Harald Müller (political scientist)

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Harald Müller (born May 13, 1949 in Frankfurt am Main ) is a German political scientist , professor of international relations at the Johann Wolfgang Goethe University in Frankfurt am Main and was a managing member of the Hessian Foundation for Peace and Conflict Research (PRIF) until the end of 2015. .

Life

Harald Müller studied German, sociology, philosophy and political science at the Goethe University in Frankfurt, where he passed his first state examination in 1975 and received his doctorate in 1981. From 1994 to 1998 he worked as a private lecturer at the Technical University in Darmstadt. In addition, Müller is visiting professor at the "Center for international Relations" at Johns Hopkins University in Bologna / Italy. Since 1999 he has been Professor of International Relations at the Johann Wolfgang Goethe University in Frankfurt with a focus on peace and conflict research.

Harald Müller has been working as a research assistant at PRIF since 1976, where he has been a research group leader since the mid-1990s and has been the executive board member since 1996. Müller's main areas of research are arms control and disarmament, on which he has published a large number of reports in the course of his work at PRIF.

There are also a number of political activities in the context of disarmament, security and international relations. In 1995, Harald Müller acted as a member of the German delegation at the Review and Extension Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty , has been a member of the Advisory Committee on Disarmament Issues of the United Nations Secretary-General since 2004 (Chairman from 2004) and is co-chair of the “Peace and Conflict Research” working group on the planning staff of the Foreign Office . In addition, Müller has been co-editor of the magazine for international relations (ZIB) since 1994 (2002-2004 managing director), which is an important part of the literature selection for political studies. These are just a few projects of his research activities.

Müller is a critic of Samuel P. Huntington . In his book The Coexistence of Cultures , Müller presents an alternative to Huntington's model of the clash of civilizations . This design he revised in the context of the attacks of September 11 in his 2003 published book America Strikes Back .

In 2013, Müller received the Wilhelm Leuschner Medal .

Ernst-Otto Czempiel is a close companion and mentor of Müller .

Democracy at War - Antinomies of Democratic Peace

In the text published in 2004 by the author Harald Müller called Democracies at War - Antinomies of Democratic Peace , the conflict between two opposing interpretations of the idea of ​​“democratic peace” in the context of the armed conflicts against so-called “rogue states” since the terrorist attacks of the Illuminated September 11, 2001.

At the beginning, Müller refers to the Kantian theses on democracy and the bourgeoisie , as formulated in the work On Eternal Peace . From this it becomes clear that democracies rarely or never wage war against one another. In addition, the tendency of democracies to enter into interdependent economic relationships and to bind themselves to international organizations creates common interests with possible enemies and opens up communication channels and cooperation structures that help in the settlement of conflicts long before they reached the risk of violent disputes. The theory of democratic peace has meanwhile shaped the self-image, foreign image and enemy image of the public and political elites within the democracies to a considerable extent and provides the essential criterion for the distinction between friend and enemy, even more than in the Cold War. Here, an ideological front line characterizes the between the enlightened, Christian occidental, human rights-respecting, liberal, market-economy welfare oriented and morally extremely positive “we” and an outdated, inhuman, occasionally state directing and morally devalued “you”. Müller states that every modern society known to us has a significant amount of potential for violence, including democracies. The above-mentioned distinction between us and you would, in an emergency, become the mechanism for channeling this potential for violence onto a specific object, if the bundle of properties attributed to the "other" as highly negative, morally reprehensible, physically dangerous, in the concrete world political reality of the "Axis of evil" will be represented.

The dichotomous discourse about the rogue states thus carries the justification for the potential use of force, which can be realized as soon as a suitable occasion is found. In deadly confrontations with anti-democratic terrorism and rogue states, the USA, as the leading power of the democratic camp, has the right and the duty to resolve and carry out a military attack without imminent threat or danger in order to nip growing risks in the bud. The corresponding motivation, which translates into interventions and war, corresponds to genuinely democratic self-confidence. Müller goes deeper into the fact that there are security-political elites in democracies whose worldviews are much more shaped by enemy images and military thinking than that of the average person. In addition, there are armaments industry interests, which at least arm armaments, and occasionally the military conflict, come in handy. It is important to recognize that democracies require plurality in which discourse positions, ideologies and interests that differ from the average preferences assumed by Kant can also occur.

The Iraq crisis in particular had shown the obvious distance that seemed to exist between governments and peoples in some democracies as to whether and under what circumstances war was justified. In other words: The Kantian prognosis about attitudes and citizens applies to public opinion in the democracies largely across the dividing lines of the sometimes antagonistic government positions.

The structure of the international system helps explain why the US could believe it could succeed with its strategy. However, they cannot explain why the US chose this particular strategy. Overall, the Iraq crisis can therefore be seen as a highly explosive, if unintended test of the theory of democratic peace.

Transparent laboratories? Arms control possibilities in research and development

The report published by the Hessian Foundation for Peace and Conflict Research in 1995 examines whether it is possible to find decision criteria for assessing technologies and thus enable arms control at an early stage, that of research and development (R&D).

The report is based on the assumption that the development of military technologies is embedded in conflict formations and that technological progress in turn can influence these conflict formations. These in turn depend on the rank, which is determined by the current and potential military capabilities, and the regional allocation of the conflicting parties involved.

