Germany was the only NATO/EU member to abstain together Russia, China, Brasil, India. Result: no common EU foreign policy (Ashton being absent from the wider debate anyway) despite the good opportunity for an interesting ESDP mission. The US seems to support the resolution but does not want to use own military capabilities. At the same time there is an agreement between France, the UK and Italy. It is a missed opportunity for ESDP and EU foreign policy in general. And the reason, strangely enough, is Germany. Moreover, Germany is partly to blame why the it took so long to agree on a UN resolution.

(Sorry for the lack of links and background info and the lack of any sophisticated writing, just think of it as a draft blog post – bit in a hurry at the moment…)

So what is the problem with German diplomacy? A quick explanation:

1. There are a couple of important regional elections in the coming weeks. Hugely important for Merkel’s CDU and it does not look very good. Merkel seems to be inspired by Schröder who won elections with swift decisions and a “no war” attitude. So, Merkel’s decision perform a u-turn on nuclear energy (albeit only for 3 months!) and the the “no” to war in Libya seem to follow that idea. However, I think Merkel completely misjudges the situation. The u-turn on nuclear energy lacks any credibility and does not seem to help the CDU (and first opinion polls do support this view). Libya is not Iraq. Libya is quite an easy narrative, and not as controversial as Iraq so you can’t win popular opinion with it. Afghanistan is unpopular, so the idea to do more in Afghanistan and not support the intervention is Libya is counterproductive.

I think the German population would rather support an intervention in Libya than to abstain as the only Western country. Moreover, supporting a UN resolution would not necessarily involve a commitment to military engagement. Germany could have supported the resolution without contributing (citing the real(!) lack of military capabilities). Support: yes, military involvement: no – that would have been a more successful strategy…

Maybe Merkel/Westerwelle were not sure how people would react to an involvement of the Bundeswehr – or even to a formal endorsement of the intervention in Libya. However, judging on trends in popular opinion at the moment it is easy to come to the conclusion that any controversial decision (i.e intervention) could become a hot issue in German politics.  The prospect of defending a war in the three upcoming election campaigns might have been a contributing factor that explains the German position.

2. Foreign Minister Westerwelle is not up to the job. He lacks the political feeling for situations, foreign policy is not really his field of expertise. He often seems uncomfortable with foreign policy. After the elections he should have taken over the ministry of finance and/or economics. And he is the most unpopular foreign minister ever. In Germany, Foreign ministers are always among the most trusted and popular politicians – with the exception of Westerwelle. Is Libya an attempt to become popular again? Oh, and it seems that the Chancellery is the main foreign policy player at the moment. So, the abstention could be a sign of the internal problems of German foreign policy, a disagreement between Merkel and Westerwelle is quite likely.

3. “No war” as a foreign policy principle. Not very convincing after Kosovo & Afghanistan but it might have some influence in the thinking on foreign policy among German diplomats. Especially the rather bad experiences in Afghanistan might have shaped the “no intervention” stance of the German government. A more serious point is that German decision makers are convinced that this “no fly zone” will basically result in a war which might last for quite some time. And nobody in Germany wants to send soldiers on Libyan soil. Not only is it unpopular, there are quite some risks attached to it.  Especially after  Afghanistan and  Iraq the danger of a getting into a conflict that last for several years should not be underestimated. Moreover, there has been very little talk about what constitutes a “success” of the intervention. German decision makers are naturally reluctant without having a clear exit strategy and general strategy what to do after the air strikes! I think these ideas are crucial in understanding the German position.

A last chance for German diplomacy?

The Libyan government just announced a ceasefire (a real chance or Gaddafi trying to buy time?). If implemented (which is doubtful anyway) there might be some negotiations about the future of Libya. Maybe a mediation to discuss an acceptable exit strategy for Gaddafi or some power sharing mechanisms; there might be a UN backed peacekeeping force – everything in flux as Gaddafi seems to be determined to stay in power as long as possible. So, any diplomatic negotiations will mostly happen in the background. Germany could be seen as the only ‘credible western country’ to negotiate between the Libyan government and the opposition/international community. If the German government wants to restore trust and credibility it might a good idea to get involved now. However, it is probably not very likely to happen…not with Westerwelle and Merkel.

