Preparing For The Unknown

INTERNATIONAL SECURITY
FORUM BONN 2019

Full Report
Rapporteur: Simone Becker
F O RU M R E P O R T
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Setting the Scene for International Debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
List of Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Main Conference
Session I: The West’s Perspectives in a Changing Global Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
The Bonn Power Shift Monitor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Session II: China: A Strategic Outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Special Focus Day

Cyber Security and Artificial Intelligence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Scenario Round-Table Report

Preparing for the Unkown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Scenario I: War Returns to the Western Balkans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Scenario II: Fragmentation of the Internet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
COMMEN T S A ND PER SPEC T I V E S
Vladislav Belov: Russia, China, the Belt & Road Initiative and A New World Order . . . . . . 49
James Bindenagel: In a Dissolving World Order, Europe and Germany Need
a More Strategic Outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Dean Cheng: China, Europe and Future Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Arash Duero and Friedbert Pflüger: A New Challenge – Climate Security . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Benjamin Fricke: Artificial Intelligence, 5G, and Geopolitics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Malte Göttsche: A Technical Forum for Confidence-Building
in the Autonomous Weapons Realm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Jackson Janes: Competing Compasses in the Post-Cold War Era . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Karl Kaiser: Looking Ahead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Goodarz Mahbobi: A Challenge for IT Security Experts:
Small and Medium Enterprises and Industry 4.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Sönke Marahrens: Huawei and Europe’s Strategic Autonomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Nicolas Mazzucchi: Artificial Intelligence in the European Union: Choosing the Right Path . 70
Hendrik Ohnesorge: A Fatal Neglect: On the Significance of U.S. Soft Power Today . . . . . . 72
Benjamin Rhode: Tough Choices Ahead for European Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74
Kaan Sahin: AI and Warfare: Pending Issues for Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Jürgen Setzer: The Challenge of Digitalisation – the Bundeswehr Cyber
and Information Domain Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Cover photo: NASA Earth Observatory by Robert Simmon
Frank Umbach: 5G- and Huawei’s-Mobile Wireless Network-Technology:

Is the UK-Compromise of excluding Huawei from its Core-Network Sufficient? . . . . . . . . 80
Yixiang Xu: Opportunities and Challenges in Developing Military AI Applications . . . . . . . 82
Zhang Zhexin: The U.S. Decoupling Attempt Is Too Costly for the World . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Co-Host, Partner & Supporters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Imprint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
4 International Security Forum Bonn 2019
Dear readers,
After the enormous optimism following the fall of the

Berlin Wall, the world looks a lot less clear-cut than it
did around the turn of the millennium. From the
effects of climate change, new challenges in the global
management of the sea, space, and cyberspace, and
escalating instability in some of the world’s most vul-
nerable regions, it appears that global challenges are
mounting at the same rate as tensions between states
are rising.
Academia isn’t meant to be an ivory tower, but needs The report you have before you is dedicated to provid-
to help provide a solid foundation for political deci- ing an insight into the 2019 International Security
sion-making to crucial political and societal challenges. Forum and offers a glimpse into current debates on
The University of Bonn is attempting to contribute its some of the most pressing foreign and security policy
part. Establishing the Center for International Security issues. In its last section, some of the Forum’s experts
and Governance (CISG) in 2014, led by Prof. James D. and policymakers also share their unique take on
Bindenagel, was one sign of this. Now, the university is some of this year’s issues through personal comments.
building on its past accomplishments and expanding We hope that this collection of views and perspectives
its existing expertise into a new structure. Because of will provide you with some deeper insights!
this, the 2019 International Security Forum marked a
special occasion: On October 1, 2019, we celebrated CASSIS and AICGS would like to extend our special
the inauguration of a new interdisciplinary research thanks to all participants as well as our partners and
body – the Center for Advanced Security, Strategic and supporters: the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, the
Integration Studies (CASSIS), an innovative research German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP), the U.S.
structure that combines security and strategic studies Consulate General Düsseldorf, the City of Bonn and the
with European integration research, while closely link- Cyber Security Cluster e.V., as well as NRW Secretary
ing academic theory and political practice. of State Dr. Mark Speich, former PM of NRW Prof. Dr.
Jürgen Rüttgers, and Dr. Peter Fischer-Bollin.
As this new institution is gaining momentum, we would
like to thank those who have made this possible: The We look forward to hosting new debates shortly.
University of Bonn and its Rector, whose foresight and Happy reading!
dedication have lifted our alma mater into the ranks of
Germany’s elite “Universities of Excellence“ in 2019;
and Prof. Dr. Volker Kronenberg, Dean of the University’s
Faculty of Arts, for his key role in establishing CASSIS.
In view of the enormous complexity that marks our Dr. Enrico Fels
world, the path forward is not always clear, and solu- Managing Director of the Center for Advanced Security,
tions to complex issues are rarely simple. That’s why Strategic and Integration Studies (CASSIS), University of Bonn
sound academic research and a thorough knowledge
of the challenges at hand need to be accompanied by
careful consideration and an openness to different,
heterodox perspectives. It’s also why formats such as
the International Security Forum are so important.
The Forum is a platform for open international discus- Prof. Dr. Wolfram Hilz
sions and a place for “constructive exchange to come Professor for Political Science and Acting Director of the
to a new understanding”, as AICGS’ Jeffrey Rathke Center for Advanced Security, Strategic and Integration
recently put it so aptly. Studies, University of Bonn
International Security Forum Bonn 2019 5
Participants of the
International Security
Forum Bonn 2019
Prof. Dr. Volker

Kronenberg and Prof.
James D. Bindenagel,
both University of Bonn,
with Jeffrey Rathke,
AICGS
We can’t solve problems by using the same

kind of thinking we used when we created them.
Albert Einstein
Setting the Scene for International Debate
left:
Prof. James
D. Bindenagel,
University of Bonn
right:
Dr. Mark Speich,
State of North
Rhine-Westphalia
From September 30 to October 2, 2019, the Center for As Prof. James D. Bindenagel, former Director of CISG
Advanced Security, Strategic and Integration Studies and Senior Professor at the newly established Center
(CASSIS) and the American Institute for Contemporary for Advanced Security, Strategic and Integration Stud-
German Studies (AICGS) hosted the 4th International ies (CASSIS), emphasized in his opening remarks dur-
Security Forum Bonn (ISFB). For the fourth consecu- ing the main conference, the deep rifts in the current
tive year, the Forum convened more than 170 experts, global order have only become more pronounced over
researchers and policy makers from Europe, the the last few years. The international climate is increas-
United States, Russia, and China to debate some of the ingly marked by antagonistic thinking, the rise of a
most pressing issues in contemporary international new nationalism and authoritarianism, and height-
foreign and security policy. ened political tensions that are expanding into
uncharted territory such as space and the cyber realm.
Leading up the conference, U.S. Consul General Fiona Europe for its part is caught between its two most
Evans‘ keynote speech at the Dinner Talk on the eve of important trading partners, the United States and
September 30th already shed a light on the numerous China, both of which approach the world as an arena
destabilizing trends and growing discord even among of competing interests and power struggle. The key
traditional allies, which are currently hampering question Western societies are faced with today, Prof.
efforts to address joint global challenges. Bindenagel observed, may be an existential one: Does
the world still need the West and other open demo-
cratic states to uphold a global order shaped by liberal
values?
During his welcoming remarks, Prof. Dr. Volker Kro- In a similar vein, Dr. Mark Speich, Secretary of State
nenberg, Dean of the Faculty of Arts of the University for Federal, European and International Affairs for the
of Bonn, pointed out that the German federal govern- State of North Rhine-Westphalia, highlighted during
ment and the North Rhine-Westphalian state govern- his address to the Forum that the tectonic shifts in
ment have taken note of these fundamental changes international politics make mutual understanding,
in national and global politics as well. A key compo- nuanced discussions and knowledgeable insights into
nent of the government’s strategy in addressing the the complex challenges of the twenty-first century
new challenges of our time is to promote research on more important than ever. As the cornerstones of the
international relations, global interdependencies, and current global system are revealing themselves to be
foreign policy in Germany and Europe. The University less durable than expected, it is crucial to properly
of Bonn has already made some strides in further con- understand the complex changes in the global envi-
tributing to this over the last years: Its establishment ronment in order to navigate these unchartered
of CISG, the recent expansion into CASSIS and their waters, lending formats such as the ISFB a particular
most visible example of success, the ISFB, bear witness relevance.
to that.
As the unraveling of the current international order

urgently calls for discussions about where liberal
democracies are headed, Jeffrey Rathke, President of
the American Institute for Contemporary German
Studies (AICGS) at Johns Hopkins University, pointed
to the importance of open channels and cooperation –
even, or especially, in times of tension between the
transatlantic partners. In view of increasing friction on
the international stage, he noted that efforts to bring
people together, share views and disagree construc-
tively are urgently needed.
left:
Fiona Evans,
U.S. Consulate General
Düsseldorf
right:
Jeffrey Rathke, AICGS
List of Participants
Jonas Abs Dimitria Clayton

Chairman of the DGAPforum Bonn, German Council on Policy Officer, State Chancellery North Rhine-Westphalia
Foreign Relations (DGAP)
Arash Duero
Philip Ackermann Senior Research Fellow, European Centre for Energy and
Project Manager International Security Forum Bonn, Resource Security, King’s College London
Research Fellow, Center for Advanced Security, Strategic and
Integration Studies (CASSIS), University of Bonn Fiona Evans
U.S. Consul General, U.S. Consulate General Düsseldorf
Victoria Appelbe
Director, Office of Economic Development, City of Bonn Dr. Marian Feist
Senior Research Associate, Institute for Environment and
Sophie Arts Human Security, United Nations University
Program Coordinator, Security and Defense Policy,
German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMFUS) Dr. Enrico Fels
Managing Director of the Center for Advanced Security,
Dr. Benjamin Becker Strategic and Integration Studies (CASSIS), University of Bonn
Managing Director, Amerika Haus e.V. NRW
Dr. Peter Fischer-Bollin
Simone Becker Deputy Head, Department European and International
Research Fellow, Center for Advanced Security, Strategic Cooperation, Konrad-Adenauer-Foundation (KAS)
and Integration Studies (CASSIS), University of Bonn
Dr. Ulrike Franke
Tjorven Bellmann Policy Fellow, European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR)
Acting Security Policy Director, Federal Foreign Office
Benjamin Fricke
Dr. Vladislav Belov Desk Officer for Security Affairs, Konrad-Adenauer-
Deputy Director of the Institute of Europe and Chief of the Foundation (KAS)
Center for German Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences
BrigGen Gerald Funke
Ambassador (ret.) Prof. James D. Bindenagel Head of Division, Strategic Defence Planning & Concepts,
Senior Professor, Former Head of the Center for International Federal Ministry of Defence
Security and Governance, Founding
Henry-Kissinger-Professor, University of Bonn Lea Gernemann
Policy Advisor, Population Dynamics, Deutsche Gesellschaft
Dr. Antoine Bondaz für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH
Head of Program and Research Fellow, Fondation pour la
recherche stratégique , Associate Professor, Sciences Po Dr. Oliver Gnad
Co-Founder and Managing Director, Bureau fuer
Ann-Kathrin Büüsker Zeitgeschehen
Journalist, Deutschlandfunk
Prof. Dr. Malte Göttsche
Dr. habil. Landry Charrier Junior Professor for Experimental Physics, Aachen Institute
Attaché for Higher Education at French Embassy (NRW, for Advanced Study in Computational Engineering, RWTH
Rhineland-Palatinate, Hesse and Saarland) and Director Aachen
Institut français Bonn
Dr. Shivam Gupta
Researcher, Bonn Alliance for Sustainability Research/
Dr. Dean Cheng
Innovation Campus Bonn (ICB)
Senior Research Fellow, Asian Studies Center, Davis Institute
for National Security and Foreign Policy, Heritage Foundation
Dr. Mischa Hansel Dr. Jackson Janes

