and reconciliation, and strengthening regional coordination.

a img {/**remove hover border**/ display:block; Margin: 0 auto; }

Danmark kanaliserer en stigende del af udviklingsbistanden gennem multilaterale organisationer, men gør det udviklingsbistanden mere effektiv?

Echoes from seminar held at DIIS on Timer Rush in the Southern Highlands of Tanzania

Islamisk Stats og Al-Qaedas ekspansion er drevet af en global konfliktfortælling

Islamisk Stats og Al-Qaedas ekspansion er drevet af en global konfliktfortælling