Update: Germany rejects Libya ceasefire monitoring role

Update: Technically it is not a leak at all as the content is freely available on the OpenLeaks server, it is not password protected and not linked to the main page (the link is also provided in the pdf file) (via netzpolitik)

If you want to read more about openleaks also have a look at this  interesting interview with Daniel Domscheit-Berg over  at techpresident. Daniel also gave a presentation on openleaks at  27C3 in December 2010:

Memex 1.1 » What the attacks on WikiLeaks tell us.

Wikileaks, Now « zunguzungu

WL Central- An unofficial WikiLeaks information resource

Reporters Sans Frontières – Wikileaks hounded?

A list of Wikileaks Mirrors and a guide how to support Mass Mirroring

Raffi Khatchadourian: No Secrets Julian Assange’s mission for total transparency (The New Yorker)

Like It or Not, WikiLeaks is a Media Entity (gigaom.com)

The Weakest Link: What Wikileaks Has Taught Us About the Open Internet | an/archivista

Glenn Greenwald – Salon.com

Kontrapunkt: Schafft zwei, drei, viele Wikileaks! – Meinung – Tagesspiegel

List of people who have criminalised Julian Assange

PdFLeaks: Carne Ross on the Diplomacy Before and After Wikileaks | techPresident

PdF Presents: A Symposium on Wikileaks and Internet Freedom | Personal Democracy Forum

From Wikileaks to OpenLeaks, Via the Knight News Challenge | techPresident

Richard Stallman Kettling Wikileaks | DefectiveByDesign.org

WikiLeaks has created a new media landscape | Clay Shirky | Comment is free | The Guardian.

The age of the WikiLeaks-style vigilante geek is over | Evgeny Morozov | The Guardian.

[FYI: This linkroll will be updated regularly - so if you are interested in the topic make sure to check back from time to time. ]

If you want to understand Julian Assange I recommend to read his essay “conspiracy as governance” in which he explains his world-view and provides some sort of  philosophical underpinnings for wikileaks.

For example, Assange writes about the non linear effects of leaks on unjust systems of governance:

The more secretive or unjust an organization is, the more leaks induce fear and paranoia in its leadership and planning coterie. This must result in minimization of efficient internal communications mechanisms (an increase in cognitive “secrecy tax”) and consequent system-wide cognitive decline resulting in decreased ability to hold onto power as the environment demands adaption.

Hence in a world where leaking is easy, secretive or unjust systems are nonlinearly hit relative to open, just systems. Since unjust systems, by their nature induce opponents, and in many places barely have the upper hand, mass leaking leaves them exquisitely vulnerable to those who seek to replace them with more open forms of  governance.

Only revealed injustice can be answered; for man to do anything intelligent he has to know what’s actually going on.

• We don’t know enough. So far wikileaks published 220 out of 251287 diplomatic cables. Wikileaks announced that they would release cables in stages over the next few months. They learnt a lesson how to keep the media interested. Remember the Daily Telegraph and the expense scandal in the UK? They published something every couple of days – which made it much more damaging and created a huge political scandal. So, I guess we need to wait and see what else will happen. According to wikileaks the cables can be broadly labelled as follows.