Research and Programme Coordinator, Development and Senior Fellow at the German Marshall Fund, President
Peace Foundation Emeritus, American Institute for Contemporary German
Studies (AICGS), Johns Hopkins University, Washington D.C.
Dr. Michael Hartlieb
Fellow for Theology and Philosophy, Dr. Karsten Jung
Thomas-Morus-Academy Bensberg Head of the Strategy Department, Ministry of Finance of
North Rhine-Westphalia
Prof. Dr. Andreas Heinemann-Grüder
Senior Researcher, Bonn International Center for Conversion Dr. Katharina Kaesling
(BICC) Research Coordinator, Käte Hamburger Center for Advanced
Study „Law as Culture“, University of Bonn
Dr. Niklas Helwig
Senior Research Fellow, Finnish Institute of International Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Karl Kaiser
Affairs in Helsinki Senior Fellow, Project on Europe and the Transatlantic
Relationship, Belfer Center for Science and International
Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c Matthias Herdegen Affairs, Adj. Professor of Public Policy emeritus,
Director, Institute for Public International Law and Institute Harvard Kennedy School
for Public Law, University of Bonn
Katharina Kiefel
Dr. Sven Herpig Program Manager, Amerika Haus e.V. NRW
Head of International Cyber Security Policy, Stiftung Neue
Verantwortung Dr. Alexander Klimburg
Director of the Cyber Policy and Resilience Program,
GenLt (ret.) Kurt Herrmann The Hague Centre for Strategic Studies
President of the Clausewitz Society
Dr. Christian Koecke
Prof. Dr. Wolfram Hilz Coordinator for Policy Issues and Transatlantic Relations,
Professor for Political Science and Acting Director of the Political Education Forum NRW,
Center for Advanced Security, Strategic and Integration Konrad-Adenauer-Foundation (KAS)
Studies, University of Bonn
Wolfgang Kopf, LL.M.
Goos Hofstee Senior Vice President for Group Public and Regulatory Affairs
Research Fellow, Clingendael Institute at Deutsche Telekom AG
Austin Hudgens Prof. Dr. Volker Kronenberg

Administrative Assistant at Clearlake Capital Group LLC Dean of the Faculty of Arts, University of Bonn
Alexander Graf Lambsdorff

Deputy Chairman of the Group of Free Democrats,
German Bundestag
Arthur Laudrain
Global Scholar for Peace, Conflict Prevention and
Resolution, Rotary Foundation
David Llorens Fernández

Vice President of the University of Murcia Chapter, European
Horizons
Goodarz Mahbobi
CEO, axxessio GmbH
Col i.G. Soenke Marahrens

Program Director, German Institute for Defence and
Strategic Studies (GIDS)
Dr. Jana Puglierin

Head of the Alfred von Oppenheim Center for European
Policy Studies, German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP)
Jeffrey Rathke
President of the American Institute for Contemporary German
Studies (AICGS), Johns Hopkins University, Washington D.C.
Dr. Benjamin Rhode

Research Fellow for Transatlantic Affairs, Editor Strategic
Comments, International Institute for Strategic Studies
Prof. Dr. Jakob Rhyner

Professor for Global Change and Systematic Risk,
Academic Director for the Innovation Campus Bonn,
Karina Marzano University of Bonn
Associate Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Sustainability
Studies (IASS), Potsdam Frank Rose
Senior Fellow for Security and Strategy, Foreign Policy
Prof. Dr. Carlo Masala program, Brookings Institution, Former Assistant Secretary
Professor for International Politics, Bundeswehr of State for arms control, verification, and compliance
University Munich
Dr. Norbert Röttgen
Dr. Maximilian Mayer Chairman of the German Bundestag Committee on
Assistant Professor in International Studies, School of Foreign Affairs
International Studies, University of Nottingham Ningbo China
Peter Rough
Dr. Nicolas Mazzucchi Fellow, Hudson Institute, Washington D.C.
Research Fellow, Fondation pour la recherche stratégique
Prof. Dr. Jürgen Rüttgers
Prof. Dr. Holger Mey Federal Minister of Education, Science, Research and
Vice President, Head of Advanced Concepts, Airbus Defence Technology (ret.), Prime Minister of North Rhine-Westphalia
and Space (ret.), Special Adviser to the EU Commission,
Honorary Professor of the University of Bonn, Institute of
Dr. Ute Meyer Political Science and Sociology, Honorary Fellow of the
Public Affairs and Government Relations Specialist, Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya, Israel
U.S. Consulate General Düsseldorf
Kaan Sahin
Hanna Müller Research Fellow, Technology and Foreign Policy, German
Head of the Division “Political Systems, Militant Democracy”, Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP)
Federal Ministry of the Interior, Building and Community
Lewis Sanders
Carisa Nietsche Multimedia Journalist, Deutsche Welle
Research Assistant, Transatlantic Security,
Center for a New American Security (CNAS) Dr. Dimitri Scheftelowitsch
Software Engineer, ESR Labs, Munich
Dr. Hendrik Ohnesorge
Research Fellow and Managing Assistant at the Center for Prof. Dr. Conrad Schetter
Global Studies (CGS), University of Bonn Professor for Peace and Conflict Studies, and Director for
Research, Bonn International Center for Conversion (BICC)
Prof. Dr. Alice Pannier
Assistant Professor, Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced Christian Schmickler
International Studies (SAIS), Johns Hopkins University, Cluster Manager, Cyber Security Cluster Bonn e.V.
Washington D.C.
Julian Schmidt
Alexandra Paulus Market Analyst in Strategic Marketing, Airbus
Doctoral Student, TU Chemnitz
Arne Schönbohm
President of the German Federal Office for Information
Security (BSI)
GenMaj Jürgen Setzer

Vice Chief of the Cyber- and Information Domain Service and
Chief Information Security Officer of the Bundeswehr
Prof. Dr. Yi Shen

Associate Professor, School for International Relations and
Public Affairs, Fudan University
Ludger Siemes
Head of European and International Affairs, State
Chancellery of North Rhine-Westphalia
Thomas Wiegold
Prof. Dr. Matthew Smith Editor „Augen Geradeaus!“
Professor at the Institute of Computer Science,
University of Bonn Nils Wörmer
Head of Department Foreign, Security and European Affairs,
Dr. Mark Speich Konrad-Adenauer-Foundation (KAS)
State Secretary for Federal, European and International
Affairs of the State of North Rhine-Westphalia Dr. Anja von Wulffen
Desk Officer, Division Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP)
Frank Sportolari Strategy, Cyber Security CIP, German Federal Office of Civil
President of UPS Germany Protection and Disaster Assistance (BBK)
Ashok Sridharan Yixiang Xu

Lord Mayor, City of Bonn New Research Initiative Fellow, American Institute for
Contemporary German Studies (AICGS), Johns Hopkins
Ambassador (ret.) Dr. Volker Stanzel University, Washington D.C.
Senior Distinguished Fellow, German Institute for
International and Security Affairs (SWP), Lauren Zabierek
Former German Ambassador to China and Japan Executive Director, Cyber Security Project, Belfer Center for
Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School
Gertrud Sterzl
Journalist, West German Broadcasting (WDR) Dr. Martin Zapfe
Assistant Branch Chief, Multinational Capability Development,
Marcel Stolz Federal Ministry of Defence
DPhil Candidate in Cyber Security, University of Oxford
Dr. Zhexin Zhang
Jan Ternberger Research Fellow, SIIS Deputy Editor, China Quarterly
Master student, HEC Paris and FU Berlin of International Strategic Studies
Tara Varma
Head of the Paris Office & Policy Fellow, European Council on as of September 27, 2019
Foreign Relations (ECFR)
Ignacio Villalonga
Strategic Market Forecast, Airbus
Michelle Combs Watson

President and CEO of Cyber Intelligent Partners (CIP)
Executive Summary
At the dawn of the 2020s, is has become clear that international observers believe to be a particular test
many of the expectations that accompanied the turn for what is commonly referred to as the international
of the millennium have not been fulfilled. After the fall liberal order: the People’s Republic of China’s global
of the Berlin Wall, many policy makers and analysts ascent. What drives Chinese foreign policy? What
hoped that liberal democracy would spread through- could be China’s long-term goals with regard to
out the world in a linear manner and usher in a new, reshaping the international system to better reflect its
more peaceful era of international relations. Three own interests? And how should global leaders react to
decades later, the “end of history”, as coined by politi- shifting power relations?
cal scientist Francis Fukuyama, has not yet material-
ized. The global political climate today is marked by
a new competitive edge in international politics, the
rise of systemic challenges to liberal democracy, and
heightened political tensions between old rivals just
as much as between longstanding allies. These
developments are accompanied by a growing number
of new cross-border security challenges in interna-
tional politics and security that seem increasingly
difficult to tackle in an atmosphere of distrust and
renewed zero-sum-thinking.
The 2019 International Security Forum in Bonn aimed

to examine these trends from two specific perspec-
tives: The first session was concerned with the West’s
prospects during a time when many of the premises of
European foreign policy are contested and Western
global influence is declining. What oversights or mis-
takes caused liberalism’s current crisis? In what ways
may political leaders on both sides of the Atlantic be
able to address internal and external challenges? Will
the West in its previous form unravel, reform itself, or
enter a new path entirely to adapt to a changing
world? Second, the 2019 Forum aimed to provide an
outlook toward the key emerging state that many
Prof. Dr. Volker

Kronenberg,
University of Bonn
The 2019 ISFB saw a large number of heterogeneous With view to China, the 2019 ISFB revolved around the
views and vigorous debates, especially regarding the observation that the world is witnessing what some
question of how European states should aim to realign call rise and others call return of the Middle Kingdom.
themselves as they are is unexpectedly finding them- While Beijing asserts that China’s peaceful recovery of
selves in a world of renewed power politics and trans- its historic place within the global community comes
actional relations. In Europe and beyond, the continent with no threat to other states, many neighboring
is increasingly seen as the playground where new countries are observing China’s increasingly assertive
power competition plays out, putting especially the policies with suspicion. Much of the Asia-Pacific, but
EU’s foreign policy model under pressure. Europe, it also Europe and North America, is reacting negatively
seems to many observers, is (again) turning into an to the recent revival of Chinese nationalism and Bei-
object of global power play rather a capable subject jing’s ambiguity regarding its commitment to multilat-
able to shape its own future. eralism and international law, as well as its lack of reci-
procity in trade – which, notably, Beijing is starting to
The Forum revealed a broad consensus that Europe realize.
does not appear well-prepared to cope with the
unprecedented challenges for its foreign policy that The session emphasized that the Middle Kingdom’s
has been founded on a global framework largely sus- reemergence as a global power opens up the potential
tained by the United States. The continent remains for both competition and cooperation vis-à-vis other
preoccupied with internal divisions and crises, but actors. A continuous dialogue may help to demystify
discussions underlined what one participant called the common misconceptions, improve mutual under-
“primacy of foreign policy”: Addressing urgent foreign standing, and deescalate tensions. At the same time,
policy issues cannot wait until internal issues are discussions highlighted a growing number of conflicts
resolved. Between diverging national priorities and in areas such as trade, technology and conflicting atti-
a currently limited ability to act on a global scale, the tudes towards key political concepts, such as the
EU in particular needs to define a path forward. The national sovereignty or the rule of law in contrast to
Forum highlighted that in terms of foreign policy, the “rule by law”. Combined, these conflicts and differ-
Europe is confronted with the challenge to balance ing perspectives are likely to lead to a new set of chal-
various existential objectives: addressing the serious lenges for international politics that will need to be
threats to its security and stability while maintaining addressed urgently.
its overarching goal of exerting a civilizing influence on
global affairs and safeguarding its normative core that
it established after experiencing the devastating con-
sequences of great power politics on its own soil.
The Special Focus Day, a new feature within the Despite a large variety of perspectives, the 2019
Forum’s established structure, was dedicated to a spe- Forum closed with a clear bottom line. We are cur-
cific policy area: the new and emerging challenges in rently entering a new phase of international relations
the realm of cybersecurity and artificial intelligence that is marked by the upheaval of seemingly
(AI). With this new format, the 2019 Special Focus Day, entrenched political structures, serious developments
conducted under the auspices of North Rhine-West- in the fields of cybersecurity and modern warfare, and
phalia’s former Minister President Prof. Dr. Jürgen a dangerous revival of antagonistic power politics and
Rüttgers, aimed to shed a light on how the enormous transactional relations. These developments are
technological strides in these areas are changing inter- accompanied by the emergence of new actors that
national relations. capitalize on technological advancements without
adhering to state-centered multilateral agreements,
The conference highlighted that the cyber sphere is and multi-dimensional, long-term challenges such as
becoming a part of a global trend that revolves around climate change that extend well beyond the national
escalating competition, distrust and a lack of norms realm. As a result, states are confronted with a whole
for acceptable international behavior. Cyber is a mov- host of new issues that have the potential to critically
ing frontier that confronts policy makers and govern- disrupt entire societies, while they are at the same
ments with numerous new challenges, including issues time left with decreasing room to achieve their inter-
such as blurring lines between war and peace, enor- national goals unilaterally.
mous difficulties in regulating and monitoring cyber
activities, and a growing power imbalance vis-à-vis the While the current shift in global politics does not inevi-
private sector. Debates also pointed to a dangerous tably have to lead to a Third World War, as many inter-
tendency to divorce the digital from the physical national observers are increasingly warning, height-
world, and to subsequently severely underestimate ened tensions and renewed power politics certainly
the consequences that may result from a failure to increase the chances of violent escalation, even if only
prevent political conflicts from expanding into the accidental or as the result of political miscalculation.
cyberspace. Though the Forum revealed much skepti-
cism among experts about how well global govern-
ance is currently equipped to deal with the unique
challenges of cybersecurity, the Special Focus Day
showed the urgent need to create internationally
accepted standards in the cyberspace.
Dr. Oliver Gnad,