Presented examples of military technologies that are in the R&D stage or for which R&D is taking place although they are already ready for use or have already been used. Technologies relevant to nuclear weapon development in both emerging and nuclear-armed states, novel nuclear weapons, nuclear-powered radiation weapons, chemical weapons, biological weapons, missiles, missile defense technology, technologies relevant to reconnaissance, data integration, target acquisition, fire control, battlefield control and firepower, electronic warfare and non-lethal warfare . The selection is based on the assumption that a significant quantitative, if not qualitative, increase in performance can be expected through incremental further developments and that they are already on the horizon of long-term military planning.

The Foundation divides the report into five parts, which deal with the description of the strategic environment, critical technologies, problems of arms policy measures in the R&D area, criteria for arms control at the R&D stage and institutional considerations.

The first part of the report gives an overview of the current and the near and medium future (status 1995) expected global strategic situation. The focus is on the analysis of conflict formations in which there is a risk of violent conflict.

The second part provides a selective exemplary overview of important military technologies that are in the R&D stage. Some of these techniques are already ready for use or have already been used, but a significant quantitative, if not qualitative, increase in performance can be expected through incremental further developments. The third part deals with the problem of how scientific developments are to be recorded and assessed, the possible military application of which currently (1995) lies beyond the planning horizon. He discusses the relationship between scientific and technical development and civil and military use.

The fourth part draws on the findings of the first and tries to clarify the question of which criteria arms control - especially R&D arms control - should apply after the end of global political bipolarity.

The last part presents some practical ways of creating institutional conditions for R&D arms control. Options at national, international and non-governmental level are highlighted.

Scourge of civil society - the landmine crisis as a challenge to disarmament

The report published in 1997 by the Hessian Foundation for Peace and Conflict Research deals with the subject of the landmine crisis. The first part contains a comprehensive outline of the problem, while the second shows various initiatives and attempted solutions.

Until shortly before the publication of the report, the subject of mines was considered part of international humanitarian law , that is , the creation of regulations for mines, took place in Protocol II of the 1980 Convention on Particularly Inhumane Weapons. An attempt to achieve a complete ban on anti-personnel mines by revising the Convention failed in 1996. Those states that did not want to do without such weapons put through so many "loopholes" that the interested non-governmental organizations and numerous governments became necessary recognized to take an alternative path. Three such ventures were in progress: A group of more than a hundred states sought in the so-called "Ottawa Process" to finalize a treaty by the end of 1996 that would ban the production, storage, use and export of anti-personnel mines completely. Numerous important mine producers and users, including China, India, Russia, Israel, Syria, Greece, Turkey and Finland, as well as North and South Korea, stood apart. After the negotiations for the text of the Ottawa Convention were concluded in Oslo in September, the USA finally declared that it would not sign this treaty because its request for an exception had been rejected by the majority of the negotiators.

The Hessian Foundation for Peace and Conflict Research closes the report with the conclusion that, in parallel to the negotiations that have begun, the funds for mine clearance must be increased. In addition, mine clearance itself must become part of the obligations in the resulting contracts. Ultimately, the understanding must grow that limiting financial support to mere mine clearance would not be of sufficient help to the people in the crisis regions: the many mine victims must be offered a meaningful perspective. Rehabilitation and reconstruction programs are just as much a part of it as assistance in setting up a political infrastructure.

Works

  • World power India: How the rapid rise challenges us. Fischer, Frankfurt am Main 2006, ISBN 3-596-17371-X .
  • with Una Becker and Carmen Wunderlich: impulses for the biological weapons regime. A provisional compliance mechanism as a step out of the impasse. PRIF Report, Frankfurt am Main 2005, ISBN 3-937829-20-2 .
  • Contract in disrepair ?. The Failed Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference and Its Consequences. PRIF Report, Frankfurt am Main 2005, ISBN 3-937829-17-2 .
  • Democracies at War - Antinomies of Democratic Peace. In: Christine Schweitzer (Ed.): Democracies in War. Nomos-Verlag-Ges., Baden-Baden 2004, ISBN 3-8329-0754-8 .
  • America strikes back. The world order after September 11th. Fischer, Frankfurt am Main 2003, ISBN 3-596-15774-9 .
  • Early detection of arms risks in the era of the "military-technical revolution". A register for military research and development. PRIF report, Frankfurt am Main 2000, ISBN 3-933293-33-2 .
  • The coexistence of cultures. An alternative to Huntington's disease. Fischer, Frankfurt am Main 1998, ISBN 3-596-13915-5 .
  • with Berthold Meyer and Hans-Joachim Schmidt: NATO 96: Alliance in contradiction. PRIF report, Frankfurt am Main 1996, ISBN 3-928965-69-7 .
  • with Johannes Preisinger: Non-proliferation on the test bench. The extension of the non-proliferation treaty and the future of the non-proliferation regime. PRIF report, Frankfurt am Main 1995, ISBN 3-928965-53-0 .

Essays (Open Access)

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ^ Prime Minister Volker Bouffier awards the Wilhelm Leuschner Medal. Press release, November 11, 2013.
personal data
SURNAME Müller, Harald
BRIEF DESCRIPTION German political scientist
DATE OF BIRTH May 13, 1949
PLACE OF BIRTH Frankfurt am Main