• 15, 652 secret
• 101,748 confidential
• 133,887 unclassified
• Iraq most discussed country – 15,365 (Cables coming from Iraq – 6,677)
• Ankara, Turkey had most cables coming from it – 7,918
• From Secretary of State office – 8,017

• Wikileaks continues with its model to work with a couple of selected media outlets.  Spiegel, The Guardian, El Pais, Le Monde,  The New York Times (via the Guardian)  got access to the files after signing an agreement of confidentiality. Not sure what the role of owni.fr is – they seem to provide tools but did not have access to the files.   Some might criticise that because many other journalists do not have the opportunity to analyse the data thoroughly prior to publication. However, wikileaks learnt that without such a process most files will go unnoticed and much of the momentum gets lost. At the same time it is quite a good business model as it guarantees mainstream media a degree of exclusivity – something the wikileaks team members announced already a year ago. Wikileaks need the mainstream media to be successful – and the mainstream media only need wikileaks if they can get some exclusive rights. (Personally, I think wikileaks should return to a more collaborative and participatory approach instead of focusing on high profile and “event like” leaks…)

• There are – as usual- too many pundits that claim that they know the implications of the leak already. The newspapers will focus on the “funny” headlines how diplomats describe certain politicians etc. I doubt that many will actually put cables in context and try to explain why they were written.  It is also important to note that although a certain ambassador might be ‘quoted’, the cable was written by other policy analysts that work in political reporting. The ambassador might have not even read the report! As far as I can see it there are no “top secret” cables which makes it even more likely that most of the content was routine stuff.  Anyway, to get a basic idea about the cables, the most important article you should read is by Simon Jenkins in the Guardian who not only states  that “the job of the media is not to protect the powerful from embarrassment” – but more importantly he highlights a crucial fact that most commentators will fail to report:

The state department knew of the leak several months ago and had ample time to alert staff in sensitive locations. Its pre-emptive scaremongering over the weekend stupidly contrived to hint at material not in fact being published. Nor is the material classified top secret, being at a level that more than 3 million US government employees are cleared to see, and available on the defence department’s internal Siprnet. Such dissemination of “secrets” might be thought reckless, suggesting a diplomatic outreach that makes the British empire seem minuscule.

The revelations do not have the startling, coldblooded immediacy of the WikiLeaks war logs from Iraq and Afghanistan, with their astonishing insight into the minds of fighting men seemingly detached from the ethics of war. The disclosures are largely of analysis and high-grade gossip. Insofar as they are sensational, it is in showing the corruption and mendacity of those in power, and the mismatch between what they claim and what they do.

• It is very likely that other secret services have seen this kind of “intelligence” before. If wikileaks manages to get hold of this dataset it wouldn’t surprise me if others also managed to do so. After all, any network that can be accessed by millions of government employees is not that difficult to hack. And more importantly no “real” secrets are shared within such a network.
  

• The most striking implication is the likely transformation of diplomacy. Diplomacy changed over the years but it never experienced radical change. The system always relied on written and unwritten rules of secrecy. Moreover, “traditional political reporting” assumes that only staff in a particular city are able to gather facts of the political situation in this country. This also includes newspaper summaries – and  many policy officers do rely on media reports. Well, somehow diplomacy  is still the same system as several hundred years ago – with the exception that cables are now electronic. But it is obvious that “cablegate” would have not happened if diplomats still communicated with letters. Diplomacy entered the 21st century! Generally, diplomats must develop a better understanding of the internet.

• It is not a US problem. It can happen to every service everywhere. We live in a age of information and it is inevitable that these things happen. At the same time, diplomacy and foreign policy need to become more accountable. As long as diplomats do not learn from previous mistakes, as long as they behave as if they can act in a small secret bubble, as long as they think they can get away with everything -  these leaks will continue and indeed help to bring transparency to international politics.

• An unindented consequence might be how the internet is perceived by decision makers. Concerns of privacy and transparency might become a greater issue in the future. Surely, diplomatic services around the world will tighten their intranets and take IT guys more seriously.  But again,  there is always a human factor involved in leaks. As soon as people have access to a network of information leaks are possible!