Bureau für Zeitgeschehen
The 2019 Forum also revealed that many of the struc- realm as well as the effects of climate change, and to
tures designed to help stabilize the global environment mitigate the risks of escalating tensions between
during the second half of the twentieth century are states. As power is shifting horizontally as well as ver-
becoming increasingly ineffective or are entirely miss- tically and states’ abilities to reach their global goals
ing today. While many participants sharply criticized on their own is decreasing, it appears likely that the
calls to resurrect Cold War structures in a world that international order will undergo some fundamental
looks wildly different from that of the twentieth cen- transformations, and that current global frameworks
tury, the global community so far has proven largely will have to be adapted to better reflect today’s chang-
incapable of finding comprehensive responses to ing realities.
today’s challenges.
For open democratic societies, this may mean that
In his concluding remarks, Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Karl Kaiser likeminded countries may have to come together to
noted that approaching the growing number of project a common vision of the world, supported by
threats to international security and peace will require an underlying agreement on fundamental principles
global leaders to start thinking in global terms and and values, if they want their values and ideas to be
abandon zero sum thinking. The 2019 ISFB highlighted represented in this transforming order. After the West
that the need to organize collective action for global has increasingly turned to nostalgia, defensiveness, or
common goods and to address shared threats are at times even to a self-defeating abandonment of lib-
bound to remain a key element of world politics. In eral ideas, the key challenge for liberal democracies
particular, participants pointed to the urgent need to may be to formulate a more sustainable positive vision
establish more effective frameworks for cooperation for their future.
to manage the use of the sea, space and the cyber
Session I:
The West’s Perspectives in a Changing Global Order
Key points
The crisis of what is commonly referred to as the

■ the overarching goal of exerting a civilizing influ-
international liberal order has sparked a fierce ence on international relations with the need to
debate about the merits and perspectives of lib- become more resilient against possible threats to
eralism. In the West, the turn-of-the-millennium its way of life.
optimism about liberalism’s superiority has
largely given way to defensiveness, nostalgia, or a If open democratic states want their political val-
■
tendency to question liberal values. ues and principles to be reflected in a transform-
ing world order, this may require like-minded
Against the backdrop of a surge of antiliberal
■ countries to focus on addressing their internal
backlash and renewed global competition, deficits, strengthening their social, political and
Europe is finding itself in an unexpected global infrastructural resilience, bolstering alliances,
position. Mounting challenges such as decreasing identifying common goals and creating leverage
commitment to multilateral cooperation, intensi- to jointly realize a shared vision of the world.
fying confrontations with Russia, and growing
instability in the MENA region are putting espe- While contested from many sides, liberal ideas
■
cially the EU’s foreign model under pressure. may help provide solutions to today’s challenges
if adapted appropriately. The key challenge may
Europe’s internal divisions and crises hamper a
■ be for liberal democracies to develop a positive
coherent foreign policy, which may become a vision for the future underpinned by a shared
threat to European stability. The continent is understanding of fundamental political values.
faced with the challenge to balance its values and
Dr. Norbert Röttgen,

German Bundestag,
Frank Rose, Brookings
Institution,
Lauren Zabierek,
Belfer Center at Harvard’s
Kennedy School
Dr. Jana Puglierin,

German Council on
Over recent years, the end of liberal hegemony and the

unraveling of the frequently cited global liberal order
have been on everyone’s lips. As the eulogies are pour-
ing in, liberalism as an organizing principle of interna-
tional relations as well as state organization is with
equal vigor defended by some and attacked by others.
While its global dominance is declining, liberalism
seems to be turning into an even more fiercely disputed
concept.
Part of these contentions are due to the fact that the

liberal order, frequently accompanied by vague refer-
ences to the rule of law, is somewhat of an ambiguous
buzzword that is underpinned by a complex and often ple of a much larger global trend that sees non-liberal
contradictory political reality. Furthermore, the fact states pushing back.
that many liberal democracies’ foreign policy has fre-
quently been inconsistent with its own values has not Aside from revisionist powers who challenge a system
only raised questions about its normative legitimacy, dominated by the U.S. throughout much of the last
but is also complicating debates about the lessons from century, liberalism’s global vision is contested from
liberalism’s current crisis. The 2019 ISFB mirrored many many other sides as well – most notably its main stake-
of the diverging viewpoints and conclusions that its holder. At the 2019 ISFB, various experts from the U.S.
current crisis has provoked among analysts and policy reported that Washington is increasingly dominated by
makers. the view that multilateral institutions may help provide
global stability, but overall only set up the parameters
As one participant laid out, U.S. foreign policy in the for global power politics: For U.S. president Donald
late 1990s and 2000s was largely informed by what Trump and like-minded politicians in the U.S. and
was called Convergence Theory and aimed to integrate beyond, politics are increasingly driven by a competi-
emerging and non-Western states – most notably Rus- tive mindset that may consider multilateralism as a
sia and China – into a global system that sought global tool, but not as an inherent priority. On the contrary,
stability through the spread of liberal democracy under the current U.S. government does not consider most
U.S. leadership. According to various voices at the pressing political matters to be questions of legality.
Forum, that approach had a critical flaw: Western lead-
ers massively underestimated the degree to which Many participants supported the prediction that the
other states considered this Western-centric system a competitive urge in international politics, paired with
threat to their interests, identities, or regime legitimacy. an increasingly narrow understanding of national inter-
For instance, one speaker argued that U.S. leaders ests, are likely to remain strong as global power contin-
failed to recognize longstanding sentiments among ues to shift. Various U.S. experts also agreed that inter-
Russian officials that the INF Treaty and other legal ventionist tendencies in U.S. foreign policy are a thing
frameworks were marked by an imbalance in favor of of the past and may have seen their last gasp in Libya
the U.S. and forced upon Russia. As a result, the col- when the 2005 UN principle Responsibility to Protect
lapse of the INF in 2019 may be seen as a prime exam- (R2P) was still a relevant factor.
Europe in a Changing Global Environment and mitigating the effects of the U.S. retreating from
the transatlantic partnership. One speaker made the
With view to Europe, participants reached a broad con- case for a double strategy of “deterrence and dia-
sensus that today’s large global trends constitute logue” that consists of firmly defending Western values
unprecedented challenges for European foreign policy. and interests against outside assertions combined with
For the past seven decades, much of Western Europe robust dialogue based on an updated system of norms
and the European Union developed its foreign policy for international behavior shared by all actors. Exam-
identity based on the idea of a civilian power that was ples like the recent conflict in the Strait of Hormuz indi-
situated within a global framework largely sustained by cate, another participant argued, that Europe will have
the U.S. Nowadays, post-Cold War Europe is increas- to learn to defend its own interests because no one
ingly seen as the playground where great power com- else will: As the confrontation with Moscow is harden-
petition plays out, putting especially the EU in an ing, the Trump has declared the EU a “foe” to the U.S.,
entirely unexpected position and the EU’s foreign pol- and Europe’s neighboring regions are marked by insta-
icy model under pressure. For EU member states, the bility, the EU’s current foreign policy approach may put
key question addressed during the Forum was how to Europe in a position of severe vulnerability.
persist in a world of increasingly transactional relations
and zero-sum thinking without renouncing the stand- On the other hand, various participants argued that lib-
ards and norms that they established after first-hand- eral democracies need to double down on their values
edly experiencing the devastating lessons of great in foreign policy in order to maintain integrity and
power politics. credibility as a counterexample to authoritarian,
nationalist and illiberal attitudes and renewed power
The Forum revealed a broad range of views as to what politics. Arguing that liberalism has been a for-
conclusions EU member states should draw from cur- ward-thinking force for good in the world, various par-
rent developments and how to react to the array of ticipants called for Europe to maintain its civilizing
challenges that the rise of antiliberal forces may entail. influence on international affairs, focus on enhancing
Notably, the discussions reflected growing support for cooperation to promote a positive vision for a peaceful
a firmer approach to foreign policy that focuses on global environment, and steer away from a return to
identifying and protecting EU interests and values, the power politics of the past.
warding off authoritarian assertions and disruptions,
Frank A. Rose,
Brookings Institution
The EU’s Dilemma
Europe’s dilemma of trying to find a balance between

its normative goals and its more imminent challenges
in foreign and security policy, which may soon turn into
a vital threat to European stability, led one speaker to
come up with the most memorable metaphor of the
Dr. Alice Pannier,
Johns Hopkins University conference: Calling for the EU to become a “Brachio-
and Peter Rough, saurus” of international affairs , she argued for the EU
Hudson Institute “to remain a vegetarian in a world of meat eaters, but
one that is so massive and powerful that it is impossi-
ble to eat.” Under the motto United we stand, divided
we fall, she made the case for a “smart adaption”:
strengthening the EU in the area where it is strong,
using the EU’s joint weight to actively shape the inter-
national normative and regulative environment, and
adapting an anticyclical stance to serve as a reference
point for the “carnivores out there,” all while acknowl-
edging the changing global realities and acquiring the
ability to take charge of its own security.
However, the experience of recent years shows that EU

member states have had difficulties to overcome
national differences and act as a unified global player
in almost all areas of foreign policy. Debates at the
Forum also mirrored some of the diverging viewpoints
on the goals and means of EU foreign policy, such as
during a heated discussion about the merits of coali-
tions of the willing, which were considered a threat to
European cohesion by some and a pragmatic option to
dealing with Brussels’ foreign policy gridlock by others.
It also became clear throughout the discussions that,
even if member states manage to overcome their ina-
bility to agree on coherent EU positions, they still lack
the practical means to pursue a truly sovereign foreign
policy.
Tjorven Bellmann,
Federal Foreign Office
and Dr. Jackson Janes,
AICGS
Resilience, Alliances, and International Third, many arguments revolved around options and
Influence perspectives for Europe and other like-minded states
to use their joint weight to actively shape the interna-
Many of the suggestions presented during the 2019 tional environment and compete for norms and influ-
ISFB centered around three core pillars: Alliances, ence. This may include collectively pushing back
resilience, and the shaping of the international envi- against authoritarian efforts to downgrade human
ronment. The West’s ability to maintain close net- rights and other core principles; more realistically
works that are bound together by shared values and assessing areas where emerging powers exert influ-
solidarity, not just out of necessity, were considered ence and counterbalancing those efforts with own initi-
to be the key asymmetrical advantage vis-à-vis Beijing atives; helping to adapt international institutions to the
and Moscow. Beyond strengthening the cohesion of realities of the twenty-first century; and collaborating
existing alliances, it was also argued that liberal in shaping the rules and norms on emerging technolo-
democracies should further focus on “finding and gies as well as the use of outer space.
fostering pro-liberal alliances”: Liberal principles may
have been the product of the enlightenment, one
participant argued, but much of its appeal extends Liberalism from a Twenty-First Century
well beyond the Western Hemisphere. Perspective
Second, many experts present at the Forum pointed The 2019 ISFB illustrated that, after the euphoria of the
to the critical importance of resilience in the face of 1990s that saw Western ideas as the crowning of his-
external and internal disruptions and assertions. Rec- tory, contemporary debates in Western intellectual
ommendations for how to boost domestic resilience and political circles are often marked by the opposite
included addressing the political and economic roots tendency to consider liberalism with a sense of defen-
of grievances in national electorates and the resulting siveness, nostalgia, or even the tendency to question
surge of populist and illiberal forces; protecting the liberal ideas altogether. Overall, the discussions
integrity of electoral processes and democratic infra- throughout the 2019 ISFB largely clustered around two
structure; addressing internal democracy deficits that of the largest intellectual camps in these debates. Ech-
undermine their normative credibility; and protecting oing thinkers such as John Mearsheimer, the conclusion
the resiliency of critical infrastructure against attacks. for some was that liberalism’s current crisis indicate
that efforts to transcend realist thinking and ensure open democratic systems improved living conditions
lasting global stability through civilization and liberali- for billions of people worldwide and significantly con-
zation have failed. According to these voices, coopera- tributed to global stability in the twentieth century.
tion may still be possible in some areas, but a return to As Turkish political scientist Selim Sazak pointed out in
the status of the 1990s and early 2000s is unlikely. 2018, establishing an open democracy “remains a
political goal for countless political actors around the
On the other hand, debates also highlighted that world independently fighting to achieve it at home.”
today’s volatile global environment may in fact lend
many of liberalism’s key premises renewed relevance. One speaker argued during the Forum that the
It was precisely liberalism’s acute attentiveness to the so-called liberal order has to some degree always been
possibilities of large-scale catastrophe in a highly inter- a common narrative among like-minded states that
connected, technologically advanced and environmen- may even have been just as powerful than the practical
tally vulnerable world that has prompted the establish- realities behind it. Currently, changing priorities and
ment of an open, rules-based multilateral order as a the loss of a common language within the liberal com-
pragmatic approach to de-escalating tensions and munity threaten to weaken the fabric that has made
securing global common goods. Many participants’ the alliance strong. Removing the coat of this common
conclusions during the Forum were reminiscent of narrative is now revealing the underlying divergences
thinkers such as Daniel Deudney and John Ikenberry, and reducing the chances for automatic alliances. If the
who argued in 2017 that, even though it no longer adhesive glue falls away in favor of a more pragmatic
seems inevitable that the global order will end up lib- approach based on bilateralism, individual initiatives,
eral in the long-term, liberal ideas could contribute to and ad hoc coalitions, one participant raised the ques-
making it a more decent one. Debates revealed that, if tion whether the whole of these initiatives will be more
adapted appropriately to a more complex global real- than the sum of its parts – and whether that will be
ity, they may help provide answers to global challenges enough to serve as a countermodel to illiberal and
– providing that liberal democracies formulate a posi- authoritarian forces that aim to reshape the interna-
tive and more sustainable vision for the future that tional environment according to their preferences.
addresses the flaws and inconsistencies of the last
decades. Various participants also emphasized that
Hanna Müller, German

Federal Ministry of
the Interior, Building
and Community
The Bonn Power Shift Monitor

In his keynote speech that rang in the second session of the 2019 ISFB, Dr. Hendrik Ohnesorge
from the University of Bonn’s Center for Global Studies offered a glimpse into global power shifts
from the perspective of empirical research: Discussing the phenomenon of shifting power as a
constant in international affairs and offering a glimpse into his Center’s research, he presented
the latest issue of the Bonn Power Shift Monitor (BPSM) in order to provide an empirical footing
for the 2019 ISFB debates.
Dr. Hendrik
W. Ohnesorge,
University of Bonn
Greatly Exaggerated:
China’s Rise and America’s Decline in the Light
of the Bonn Power Shift Monitor
by Hendrik W. Ohnesorge & Christiane Heidbrink
Being confronted with reports of his own demise, China has undoubtedly presented an extraordinary
Mark Twain is said to have quipped in 1897, “The rise over the past decades. It is the biggest gainer in
reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.”1 In view global power shares according to the BPSM, whereas
of the latest findings of the Bonn Power Shift Monitor the United States shows the reverse trend. At first
(BPSM),2 much the same can be said concerning the glance, it seems as if the USA is inevitably doomed to
ongoing debate on the rise of China and a concurrent decline because it lost considerable amounts of power
decline of the United States of America. shares in the past. Recent figures, however, suggest
that this trend might soon come to an end as the
1 For Twain’s actual quote and its evolution, see Ralph Keyes, The Quote Verifier: Who Said What, Where, and When
(New York: St. Martin’s Griffin, 2006), p. 42.
2 For the full report and further analyses, see Center for Global Studies, “Bonn Power Shift Monitor,”
online at: https://www.cgs-bonn.de/de/bonn-power-shift-monitor/.
Power Shift Forecast: USA and China

25
USA
20
forecast
BPSM Power Score
15
10
China
current parity forecast

2018 parity forecast
5
0 16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Chart: Center for Global Studies (CGS) – Heidbrink. Source: Bonn Power Shift Monitor (BPSM) 2020
BPSM notes a significant slow-down of both the rising In the light of these findings, several observations can
China and the declining USA. The 2018 forecast thus be made: First, the United States continues to be the
predicted a power parity between the two states in most powerful country in the world – in fact, with a
2021. Due to China’s weakened growth rates and the considerable margin and ranking No. 1 in five out of
United States’ recent upturn, this “doomsday” is now the eight categories considered in the BPSM. Second,
predicted for mid-2023 – and might even be further while certainly verifiable through the BPSM in the long
delayed. run, the trends of both China’s rise and America’s
decline have considerably slowed down in the most
Decline and rise are yet inextricably linked if one con- recent period under review (2015-17). Third, and as
ducts a relative power measure. This measure does, a consequence, all parties would do well to take the
however, not tell anything about the absolute devel- edge off the current discourse on the alleged changing
opments within the countries of interest. In absolute of the guard on the international scene, a process
numbers, the United States has not lost power. Quite which in the past has frequently led to conflicts
the contrary, the BPSM records a positive growth between the established and the rising power. After
average. Indeed, the rate is much smaller than that all, given the plethora of challenges facing interna-
of developing countries like China or India – but this tional relations today, a more cooperative relationship
holds true for all the industrial, highly-developed between Washington and Beijing would indeed be
states. This trajectory is similar to what we know from welcome.
every role-playing game. It is much easier to level-up
in the beginning of a game, while it requires much
more effort on a higher level. Therefore, both types
of measurement – relative and absolute – do neither
indicate an incessant decline of the USA nor an irre-
sistible rise of China.
Session II:
China on the World Stage
Key points
Rather than an emerging power, China is better

■ Conflicting interests in areas such as trade and
■
characterized as a returning power whose foreign technology as well as contrasting approaches to
policy is informed by the goal to recover its his- key political concepts such as national sover-
toric global position. It relies on a comprehensive eignty and the rule of law are likely to lead to a
understanding of power and security that is new set of challenges for international politics.
based on a strong political and territorial union
and includes scientific and technological prowess, As China competes for global influence with
■
cultural security, and political recognition in numerous other players, organizing collective
international institutions. action remains imperative in a highly intercon-
nected world. Vertical and horizontal shifts of
While Beijing claims that its goal to peacefully
■ power make changes to the international system
ascend within the global order does not pose a highly likely and will require the international
threat to other countries, many neighboring community to develop a new framework that
countries as well as the U.S. and Europe are addresses more complex global realities with
observing China’s increasingly assertive policies, rules for international behavior shared by all
its rapidly growing power resources and power actors.
projections, and its ambivalence towards its
legal obligations with caution. The key question for international security in the
■
upcoming century may be how well the great
powers – particularly China and the United States
– will be able to work together on these chal-
lenges.
Ambassador (ret.)
Dr. Volker Stanzel,
German Institute for
International and
Security Affairs (SWP)
The U.S. defense strategy, like many American and Against this backdrop, the 2019 ISFB revealed that one
European observers, classifies China as a “revisionist key component to understanding China’s global goals
power”. Debates during the 2019 ISFB revealed that in may be the Chinese concept of deterrence. Better
order to gain a more differentiated picture of global translated into English as “compellence,” Beijing’s
developments, China is better characterized as a understanding of deterrence implies a much more
returning power with grievances. The rhetoric of Chi- comprehensive concept: Beyond economic and mili-
nese officials and media outlets confirm that China tary strength, it focuses on a broad understanding of
does not consider itself a rising power: As one speaker power that is based on political and territorial union
outlined, the Chinese Dream is firmly rooted in the and includes elements of persuasion on all levels. For
goal of reviving the Chinese people and reinstating its China, one expert explained, global power is also
historic greatness after the Century of Humiliation, a viewed as coherence, scientific and technological
term that is used in China to describe a period of West power, cultural security, and recognition similar to
European, American and Japanese interventionism that of the United States, and political recognition and
and imperialism between 1839 and 1949. The experi- acknowledgement in global institutions and beyond.
ence of collective humiliation through the temporary According to him, all measures of Chinese foreign
loss of sovereign control over its own territory, bor- policy are directed toward the goal of strengthening
ders, and national destiny plays a crucial role in how this comprehensive power.
Beijing frames and aligns its foreign policy.
Dr. Antoine Bondaz,

Fondation pour la
recherche stratégique
Dr. Dean Cheng,

Heritage Foundation
Chinese Power increase gravitational forces that pull other countries

further into China’s orbit. This might soon put China in
Discussions at the 2019 ISFB in large parts revolved a similar position as that of the United States in the
around China’s growing global influence. As the Bonn sense that large political, economic, or societal trends
Power Shift Monitor illustrated, China is rapidly originating there have repercussions that can be felt
becoming more powerful in terms of a range of differ- throughout much of the rest of the world.
ent power indicators from economic strength to tech-
nological prowess. Already the most populous country In the other hand, debates also highlighted that the
in the world, it also appears to be gaining ground in a frequent focus on quantifiable hard power resources
long-term race to becoming the strongest (see the neglects the impact of intangibles such as perceptions,
“Bonn Power Shift Monitor” for more details). feelings, and preferences and the ability to co-opt and
persuade, or what Joseph Nye coined as “Soft Power”
Understanding the depth and possible implications of in 1990. In terms of Soft Power, one participant reported
these developments requires a much more nuanced that the Chinese government estimates China to lag at
look, however. For instance, during the 2019 ISFB high- least ten to twenty years behind the United States.
lighted that the relationship between political clout, The international community and particularly Asian
power resources, and the ability to influence global neighbors observe Beijing’s rise with a certain caution.
affairs is much more complex than these observations This seems to be especially true when considering the
may suggest. As one participant pointed out, a period between 2010 and 2014, which Chinese foreign
nation’s power surplus in relation to one or even all policy experts now refer to as a period of “strategic
other actors does not automatically correspond with overreach.” As Beijing increasingly openly projected
its ability to control the outcome of international con- a strong vision of Chinese leadership, evoking aspira-
flicts. Classical considerations of power such as Max tions to grandeur in the Chinese public, the impression
Weber’s that focus on its practical use tend to over- of revived Chinese nationalism has provoked negative
look the passive impact of power. As Chinese power feedback and a certain suspicion in other capitals.
grows, one participant argued that this will also
As various participants pointed out, however, Beijing precise form in the long run, he argued, is that the
seems to have taken note of these developments. The concept of rule of law – the current order’s backbone
Chinese government has since tried to tone down its – doesn’t exist in Chinese history, which has instead
overt foreign policy ambitions, notably working to traditionally followed an approach that consists of
establish better relations with neighboring countries the rule by law. It was also argued that the Russian-
since 2016. Still, in view of China’s policies such as its Chinese coalition has a single strategic goal, which is to
complete lack of willingness to multilaterally solve the balance U.S. power and mitigate Western democracies’
conflict in the South China Sea, discussions at the influence as a shaping force of international relations.
Forum reflected the impression among many observ- Then again, one Chinese insider argued that both
ers that China seems to underestimate the impact its Moscow and Beijing are “driven by a foreign policy
policies are having around the world, and the extent vision that is shaped by power politics,” which pro-
to which it is losing Soft Power. hibits a truly equal and honest alliance. Thus, it also
appears unlikely that Beijing will be able to form an
overarching network similar to the transatlantic
China’s Long-Term Goals system.
From a longer-term perspective, the Forum once more Meanwhile, Beijing itself has been adamant in defend-
revealed that a glance at China’s global ambitions and ing its claim to peacefully resume its seat in the middle
the implications this may have for the global order of the global community without intending to consti-
comes with many question marks. One participant tute a threat to others, rejecting accusations of trying
argued that the global community should expect the to achieve global dominance and upending order.
exploitation of the current multilateral order based on According to one Chinese expert present at the
the rule of law as promoted by the West, while China Forum, Beijing aims to create “a norm of coordination
develops an alternative approach. The key factor that among all powers in the region and mutual respect
inhibits China from sustaining the current order in its based on sovereignty”. Certainly, the Chinese govern-
Dr. Antoine Bondaz,