• “Cablegate” represents a demystification of diplomacy and foreign policy. We get a first hand account of how embassies work and that political reporting is in fact done by human beings. The problem is that some private conversations will now be in the newspapers which can be a problem for some people. Obviously there will some sensitive material which will result in major political scandals. A taster for this kind of information are the revelations of  misbehaviour of US diplomats at the UN headquarters  as well as  signs of corruption in US aid programmes. However, the implications might be more problematic for autocratic and dictatorial regimes as they often act differently in international diplomacy than they do “at home” (in regards to Iran for example). The cables about the thinking of Arab leaders regarding Iran seems to be the most interesting revelation so far. Especially in these cases a more honest and transparent diplomacy might be the result! In countries like Germany or the UK most cables could have been written by an average political analyst (or blogger!).  So far, most cables correspond with the mainstream analysis of US foreign policy (and indeed domestic politics!). However, it will be interesting to compare media reporting in different countries.

• The cables are great for research. In the words of  Timothy Garton Ash:  It is the historian’s dream. It is the diplomat’s nightmare.

• And last but not least. What about the EU? There is category for the US mission to the EU and a EU search tag. There are some mentions of the EU in cables from the several US embassies in Berlin, London, Paris and Rome. Not sure whether we will see a lot of revelations there.  MEP Marietje Schaake asked the European Commission a couple of questions regarding the leaks here. And the answers are here. Not surprisingly, and now confirmed by Der Spiegel, we learnt that Obama has “no emotional relationship with Europe,” and that he prefers to focus  on Asia instead. However, the most interesting case to follow could well be the 7,918 cables from Turkey.

To be continued…

Oh, and this is not only a matter for the US, in fact the EU has been quite active in the negotiations about the ACTA agreement. If you want to know more read Michael Geist’s blog who published a series of very useful posts on ACTA.

The most important thing is that there will be another negotiation round in Lucerne/Switzerland next week! Check out La Quadrature du Net and the campaign how you can help to  Stop ACTA!

The competition will bring together journalists, journalism students, academics and experts from 27 EU Member States, neighbourhood countries and beyond, to write about global cooperation in international development. TH!NK3: Developing World will run from 24 March, 2010 to 31 August, 2010.

If you want to participate, just apply here! Since I was involved in the project last year I can assure you that Th!nk  is a lot of fun and an amazing learning experience.  You can also have a look at the previous rounds that focused on the European Parliament elections and climate change.

Here is the official trailer for TH!NK3:

Accelerated through the fear from the attacks of 9/11 and all what followed, the so called ‘Western Society’ is constructing the greatest wall ever build on this planet. On different building sites on all five inhabitable continents, walls, fences and high-tech border surveillance are under construction in order to secure the citizens and their high quality of life within this system. The fall of the Berlin Wall was described as the historical moment that marks the demolition of world’s last barrier between nation states. Yet it took the European Union only six years to create with the Schengen Agreement in 1995 a new division only 80km offset to the east of Berlin.

The focus this time is much broader and goes beyond Europe, however,  from a European perspective it would be very interesting to have someone covering EU climate change policy and  looking at how the EU  approaches the COP 15 negotiations in Copenhagen…

Check out the details:

TH!NK2 Climate Change is a 3 month blogging competition with a focus on UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen (COP15) in December 2009. 81 bloggers from Europe with featured guests from India, China Brazil and the USA, representing the world’s biggest players in climate policy, will come together on the European Journalism Centre‘s thinkaboutit.eu platform, to exchange ideas and debate the issues of climate change.

Participants are encouraged to report about stories in their own back yards; to bring out the local side of a global issue. The aim is to create a portal into the minds of 81 people, to show how each one experiences the effects of Climate Change policies every day.

Go to the official website to find out more!

Silvio Berlusconi and his diplomatic incidents -  a never ending story? In other countries any of these “jokes” would have resulted in an immediate resignation (+ all the problems regarding human rights, media, democracy, justice, let alone the economy…).  Unfortunately, things are different in Italy. I really wonder whether anyone still takes him seriously outside Italy (and also inside!). Maybe it is time to retire Mr Berlusconi?

While the idea to address the young generation through online media is good (and fashionable), one cannot help wondering whether the campaign, on which NATO spent around 500 000 €, would have the expected effect. How often will we see these videos on Facebook walls or on Twitter? (let alone the fact that there is no easy embed function…) And, even more important, will they spark a debate among young people?