Foundation pour la
recherche stratégique,
Prof. Dr. Andreas
Heinemann-Grüder,
Bonn International Centre
for Conversion,
Dr. Jana Puglierin,
German Council on
ment remains restrained about voicing its global ambi- Collective Action in a Changing World
tions. As one participant pointed out, the Communist
Party is unlikely to ever sound like President Trump. The Forum highlighted that the international commu-
What’s more, Chinese voices largely agree that Beijing nity should expect change without much doubt. Power
is neither prepared nor willing to assume a global lead- is currently shifting from West to East; spreading
ership role analogous to that of the United States. towards a larger group of states as other economies
Especially in view of the substantial costs such a role such as India grow and U.S. relative power declines;
implies, Beijing is more focused on consolidating its and diffusing as the information revolution is empow-
regional foothold and ensuring national unity and real- ering non-state actors such as corporations, terrorist
izing its vision of territorial, political, and social unity. organizations and even social movements, undermin-
ing the primacy of states in world politics. That also
Yet, China’s policies such as its failure to practice full means that, as Joseph Nye argued in 2018, the terms
reciprocity on trade and its disregard of international “international liberal order” and “Pax Americana” may
law in the South China Sea are raising international in some ways become outdated as descriptions of a
doubts about the extent to which China is committed world that looks exceedingly more complex than it
to legal frameworks, multilateralism, and international was during the second half of the twentieth century.
obligations. Furthermore, initiatives like the Asian
Infrastructure Investment Bank as an alternative to So far, Beijing hasn’t actively tried to overthrow current
the International Monetary Fund and the “Belt and structures as much as it has worked to increase its
Road” infrastructure development and investment influence within them. This may change as China’s
initiative (BRI) illustrate Beijing’s clear will to leave its influence increases further. Beijing has made its position
mark on the global order. Many non-Chinese observers clear that is has little interest in U.S. dominance or
consider the BRI a major global project to deepen adopting Western-style liberalism. Also, as one par-
Chinese global influence that is designed to create ticipant pointed out, many governments around the
dependencies. Since 2017, the BRI also includes a mili- world don’t perceive U.S. hegemony to be as benev-
tary bases in Djibouti, the first base outside Chinese olent as it is frequently framed in most Western
territory. As a result, analysts are starting to see more countries. As another speaker argued, China’s strong
and more parallels to more far-reaching global power emphasis on sovereignty implies that any order China
projections similar to those of the United States in the supports in the long term will most likely be firmly
early twentieth century. rooted in this concept.
Lea Gernemann,
Deutsche Gesellschaft
für Internationale
Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)
GmbH
Dr. Michael Hartlieb,
Thomas-Morus-Academy
Bensberg
Brigardier General
Gerald Funke, Federal
Ministry of Defence,
Mischa Meier,
University of Bonn,
Colonel i.G. Sönke
Marahrens, German
Institute for Defense and
Strategic Studies
At the same time, debates highlighted that the need posals based on enhancing cooperation and focusing
to organize collective action for global common goods on global commodities – revolved around the recog-
and to address shared threats is bound to remain a nition that global structures need to be adapted to
key element of global politics. In particular, partici- better reflect changing realities. While the exact path
pants pointed to the urgent need to establish new forward was contested among participants of the
frameworks for cooperation to manage the use of the 2019 ISFB, the conference ended with a clear message:
sea, space, and the cyber realm as well as the effects The key challenge for political leaders from all regions
of climate change, and to mitigate the risks of escalat- of the world is how to establish a long-term effective
ing tensions between states. As power is shifting and stability framework that all relevant actors are equally
states’ abilities to reach their foreign policy goals committed to. To be effective, such a framework will
alone is decreasing, power will likely have to be shared likely have to be based on as an updated system of
and existing structures will undergo transformations. norms for international behavior shared by all actors.
One of the most crucial questions for international
Overall, the wide range of different suggestions for security may be how well China and the United States
what to expect from a rising China and how to pro- will be able to work together in addressing these
ceed from a Western perspective – whether they were challenges.
more realist recommendations focused on a combina-
tion of deterrence and dialogue or more liberal pro-
SPECIAL FOCUS DAY
Cyber Security and

Artificial Intelligence
Key points
■ The world has not yet entered a fully digitalized ■ Cyber warfare and the development of AI are
era. Nevertheless, cyber already permeates vir- becoming a part of a larger global trend that
tually all areas of political and social life and is revolves around increasing competition and
changing the rules and parameters of national weaponization.
and global governance, international conflict, and
global security. ■ Due to the unique characteristics of this only
man-made domain, cyber warfare has an excep-
■ Due to rapidly evolving technologies, cyber is a tionally low threshold for action and the potential
moving frontier. Managing the cyber realm con- for a dangerous upward spiral of retaliatory
fronts policymakers with numerous new chal- strikes with potentially devastating consequences
lenges, including blurring lines between war and that are often underestimated.
peace, enormous difficulties in regulating and
monitoring cyber activities, a proliferation of ■ Despite the enormous difficulties that come with
actors, and a considerable power imbalance regulating and monitoring the cyber realm, the
vis-à-vis the private sector. 2019 Special Focus Day showed a clear need for
standards for cyber behavior and security by
design to help contain these escalating dynamics.
Cybersecurity: Moving Frontiers and At the beginning of the 2020s, the world has not yet
New Challenges arrived in a truly digital era. Despite the proliferation
of gadgets and apps, the world is still largely analog,
At the 2019 International Security Forum, the Univer- Arne Schönbohm, President of the German Federal
sity of Bonn introduced a new feature: The Special Office for Information Security (BSI), pointed out dur-
Focus Day, a day reserved exclusively for the in-depth ing his welcoming remarks on October 2nd. With a
analysis of current trends in one specific field of interview to artificial intelligence, the Forum illustrated
national security. Presented by the Konrad Adenauer that we are currently merely witnessing various levels
Foundation, the first Special Focus Day was dedicated of machine learning that are not equivalent to genu-
to Cybersecurity and Artificial Intelligence. ine artificial intelligence. However, debates revealed
a clear consensus among experts that, if AI does at
some point materialize, it is likely to become a true
game changer for human society, politics and interna-
tional affairs.
In any event, the impact of digitalization on human During the 2019 Special Focus Day, the complex issue
life is already enormous. From civil society and com- of cybersecurity was approached from various angles:
munications to critical infrastructures and political It was considered as a security issue, as a geopolitical
processes, the cyber sphere is expanding into virtually issue, and as an issue of global public goods, with its
all aspects of life. As Prof. Dr. Jürgen Rüttgers, former various dimensions frequently overlapping. Through-
Minister President of North Rhine-Westphalia and out the discussions, it became clear that cybersecurity
patron of the 2019 Special Focus Day, outlined in his is as much a framing issue as it is a practical challenge.
address to the Forum, the enormous technological
strides are also challenging traditional concepts and
approaches to national and international governance, Cybersecurity in an Age of Increasing
international politics and security. Competition
In view of rapidly progressing digitalization of socie- During the 2019 ISFB, there seemed to be an overall
ties, economies, and politics, Bonn‘s Lord Mayor consensus that the global community is living through
Ashok-Alexander Sridharan emphasized that secur- an escalating dynamic that is marked by the resurgence
ing these structures is becoming a key priority for pol- of systemic rivalry between open democratic and
icy makers. In terms of malware alone, the German authoritarian regimes, the reemergence of realistic
Federal Office for Information Security identified thinking, and missing norms and rules for appropriate
approximately 800 million different malware pro- behavior. The cyber realm – including phenomena
grams in 2019. Taking note of the fundamental trans- such as cyber warfare, the weaponization of data and
formations to political and societal structures, the social media, and the digital manipulation of political
international United Nations City of Bonn is well on processes – is becoming a part of a dangerous trend
its way to becoming a leading center in cybersecurity, that revolves around growing competition and over-
as the recent founding of the Bonn Cyber Security riding distrust.
Cluster highlighted.
Cyber Security Cluster Bonn e.V.

“The heart of cyber security in Europe”
The Cyber Security Cluster Bonn e.V. is a new institution

that unites all relevant cybersecurity actors in Bonn. It was
founded in 2018 and aims to turn Bonn into a European
hub for cybersecurity by merging the strengths of public,
academic and private sector players.
left:
Lord Mayor
Ashok-Alexander
Sridharan,
City of Bonn
right:
Arne Schönbohm,
German Federal
Office for
Information
Security (BSI)
The 2019 ISFB highlighted a tendency among political of sovereignty should be applied to the cyber sphere,
observers and policymakers to transfer concepts from leads to a growing instability. In view of the blurring
the analog into the digital sphere. One of the most lines between peace and war, one participant quoted
common motifs in this regard is the propensity to a British official’s claim that today, “we’re always at
describe what is happening between the United war,“ referring to Russian cyberattacks and similar
States, China, and Russia a “Digital Cold War.” The issues. Various participants at the 2019 ISFB argued
Forum laid bare that many of these analogies paint a that the world has already entered a cyber war that is
distorted picture that does not well represent the conducted below the threshold of open military inter-
realities of an increasingly digital world. vention. According to one speaker, that war’s first
round “went to Putin, who defeated the U.S. without
a shot being fired” by influencing the electoral out-
From the Analog to the Digital come in his favor, deepening societal rifts, and desta-
bilizing U.S. democracy.
The differences between the cyber realm and other
spheres are numerous. The Forum revealed that one As opposed to many other forms of warfare, the use
of the key issues with cybersecurity is the fact that, of cyber is not restricted to states, enabling non-state
due to rapidly evolving technologies, cyber is a mov- actors or smaller states to execute attacks on a scale
ing frontier. As the only man-made domain, there are that used to be reserved for states with large
no natural laws in cyber space. Assessing the attrib- resources. As technological advancements are
utes of the cyber realm is much more difficult than empowering non-state actors such as terrorist organi-
those of traditional domains, obstructing the identifi- zations and even social movements as well as smaller
cation of possible threats as well as the development states, the number of involved actors is increasing.
of sound solutions for its civil use and potential chal- With that, the world is entering an unprecedented sit-
lenges and conflicts. uation that is unlike any example in history. While the
1900 battleship race saw around eight great powers
One issue that debates frequently circled back to was struggling for dominance, for instance, and the 1960s
the observation that in an era that is marked by the were shaped by two great nuclear powers’ competi-
expansion of cyber into all other spheres, the line tion for global hegemony, the world today sees the
between war and peace is starting to blur. Attacks in massive proliferation of a weapons technology with a
the cyber realm exist on a scale that may range from very low threshold for action. According to different
espionage to the weaponization of data and direct estimates, there are currently approximately 40 to 50
attacks against a nation’s political integrity. Most of nations with cyber capabilities – not counting non-
these fall into a grey zone of action that does not yet state actors. While it has been argued that this prolif-
meet the threshold of what is traditionally considered eration may cause a “democratization of conflict,” a
an act of war. It was argued that the resulting ambiguity larger number of actors with cyber capabilities may
about what exactly constitutes an attack on a nation’s also increase the potential for escalation.
sovereignty in cyber space, or even how the concept
left: Dr. Katharina

Kaesling,
University of Bonn
right:
Prof. Dr. Maximilian
Mayer, University
of Nottingham
Ningbo China
Another factor that shaped debates was that of trans- Competition or Cooperation?
parency. Cyber capacities are much more diffused
than traditional capacities. Due to the cyber space’s What became clear throughout the debates was that
unique characteristics, they are also significantly the approach to cyber is very different in Europe, the
more difficult to measure and monitor, making it hard U.S., Russia, and China. The United States, China, and
to verify another party’s cyber capacities or track the Russia each seem to approach cyber with a highly
source of a cyberattack. Combined, these factors competitive mindset that is focused on identifying
keep the threshold for action in the cyber realm low. threats and developing comprehensive capabilities.
At the same time, discussions revealed that there China is leveraging its system of authoritarian state
seems to be little awareness among politicians and capitalism to create synergies between civil and mili-
the public about what concrete implications an tary developments in the areas of technology and AI
escalating cyber conflict might entail. The Forum to boost development and production, and to accu-
illustrated a frequent inclination to divorce the digital mulate massive amounts of data gathered by private
from the physical world, which many IT experts con- companies.
sidered a dangerous tendency. Against this backdrop,
participants expressed their concern that the dangers With view to the EU, experts noted a different approach.
that may result from states transferring their compe- For one, the EU’s investments in cyber and AI are
tition into the cyber sphere may fail to provide a disci- negligible when compared to China and the United
plining effect on international affairs in a way similar States. While it was pointed out that some European
to more traditional security challenges of the past. states, in particular France, are internationally
renowned for their excellent edge in research on AI,
The discussions highlighted that when it comes to various experts maintained that the EU lags behind
cybersecurity, the stakes for societies are especially the U.S. and Asia in terms of technology development
high. As digitalization extends into nearly all areas of in a broader sense and also does not engage in close
life and from there back into the physical realm, public-private research cooperation similar to that
cybersecurity needs be considered as a cross-dimen- between the Pentagon and big U.S. tech companies.
sional issue. As opposed to traditional means of In recent years, the PRC demonstrated a striking jump
armed conflict, cyber warfare has the unique poten- in patent filings related to cybersecurity, including on
tial for an upward spiral of retaliatory strikes that may AI, and has now surpassed all other regions in this
deeply affect critical infrastructure and political and regard, reflecting a geographical shift of innovation
societal systems. In light of this, the Forum disclosed from west to east that leaves especially the EU out-
serious concerns among experts that the current paced.
escalatory dynamics in international competition and
cyber armament may point in a very dangerous
direction.
In terms of security, the Forum showed growing fears During the Forum, European officials emphasized that
that Europe’s ambitious neighboring countries may be in terms of cybersecurity, the EU’s focus is not on
use the cyberspace to subvert EU member states’ power competition, with various voices arguing that
democratic systems: The evidence is mounting that Western democracies should not enter in a cyber
Russia in particular is using non-direct attacks, inter- arms race. The EU vision is instead centered around
ference and disinformation campaigns to widen soci- two things: strengthening the bloc’s security, espe-
etal cracks, create instability, and undermine trust in cially through enhanced resilience and defense; and
democracies’ legitimacy – all of which fall in cyber’s securing privacy and citizens’ rights. The EU’s declared
grey zone of action and retain the characteristic of aim is to focus on global commodities and a positive
deniability. Since around 2014, the continent has vision for cyber, as one participant laid out, in order
started to implement a wide array of countermeas- to alleviate the competitive edge to cybersecurity.
ures to cyberthreats, though so far, these have had
moderate success. With view to the development of
AI, one participant quoted Russian president Vladimir Cyber and the Security Dilemma
Putin from 2017, saying that “Artificial intelligence is
the future. [...] Whoever becomes the leader in this Discussions during the Forum also turned to the
sphere will become the ruler of the world.” Current observation that the extension of political conflicts
trends indicate that both China and Russia seem to be into the cyber realm exacerbates some fundamental
serious about the development and geopolitical use problems of international affairs and security. Cyber,
of cyber and AI. These attitudes raise a cardinal ques- one participant argued, has the potential to further
tion: Does Europe need to take these assertions more aggravate issues known from peace and conflict stud-
seriously? ies and information processing research, which stipu-
late that conflict is seldom rational.
left:
Victoria Appelbe,
City of Bonn
right:
Dr. Enrico Fels,
CASSIS
Prof. Dr. Jürgen Rüttgers,

Former Minister
President of North
Rhine-Westphalia
Maybe most notably, this concerns the traditional Privacy, Internet Governance, and the
security dilemma: Distrust of other states’ intentions Private-Public Nexus
leads states to maximize their security measures. The
inability to distinguish whether other states’ actions The 2019 ISFB highlighted another key aspect that is
are informed by offensive or defensive intentions crucial to understanding the security implications of
results in the situation of the security dilemma: cyber: In the digital sphere, the private sector is now
Misattribution of intent and worst-case thinking, in the driver’s seat. Cyber has heralded a shift in the
which are especially prevalent in international con- private-public nexus. This concerns two different
flicts, result in the danger of these becoming a aspects: the development of national cyber capabili-
self-fulfilling prophecy. Since both offensive and ties as well as state’s ability to regulate and monitor
defensive cyber capabilities cannot be revealed due corporations’ activities. States largely rely on access
to their inherent logic and the cyber realm’s general to private sector resources and know-how for the
characteristics leave significantly more room for analysis of cyber threats and the development of
interpretation, these issues are heightened in a cyber capacities for domestic and international use.
more digitalized era.
On the other hand, tech companies’ irresponsible
handling of user data may be turning into a serious
threat to data privacy and ultimately contribute to
undermining democracy, political stability, and basic
liberties and rights. In both regards, the cyber sphere
is marked by a significant resource imbalance
between the private and public sector. As one partici-
pant pointed out, many tech companies’ PR and other
departments are bigger than some states’ entire for-
eign policy institutions. This has serious implications
for a state’s capacities to effectively regulate and
monitor private sector activity. At the same time,
companies are gaining influence as an actor in global
politics.
Due to this, a substantial portion of the debates France has already been a forerunner in this regard:
revolved around the issue of internet governance and After dispatching a group of regulators to monitor
the framing of cybersecurity in terms of common Facebook facilities in Paris, Dublin, and Barcelona in
goods. Debates underlined the clear need for political early 2019, France has imposed legislation against
management of this realm, especially in terms of pro- online hate speech and initiated legislation for much
viding corporate activities with a framework, but also more comprehensive legal directives, which the
in balancing security with citizens’ rights. In view of French government want to serve as model for
the difficulty that the enormous power imbalance EU-wide management of social networks. Several
between states and tech companies, experts at the other countries have also introduced similar legisla-
Forum were divided regarding states’ ability to effec- tion. In fact, the European Union has become a driv-
tively regulate and monitor the private sector’s activi- ing force in this regard with initiatives such as the
ties. However, one participant also noted a shift in the recent copyright directive. Participants seemed to
international perception of this issue, pointing out broadly acknowledge that the EU can pave the way
that the conversations among policymakers have to data protection and assume a leading role in
largely already turned to the question of how to regu- establishing international frameworks for internet
late the cyber realm instead of whether this is neces- governance, and is doing so already.
sary at all. The real test will likely be the enforcement.
Prof. Dr. Wolfram Hilz,

University of Bonn
Prof. Dr. Yi Shen,

Fudan University
Dr. Sven Herpig, Stiftung

Neue Verantwortung,
Dr. Ulrike Franke, Euro-
pean Council on Foreign
Relations, Goodarz Mah-
bobi, axxessio GmbH
Conclusion fact that traditional state-centric multilateral agree-

ments don’t account for the growing influence of
The Special Focus Day saw a wide array of differing non-state actors. Importantly, debates frequently cir-
approaches and viewpoints on what implications the cled back to the observation that the world is faced
expansion of the cyber realm may have for security, with a systemic issue that sees open democratic
stability, and citizens’ rights. Depending on the fram- states pitted against authoritarian regimes, which are
ing – whether cybersecurity is considered as an issue less likely to comply with international legal obliga-
of international security, as a geopolitical issue, or as tions. Furthermore, the growing emphasis on national
an issue of public goods – the arguments as well as sovereignty in many regions of the world may make it
the specific conclusions may differ greatly. From the more difficult to establish norms and imply the need
perspective of international security, the conference to manage expectations according to differing sys-
yielded one key result: The cyber sphere is becoming temic preconditions.
a part of a precarious trend in international relations
that is characterized by escalating competition, dis- As opposed to this, another large group of partici-
trust and a lack of norms for acceptable international pants supported the view that both global govern-
behavior. The urgent question this raised is how the ance and internet governance can be effective and
international community can start to manage and are currently already contributing to providing stabil-
contain that trend. ity to some extent. Many experts appeared cautiously
optimistic that the odds of effective global govern-
Overall, experts at the Forum seemed split: A sub- ance in the cyber domain may in fact be fairly good if
stantial group of participants maintained that the policymakers and governments adapt the lessons
world has already entered a cyber arms race or even from previous arms control processes to the new
cyberwar below the threshold of traditional war, and preconditions of the cyber era. This may also mean
that these are bound to intensify further. Multiple underpinning legislative frameworks with a host of
participants expressed doubts regarding the effec- tailored technical solutions, such as developing a
tiveness of cyber diplomacy due to the host of unique cross-national open source 5G system to bypass
characteristics that distinguish the cyber realm from issues about who provides and controls this new
other domains, including the difficulty surrounding technology.
the monitoring and enforcement of treaties and the
In view of the devastating consequences that an esca- At the same time, debates also illustrated that any
lating cyberwar may have, experts pointed out that effort of establishing global frameworks to ensure
the global community may be left with few genuine lasting peace will be faced with the challenge of how
alternatives to establishing stable global frameworks. to bridge the cultural gap and how to deal with sys-
Various IT experts argued that there is no truly effec- temic imbalances and differing preconditions
tive technical defense against cyberthreats, and that between democratic and authoritarian states. One of
the unique potential for repeated retaliatory strikes these, one participant argued, is that the worst-case
may lead to political and societal disruptions of scenario for authoritarian states is regime change,
unprecedented dimensions. Combined, both of these while for Western democracies it is political degener-
factors thwart any expectations of reaching strategic ation and societal collapse, or what one participant
stability. As one participant concluded, failing to rein described as “the return to the 1900s or even the Iron
in the expansion of international conflict into the Age.”
cyber sphere may mean a “threat to civilization as
we know it.” As a complex response to a global environment that
is changing on a large scale, one speaker during the
The debates at the 2019 ISFB revolved in large parts Forum laid out a theory for global governance in the
around the concept of “security by design.” Though cyber sphere, arguing that there may be a path to
debates saw some skepticism among experts whether reaching it using a combination of measures based on
reaching this goal will be possible, they revealed the the identification of common ground, setting rules of
clear need for standards and norms to manage the behavior, and establishing trust by implementing con-
cyber realm. To that end, it is key to better under- fidence building measures as well as mechanisms for
stand and communicate the extent of the possible rule enforcement. Following Alexander Wendt’s Anar-
consequences that may result from a failure to prop- chy is what states make of it, one speaker concluded
erly address cybersecurity challenges. It will also that in cyber space, the security dilemma may be
require political leaders to define more clearly what what we make of it.
behaviors in the cyber realm are acceptable, what
exactly constitutes an attack on a nation’s sovereignty
in cyber space, and what the responses to rule viola-
tions should be, as well as determining how to deal
with non-state actors and defining the role of the
private sector.
left: Dr. Alexander

Klimburg, The
Hague Centre for
Strategic Studies
right: Lauren
Zabierek and
Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c.
Karl Kaiser, both
Belfer Center at
Harvard’s Kennedy
School
SCENARIO
ROUND-TABLE
REPORT
Preparing for the Unknown

By Niklas Helwig and Alexandra Paulus
Early-career and senior experts gather on the first day makers, the private sector, and academia. Since for
of the International Security Forum to exchange ideas each scenario, two diverse groups developed their
and thoughts on future security challenges. The dis- analysis and response strategy, the results differed
cussion revolved around two concrete scenarios, and covered different facets of the problems laid out
which were selected from a large pool of applicants. in the scenario. This ensured lively debates and pro-
How can Europe respond to a return of war to the ductive dialogue among the different groups.
Western Balkans? What happens if great power com-
petition reaches cyberspace? The two scenarios The four facilitators, Jana Puglierin (German Council
described a not so distant future crisis with serious on Foreign Relations), Oliver Gnad (Bureau für Zeit-
security implications for Europe and Germany. The geschichte), Yixiang Xu (American Institute for Con-
exercise provided an excellent opportunity to think temporary German Studies) and Carlo Masala (Bunde-
about the future trends in our security environment swehr University Munich) ensured a lively discussion.
and what strategies and capabilities Europe needs for Niklas Helwig, who is a Senior Research Fellow at the
an appropriate response. Finnish Institute of International Affairs, and Alexandra
Paulus, who currently pursues her PhD at Chemnitz
Each scenario was analyzed by two groups, one made University of Technology, provided the two scenarios.
up of young professionals and another one including
the more experienced. All groups were made up of
people with diverse backgrounds, including policy-
left: Alexandra Paulus,