“Basement”

“Run”

“Staircase”

The Short and Simple Story of the Credit Crisis.

The goal of giving form to a complex situation like the credit crisis is to quickly supply the essence of the situation to those unfamiliar and uninitiated. This project was completed as part of my thesis work in the Media Design Program, a graduate studio at the Art Center College of Design in Pasadena, California.

“Just by getting closer to Russia’s borders, NATO is not becoming stronger,” Medvedev said. “…what if Georgia had a NATO membership action plan? I would not wait for a second in making the decision I made at that point.”

Vladimir Putin also tried his best to defend the war in Georgia:

“What did you want us to do? Wave our penknives in the air and wipe the bloody snot off our noses? When an aggressor comes into your territory, you need to punch him in the face – an aggressor needs to punished.”

I just have some objections about “the aggressor coming in your territory”, Mr Putin, somehow that explanation does not really convince me. Apart from that little “twisted fact”, I particularly like the diplomatic language in this statement.

The Russian President has another interesting analogy:

“Immediately after the events in the Caucasus it occurred to me that August 8 was for us almost what 9/11 was for the United States. There were many useful lessons from 9/11 in the United States. I would like the world to draw its own lessons from what happened. The world changed.”

Yes, the world is always changing. Interesting, first the “genocide” label, now the 9/11 analogy, any deeper meaning or just because it is September?  Russia as the victim? And what about these “useful lessons”? I can’t think of ‘many’.

I guess statements like the ones above show that Russia is trying desperately to tell its side of the story. But somehow it always sounds clumsy, undiplomatic, arrogant and based on ‘wrong’ realities (at least in our view). However, any ‘legitimacy’ depends on perceptions abroad. And Moscow is loosing ground there. It becomes obvious that Russia simply has neither the tools nor the allies to dominate a “global information war”.

Via Paul Goble’s blog I discovered some interesting data from UNOSAT, that is the” the UN Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) Operational Satellite Applications Programme”. Basically they released satellite images that were taken during the conflict in the region. Paul Goble explains the implications:

Satellite photographs analyzed by United Nations experts show that only five percent of Tskhinvali was destroyed during the fighting there but that 50 percent of ethnic Georgian villages were destroyed in that region by Ossetian marauders behind Russian lines, a pattern that undercuts Moscow’s claims about what took place. (…) But these photographs taken over the course of August also call into question repeated Russian claims that the Georgian army had destroyed much of the South Ossetian capital – the satellite photographs show only five percent of its buildings having been damaged — and that Georgian forces had carried out a systematic genocide there.

Human Rights Watch also offers some further explanations here.

I am pretty sure that we will see more of this kind of data in the future, also for other conflicts. Satellite technology has been developed rapidly and quality improved considerably in the last years. And when free services such as Google Earth already show quite detailed images, what about high quality, high resolution satellite images frequently used by governments? Propaganda and the spread of false information will definitely get more difficult.

I also wonder whether the EU Satellite Centre has similar evidence regarding the conflict in Georgia? Never heard of this EU agency? Here the short mission statement:

The mission of the European Union Satellite Centre (EUSC) is to support the decision-making of the European Union by providing analysis of satellite imagery and collateral data. The EUSC is an Agency of the Council of the European Union. It is one of the key institutions for European Union’s Security and Defence policy, and the only one in the field of space.

At least with that in mind the proposed EU “fact finding mission” in Georgia could get quite interesting…

This time the topic is even more complex than last time: It is about the conflict in the Middle East. The video was made by Axel Rudolph, a student of media design in Ravensburg/Germany. Here he explains the purpose of the video:

My dissertation, titled ‘Knowledge’ for my degree at Ravensburg College (subject: media design) deals with a virtual TV format that gives current important matters a more visually attractive shape.

It is especially attractive to younger people. One of my goals is to show that education and learning may also have a ‘cool look’. This new look often reminds the viewer more of a TV music video than that of a matter-of-fact history lesson. The sample – to be seen here – gives a 5-minute-explanation of the roots of the Middle-East conflict. It took about 3 ½ months to research this project, write the story book, and prepare the animation graphics.