Chemnitz University
of Technology
right: Dr. Niklas Helwig,

Finnish Institute of
International Affairs
in Helsinki
left: Jan
Ternberger, HEC
Paris and FU Berlin
right:
Prof. Dr. Alice
Pannier, Johns
Hopkins University,
Dr. Jana Puglierin,
DGAP
Strategic Foresight as a Method At the scenario workshop, Carlo Masala encouraged

the participants to structure their scenario analysis
Let us imagine a future scenario that holds the poten- threefold: By analyzing, firstly, who is impacted by the
tial to change the security panorama for Germany and scenario; secondly, what their interests are; and
Europe drastically but which is currently deemed thirdly, developing a response strategy for Germany
improbable. How would key actors probably react in and Europe as a whole. This approach allowed for
this scenario? What might a strategic response look considering the different perspectives of all actors
like? And what needs to be done today to prepare impacted by the scenario and identifying both com-
strategically for a similar scenario? These questions, in mon and diverging interests. The response strategies
a nutshell, outline the method of strategic foresight. can point to blind spots or areas for improvement
While an important part of strategic foresight is identi- today, both for academics and policymakers.
fying trends and issues with growing relevance for
future development, the aim is not so much arriving at
predictions with total certainty. Instead, these exer- Need for Strategic Foresight
cises aim at identifying the key underlying factors,
so-called drivers, that may enable the scenario in the One of the overall findings of the scenario roundtable
first place. Examples of such drivers are technological was that Germany and its European partners need to
innovations like machine learning or the rise of popu- develop capabilities for geostrategic assessment of
list movements. Another key objective of strategic trends and crises. Both scenarios showed a high num-
foresight is assessing which actions need to be taken ber of actors with high stakes. Especially great power
to be better prepared for the scenarios that may, in such as China, the US, and Russia played a crucial role
one shape or another, come true one day. in the European responses. Europe needs to under-
stand the geostrategic interests of these international
players and manage their relationships in a constructive
manner.
The key actor is and remains the US. As the balance of

global power shifts and the US is in the process of
redefining its global role, uncertainty in the transatlan-
tic partnership increases. It was therefore not a sur-
prise that a great deal of thinking in the discussions
focused on assessing the possible responses of Wash-
ington. While it was apparent that the US continues to
have high stakes in the security of the European conti-
nent, it was questionable whether and how the US

administration would respond in the particular cases.
The management of the transatlantic alliance remains
one of the key tasks for German policymakers in the left: Ambassador (ret.) Dr. Volker Stanzel, German Institute
for International and Security Affairs (SWP)
near future.
right: Dr. Dean Sheng, Heritage Foundation
The Benefits of Thinking the Unthinkable
Interestingly, the scenario workshop format was In all, the scenario workshop demonstrated clearly
picked up during the conference plenary session in the that the format is relevant for academics and policy-
context of debates on the relevance of political sci- makers alike. The scenario choice also proved to be
ence as a discipline. Members of academia voiced timely. Participants discussed the consequences of the
their appreciation of the format because it allowed for return of violence to the Western Balkans at a time
out-of-the-box thinking. Uncommon or possibly incon- when Europe is struggling to formulate a coherent
venient scenarios are addressed less in academic pub- strategy for the region, while outside influence from
lications and discussions, to the detriment of academ- Russia and China grows. The scenario on the fragmen-
ia’s relevance: Unlike studies that reinforce generally tation of the internet demonstrated the increasing
held beliefs, drafting and analyzing scenarios that are, intertwining of technology and security policy and the
while improbable, possible might hold important les- lack of strategic debate on an event considered likely
sons for both academics and policymakers. As recent by most participants. More exercises preparing the
development illustrated, the future may bring events policy community to think the unthinkable are thus
formerly considered improbable. In that case, policy- called for.
makers and academics would be wise to have pre-
pared strategies for these formerly unthinkable sce-
narios that allow for more than just reactive policy.
To improve the format even further and bring the out-

comes closer to this policy need, the group debated
whether the format would benefit from a shorter time
frame. Scenarios that are closer to the present might
allow for more common ground for debate and strate-
gic thinking among participants with very diverse
backgrounds. Also, making the key drivers behind the
scenario explicit might spark an even livelier debate.
Scenario I:
War Returns to the Western Balkans
by Niklas Helwig
Scenario summary Situation assessment
The scenario describes a near future in which the The senior group identified three different threats to
multiethnic state of Bosnia Herzegovina disintegrates. Europe, which determine the will and unity of the EU
Serb nationalists declare independence and found the to respond. First, the drawing of new borders on the
independent Republika Srpska. At the same time, Western Balkans is troublesome, especially for mem-
increasing ethnic tensions have led to the emergence ber states with internal independence movements
of the Islamic State of Bosnia (ISOB). In late 2025, the such as Spain. However, it might not be enough to
terrorist organization attacks the government build- spark a strong EU response. Second, the terror in Bos-
ings of the breakaway state. nia Herzegovina might prompt a reaction by Europe-
ans, especially as it might result in large refugee move-
A number of outside factors drive these developments. However, a local crisis might not be sufficient
ments. In the run up to the crisis, the EU enlargement to create the unity behind a robust, even military
process on the Western Balkans stalls. The Russian European reaction. Third, the new and troublesome
leadership fans the flames of ethnic tensions with a element of the scenario is the emergence of an Islamic
disinformation campaign and by supporting Serbian state and the prospects of attacks in EU member
nationalists. The United States, under the second term states. This could be the red line to cause a strong
of Donald Trump’s presidency, withdraws its engage- reaction by the EU and its partners. The junior group
ment from the region. It is preoccupied with a growing made a similar assessment, but was much more confi-
conflict with Iran, which after the complete break- dent that the first acts of terror in Bosnia Herzegovina
down of the Iran nuclear deal follows an increasingly would affect the security calculations of Europeans
aggressive course in the Gulf region and beyond. Intel- and prompt a stronger response.
ligence reports show that Iran is supporting Islamic
terrorists on the Balkans and is behind an attempt to A sizeable part of the discussion evolved around the
smuggle weapons into Bosnia Herzegovina. question how regional and global players would react,
in particular Turkey, China and the US. The groups
As the ethnic tensions are rising in Bosnia Herzego- compared Turkey’s response to its role in the Syrian
vina, a tragic accident that kills a prominent Serbian conflict, where it intervened to fight radical Islamists.
family pushes the conflict over the brink. Serb nation- China might have a substantial interest to contain the
alist use the public outcry to declare independence. conflict because of its economic investments in the
ISOB announces its revenge and starts attacking the region. The big question mark for the participants was
new Republika Srpska. “Nobody wanted this outcome, the possible response of the US. While the scenario
but today the Dayton agreements are all but dead and suggest a limited interest of the US to get involved in
war might return to the Western Balkan,” commented Europe’s backyard, the fight against terrorism and the
a veteran European diplomat, “like three decades ago, influence of Iran might provide a stake in the conflict
we don’t know how to react. Just that this time the for Washington as well.
U.S. has no interest in helping us.”
left: Austin
Hudgens, Clearlake
Capital Group and
Prof. Dr. Carlo
Masala,
Bundeswehr
University Munich
right: Michelle C.
Watson, Cyber
Intelligent Partners
Strategic response ticipants were confident to get the UN mandate for an

anti-terror mission, followed by EU or UN troops to
The senior group was pessimistic about the potential monitor the conflict. A naval mission would stop the
role that the EU could play to contain or even solve inflow of weapons. Second, the military efforts would
the conflict. Already the scenario showed that the EU be complemented by a diplomatic initiative. A diplo-
had lost influence on the Western Balkans in the years matic conference in Oslo, would get a number of
prior and remained divided when it came to a more Western Balkan countries, plus Russia, Turkey, France
robust engagement. A response would most likely and Germany on the table to find a post-conflict set-
focus on targeted sanctions and a monitoring mission tlement of the border disputes and stabilize the region
that could stop the inflow of weapons. Only an ISOB once more.
terrorist attack in an EU country could convince the EU
to go beyond containment of the crisis and authorize a The two groups clearly assigned Europe different lev-
NATO or EU military intervention. For that purpose, els of ambition in solving the crisis. However, both
the EU would hope to get the US support as well. groups agreed that the first step in the solution of a
crisis on the Western Balkans is to understand the
The junior group was more confident about Europe’s motives of the affected countries and manage
capability to go beyond containment of the conflict Europe’s often-difficult relations with them. Especially,
even without US. First, as none of the international Russia and Turkey were highlighted as important
actors, including Russia, has an interest in an Islamic regional actors, which share the interest of a stable
terrorist state in the Western Balkans, the young par- Western Balkans free of Islamic terrorism.
Key Takeaways
■ The ability of Germany and its European part- ■ It is conceivable that the US is not inclined to play a
ners to contain, or even solve, a future conflict strong role in the solution of the conflict. Its com-
on the Western Balkans is limited. In the mitment depends on the negative secondary
absence of major threats for European security, effects of the conflict on US interests, such as ter-
a strategy of containment is more likely than a rorist threats, implications on Middle East balance
military response. of power, and great power relations with Russia
and China.
■ Central to any response will be the relationship
with major global and regional actors. A future
conflict on the Western Balkans potentially
affects economic and security interests of not
only Turkey and Russia, but also China, Iran and
Saudi Arabia.
Scenario II:
Fragmentation of the Internet
by Alexandra Paulus
The Scenario Anticipated Response
By 2025, due to widespread ransomware attacks, The senior group categorized the relevant actors and
attacks on critical infrastructure, and adversarial elec- their anticipated responses along two axes: To what
tion meddling, global trust in the internet has eroded. extent a fragmentation of the global internet would
The international community had sought to counter presumably negatively impact the actors, and to what
these challenges in a number of ways, but to no avail: extent they would have a vested interest in or presum-
Intergovernmental and private sector initiatives aimed ably benefit from such an outcome.
at drafting international norms for responsible state
behavior in cyberspace failed to create a consensus. They came to the conclusion that no one would be
Global economic entanglement was increasingly seen both highly impacted by and have a vested interest in
as an attack surface and thus reduced. The US doc- fragmenting the internet. Most Western states includ-
trine of persistent engagement only lead to escalation ing the EU and the US, in turn, would both be highly
and ultimately sparked a war between the US and affected by fragmentation and have no vested inter-
Iran. And finally, the signaling of capabilities for deter- ested in it, as would the academic community, banks,
rence purposes backfired, as it only increased the multinational companies, and individuals – as consum-
incentives for first strikes. Against this backdrop, a ter- ers, workers, and private citizens interested in open
rorist attack hits the SWIFT system, the backbone of information and communication – because all of them
international banking, not only provoking a major benefit from open communication and transactions.
global economic crisis but also bringing citizens’ and However, internet service providers and providers of
governments’ trust in the internet to an all-time low. critical infrastructure would not be deeply affected by
As a result, China is the first nation-state to publicly fragmentation but possibly benefit from higher earn-
announce the roll-out of a national, completely inde- ings. And lastly, the group classified authoritarian
pendent internet. The threat of complete fragmenta- states as neither deeply affected by nor interested in
tion of the internet, also termed splinternet, is loom- fragmentation due to their already limited exposure
ing large. to an open internet. This sparked a heated debate,
particularly when it came to classifying China, which
different participants classified either in the first, third,
or fourth category.
The junior group instead posited that all nation-states

would primordially strive to maintain their sover-
eignty, security, and control over their territory. How-
ever, they also identified key differences between
states, including between the EU and the US: While
the EU would focus on the regulation of the internet,
the US would stress economic freedoms, and Russia
Marcel Stolz,
and China would emphasize control of information. University of
Civil society and the Human Rights movement would Oxford
stress the need for freedom of expressionand from
persecution, while the private sector would be most other for a, to draft internationally accepted norms of
interested in economic freedom and market access. responsible state behavior in cyberspace in as inclu-
sive a process as possible. At the same time, the diplo-
The following debate centered around three key ques- matic toolbox was seen asindispensable to prevent a
tions: Firstly, what would a fragmentation of the inter- vicious circle of pressure and reciprocity measures
net against the current geopolitical backdrop look like, that may eventually, as a consequence unintended by
considering the position of third countries and the all parties, lead to a fragmentation of the internet.
dependencies created by China’s Belt and Road Initia- Secondly, political education in all parts of the world
tive – and how many fragmented internets would was brought up as a cornerstone of augmenting soci-
there be in the end? Secondly, the participants dis- etal resilience vis-à-vis related threats by third actors,
cussed how, in a splinternet world, certain channels such as information operations. And thirdly, partici-
for communication and transactions could be main- pants discussed to what extent certifications and
tained open between rivaling internets. And finally, standards for products and information sharing
the role of proxy actors in cyber conflict in general and between states, for instance,the disclosure of security
a splinternet scenario, in particular, received attention. exploits, may build up confidence and thus reduce the
Finally, consensus prevailed on the urgency of the dis- likelihood of fragmentation.
cussion as many participants thought the scenario was
likely and saw the danger of a slippery slope once one Participants who regarded a splinternet relatively
country starts building up their own independent ver- inevitable focused instead on mitigation strategies.
sion of the internet. Some suggested creating a club of those states in
favor of an open, free, stable, and secure cyberspace
that could impose sanctions on others not abiding
Envisaging a Strategy for the EU: Between bytheir rules. Finally, discussions on industrial policy
Prevention and Mitigation illustrated that it could serve a dual purpose: Fostering
globally successful EU tech champions not only
When it came to drafting a strategy for Germany and increases the EU’s resilience in case of fragmentation
the EU, the ideas put forward had two different goals but also makes such an outcome less likely by giving
in mind: Preventing a fragmentation on the one hand, the EU more leverage vis-à-vis other states whose citi-
and mitigating its adverse effect on the other. zens use their products.
Among the actions envisaged to prevent the laid-out
scenario were diplomatic as well as educational and Interestingly, a matter that received next to no atten-
technological means. Firstly, the EU and like-minded tion in the discussion – a stark contrast to the litera-
states should forcefully maintain their goal of working ture on the topic – was how states can increase the
towards an open, free, stable, and secure cyberspace resilience of their administration, private sector, and
and keep up their efforts, at the United Nations and citizens through fundamental cyber hygiene measures.
Key Takeaways
■ Internet fragmentation appears highly likely ■ Faced with a splinternet scenario, states could
because of policy disagreements within the mitigate its effects through sanctions.
transatlantic community and because authori-
tarian regimes as well as certain companies ■ Industrial policy should be a priority since it serves
could benefit from fragmentation and might both prevention and mitigation.
thus actively pursue it.
■ A splinternet could be prevented through diplo-