I think it is a great piece of work that shows how political news can be presented. The combination of powerful visuals, clear explanations and a certain ‘MTV feel’ is both informative and attractive. It actually reminds me of a survey from a couple of months ago that showed that a majority of people that watch news on TV actually don’t understand them. Maybe a video like that one could help…

knowledge video

1. Great visions for the future of everything: yes.   – Policy details: no, not really.
2. Great rhetoric: yes.  – Great visuals for his campaign: yes, definitely.
3. Bush-bashing: no. – And a “Berlin surprise”: Oh yes please.

And what did we get? (You can read the transcript of the speech here)

1. What about “visions”: well, sort of. Barack Obama spoke about many global problems and a lot of shared responsibilities and the need for cooperation. Not more, not less. Of course freedom played a big role (George W. Bush would have said the same!). Also the importance of immigration is something Europe needs to learn! Interesting maybe the issue of nuclear disarmament. I haven’t heard any politician to call for that in the last decade or so. Of course he did not go into any detail (it is election campaign time! not a good time for details). However, the “big visionary moment” of the speech was missing. But considering what could have gone wrong with such a speech, I guess it was OK. But of course symbolism prevails over content in every election campaign…

2. What about “great rhetoric”: First of all, I think the rather short speech was well constructed. The second part was better than the beginning. But I also found that the family background did not really work (maybe he should have started with something else and talked about it later? ). I liked the idea of a “world citizen” (what do you expect with that blog name…?). The delivery was very professional but, again, the big moment was missing. BUT the visuals for the campaign were great (and eventually that matters at the moment): They can suggest that he is respected and hugely popular in Europe (the crowd of 200 000 was impressive, right? ) which might give him some foreign policy credibility in the US. But that depends on the spin of the campaign…

3) Obviously no Bush-bashing abroad which is unthinkable in the diplomatic world. So what about the “Berlin surprise”: Nothing really. Basically he used Ernst Reuter and the Berlin airlift for his speech trying to put it in context with globalisation and global challenges. Not a bad idea. But then again, since expectations were huge I doubt that he could have delivered a real “surprise”. Maybe next time…

Anything else?

Well, from a European perspective we can take note that he knows about the EU and he generally thinks highly of global institutions and international cooperation, which is good to know. But I think the really remarkable thing is the pure existence of this event, a kind of “globalisation of US election campaigning”. I think we will see similar events in the future! As somebody on German TV said “It seems that he is the candidate for the world presidency”.

Update: Here is the video of the speech:

- Russia will support the EUFOR Chad mission by deploying 6-8 helicopters. According to some EU officials, these helicopters are quite crucial for the mission…

- At the NATO summit in Bucharest, Russia agreed to give logistical support to the NATO mission in Afghanistan. The plan foresees that Russia will provide a land corridor on its territory for NATO transports. Given the troublesome history between Russia and NATO, this can be seen as a milestone development.

The Kremlin in Moscow

It seems as if a constructive dialogue has started between European diplomats and their Russian counterparts. Of course it is too early to come to a final conclusion but basically two scenarios are possible: (1) in a more positive outlook, this could be the first sign of a new partnership between Europe and Russia; (2) a more negative (‘realist’ if you want) interpretation would also take into account all other problematic areas/ disagreements ranging from CFE , missile defence and energy issues to Kosovo, Ukraine and Georgia. One could even conclude that Russia sees itself in a stronger position which led to the perception that it can deal with the “West” on a more equal basis. In that context, the above mentioned issues are perceived to increase Russia’s relative power position.

Another scenario is relatively simple: It may only be a ” diplomatic present” of the “new” Russian president/government in order to symbolize a kind of new beginning … whatever the direction may be! (the fact that Putin was responsible for these negotiations is not a contradiction: Medvedev and Putin are, at least for the time being, a very efficient team)