matic dialogue, including norms building efforts,
enhanced social resilience, and standards and
information sharing.
COMMENTS
AND
PERSPECTIVES
Russia, China, the Belt & Road Initiative

and A New World Order
By Vladislav Belov
Dr. Vladislav Belov,

Research Director at
the Institute of Europe
of the Russian Academy
of Sciences, Moscow
At the end of 2019 we can see signs of obvious failures and group of states are trying to promote various inte-
of global economics and policy: a return to international gration mechanisms and to create a platform for the
protectionism, the economic wars, Brexit, the Eurozone shaping of the future world order, but they remain una-
and migration crises, the rise of right-wing populism in ble to reach any kind of common agreement on its
Europe, the transatlantic fault/split, comparable eco- restructuring. For a number of reasons, the traditional
nomic dominance by China, the Arab Spring with its centers of world politics are unable to play a leading
tragic consequences, Syria, the Middle East, the deep- role in shaping the new world order.
ening disagreements between the great powers (the
Russian-American and Chinese-American relations), a The United States is in a situation of deep internal
serious ongoing conflict in and around Ukraine, and the political division, and a long-term, balanced, and con-
crises of arms control mechanisms. Any attempts to sistent foreign policy strategy cannot be expected from
reform the United Nations invariably fall flat. The Washington in the near future. The European Union is
fragmentation of the international system, the gradual grappling with a fundamental internal crisis and with a
disintegration of the existing world order, and reduced whole set of structural, financial, economic, and politi-
manageability at the global and regional levels continue cal crises. The EU is preoccupied by its many internal
to affect every area of intergovernmental relations. problems, rather than by the new world order. There
are also difficulties with other leading players of world
The world is close to the point of bifurcation, which will politics, objectively preventing them from taking on
be followed either by the restoration of global govern- major responsibility for the formation of new rules of
ance at a new level, or by the accelerating slide of the the game in the modern world.
world toward anarchy and chaos. The leading states
One exception could be the most ambitious project in Participating in the BRI gives countries a chance to
the world: “The Belt and Road Initiative” (BRI). China develop their own projects and in this way to have an
put it forward in 2013, when the international system opportunity to lay down new rules of international
had entered a period of instability. For six years now, cooperation together with China. Moscow understands
the project has been one of the most important inte- that the changes to the world order through the BRI
gration initiatives in the world. are just one example of the possible formats of build-
ing “from the bottom up” and of the creation of
The BRI is not only a huge economic initiative; it could regional and continental coalitions of states that share
also be considered an alternative approach to refor- common approaches to international interactions.
matting the world order “from below” – through the From the Russian point of view, the BRI offers an
implementation of regional and continental projects opportunity to complement other entities. It was one
envisaging the diverse and flexible formats for getting of the reasons why Russian president Vladimir Putin
potential participants involved. The new China is not welcomed the Initiative, noting that “combining the
trying to build a closed club of states that do not like potentials of such integration formats as the EAEU, the
American leadership. This is a process of openness, BRI, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), and
inclusiveness, and joint development, not a closed bloc the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)
or a specific “Chinese club.” The initiative does not could become the basis for a greater Eurasian partner-
divide the world by ideology and does not seek to play ship.”1
with zero sums. Any country can join the initiative if
they wish to do so – the BRI is flexible and open for all In this sense, Russia and China currently have signifi-
participants, does not encroach on the fundamental cant advantages over other global power centers. They
principles of the liberal world order, and commits to promote the idea of a “multipolar world” as the most
continuing the process of globalization and beginning sustainable, reliable, and fair design of a new type of
the process of reformatting the entire world order. international relations, which should be based on prin-
ciples of mutual respect, justice, and mutually benefi-
The BRI is in tune with Russia’s integration efforts in the cial cooperation and build a community of one human-
Eurasian space within the framework of the Eurasian ity, based on the equal participation of all countries in
Economic Union (EAEU). The pairing of these projects global governance, respect for international law, equal
suggests that Moscow and Beijing are building new and indivisible security, mutual respect and considera-
forms of world order, more effective than similar tion of each other’s interests, non-confrontation, and
approaches in the West. contribution to a more just and rational polycentric
world order.2
Not by accident, the United States, leading countries in
the EU, India, and some other states are very critical
and skeptical of the BRI, sensing a threat to their inter-
ests and their positions in the world, and have no con-
structive response to the implementation of the project.
1 Igor Ivanov. The Belt and Road Initiative: Towards a New World Order. 05.06.2019. URL: https://russiancouncil.ru/en/analytics-
and-comments/analytics/the-belt-and-road-initiative-towards-a-new-world-order/
2 Joint Statement of the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China on the development of comprehensive partnership
and strategic cooperation entering a new era (in Russian). 05.06.2019. URL: http://www.kremlin.ru/supplement/5413
Therefore, Moscow and Beijing offer an alternative to The United States has no interest in forming a strategic
the current world order, which is in a deep crisis. Of partnership between the EU, China, India, other Asian
course, it’s reasonable that this alternative can only be partners, and Russia. Most likely, American policy will
implemented in cooperation with other countries. The try to prevent it in every possible way.
main advantage of the Russian-Chinese approach is
that it is open to all participants, including the EU and The Eurasian projects of Russia (especially with China)
the United States, in building a new configuration. have some advantages over its project with EU. The
majority of Asian countries do not have many historical
The multilateral mechanisms developed over the past problems with Russia and negative stereotypes of Rus-
two decades with the active participation of Russia and sia are less intense, with the Russian state not being
China (SCO, BRICS, EAEU) may eventually become sepa- seen as an existential threat – it is instead perceived as
rate components and elements of the future interna- an attractive opportunity for economic expansion. The
tional structure. This structure should include the res- Eurasian project is still just beginning and the rules of
toration of global governance, reform of the UN and the game/bureaucratic mechanisms have not yet been
other international institutions, a renewal of interna- established. Russia can ensconce itself far more easily
tional law, and a new understanding of globalization and simply in Eurasian processes on an equal-to-equal
and interdependence. basis, and in certain areas even as a leader.3 The project
will involve different formats of Russian participation.
Russia is now defining its own long-term priorities and
interests within the BRI project, taking into account its “Introducing” Russia into complex Eurasian transconti-
possibilities and limitations, and is ready to implement nental projects will require a high level of diplomatic
it as an indirect member of the project together with skill, political flexibility, and readiness in many cases to
China and the other participants. The involved coun- play a “second role” to the leading roles of China, India,
tries could find it easier to protect their own interests or ASEAN. Of course, justifying Moscow’s meaningful
as part of flexible and fluid coalitions dealing with spe- participation in such projects will require a transforma-
cific issues. Such a group of states may later form the tion of the Russian economy. The next five years will
coalitions needed to overcome the current crisis and show how much the Kremlin will be able to solve this
form the future world order. Some expectations relate difficult problem.
to the resurgent Russia-China-India triangle and new
formats of EU interaction with Asian countries (the
concept of transcontinental “connectivity”).
3 Andrey Kortunov. Will Russia Return to Europe? 06.11.2018. URL: https://russiancouncil.ru/en/analytics-and-comments/

analytics/will-russia-return-to-europe/
In a Dissolving World Order, Europe and Germany

Need a More Strategic Outlook
By James D. Bindenagel
Prof. James D. Bindenagel,

Senior-Professor at
CASSIS, Senior
Non-Resident Fellow
with the German
Marshall Fund, former
Henry-Kissinger-Professor
(CISG), former U.S.
Ambassador
With the power shift from U.S. global leadership to a At the same time, the days of European countries free
bipolar world including a rising China, it looks like the riding on NATO security while promoting economic
jungle is returning to international relations, as Robert prosperity have ended. They must make a choice: in
Kagan suggests. In this context, the question for a climate of growing economic, political, and security
Europe is whether it will choose the United States, its challenges, Europe needs to decide whether to con-
long-time partner, and the transatlantic relationship, tinue its dependence on the United States. The United
or China, its long-time competitor and second-largest States’ re-evaluation of its alliances and commitments
trading partner. And this at a moment when the per- challenges European to take the torch to defend
ception that the United States is withdrawing from democracy in the transatlantic partnership.
Europe has seriously damaged how Europeans see the
country. Europe cannot lay claim to global leadership while
relying on the United States for security. Can European
For example, public support for the transatlantic part- countries muster the political will to reshape the
nership in Germany is declining despite the seventy transatlantic relationship and take responsibility for
years of security and prosperity the transatlantic rela- their own security? They have started addressing their
tionship has provided. According to the Körber Foun- deficit in military capabilities by strengthening their
dation, only 32 percent of Germans say the relation- commitment to a common defense policy and by
ship between Germany and the United States is establishing new instruments of multilateral coopera-
somewhat good. Nearly 52 percent are in favor of tion – including Permanent Structured Cooperation,
striving for more independence in defense matters. the European Defense Fund, and the European Inter-
What is more, 50 percent say that there is a need for vention Initiative. France is calling for strategic auton-
closer ties with the United States, while 24 percent omy for Europe, including through the creation of a
advocate for closer ties with China and 18 percent are European army.
uncertain or see equidistance as an alternative.
Other suggestions are being made. For example, Mark the defense ministry. His party stated that the defense
Leonard of the European Council on Foreign Relations minister’s proposal was out of line. This shows how in
proposes more “strategic sovereignty,” in which EU a coalition government party politics can easily hinder
member states exercise national sovereignty within a a strategic debate, and makes the need for strategic
common European security policy. In this framework, foresight particularly clear.
individual countries could decide to meet their obliga-
tions toward a stronger EU alongside, rather autono- Forming a Council on Strategic Foresight as an instru-
mously from, the transatlantic partnership. ment of the parliament could foster the basis for a
strategic debate in Germany. By discussing future sce-
Such initiatives could make it possible for Europe to narios and their implications as well as alternative
successfully execute a common foreign, security, and actions before events have occurred, the tendency
defense policy – and become more independent from toward crisis management could be avoided and new
the United States. EU law does not prevent member possibilities opened up. This would create an atmos-
states from pursuing different security policies. But phere of action rather than reaction. At the same
even though the initiative has been taken, there is no time, these debates would inform public opinion,
real debate about strategy in most EU member state, influencing politics without encroaching on the policy-
including the largest one. making process. A new German strategic culture, one
that would focus on trends and their impacts on inter-
national politics, will be better able to anticipate con-
For a More Strategic German Debate crete risks and opportunities and evaluate alternative
options for policymakers.
The European Union and especially Germany – its
most influential member economically and politically – Through such a council’s reports on global trends,
need to find the political will to face the challenges of scenarios, and action plans, the parliament could
a dissolving world order. Member states must contribute to an ongoing, informed public debate on
acknowledge the necessity of a long-lasting strategic strategy and foreign and security policy. Regular
debate in order to save the transatlantic relationship committee hearings on strategic foresight would also
and the liberal values and stability of the European ensure a transparent and informed discussion of the
Union in a world that is succumbing to valuing “sur- challenges facing Germany and the policies best suited
vival of the fittest” over cooperation. to meet them. Inviting representatives of allied coun-
tries to these hearings would further create crosscut-
It is unlikely that any meaningful debate on European ting European ideas as well as build trust between
security issues can be undertaken without Germany’s Germany and European partners.
support and political will. But it has to deal with several
obstacles in this regard: a historical lack of strategic In the short term, the creation of a Council on Strate-
thinking, a troubled history, constitutional independ- gic Foresight would inform politics of critical issues
ence of the ministries within coalition governments, and lead to a more informed policymaking process in
and public reluctance to support an international lead- Germany, assuring voters that important topics are
ership role. being discussed in the parliament. In the long term, it
could change the country’s strategic culture into one
Germany’s ambivalent response when the United that supports elites and politicians in conducting the
States withdrew its troops from northern Syria was necessary strategy for the country and Europe – either
indicative. With no coordination with the foreign strengthening their values-based systemic partnership
ministry, the conservative Defense Minister Annegret with the United States or fully rebuilding it.
Kramp-Karrenbauer proposed a security zone with
contributions by the Bundeswehr. The social demo-
cratic Foreign Minister Heiko Maas responded quickly This article has originally been published on the
with his own initiative that undercut the authority of German Marshall Fund of the United States’ website.
China, Europe, and Future Security

By Dean Cheng
Dr. Dean Cheng,

Research Fellow for
Chinese Political and
Military Affairs at the
Heritage Foundation
At the recent International Security Forum in Bonn, terms of its territorial sovereignty (including its claims
several analysts raised the idea that the European pro- to Taiwan, Tibet, and Xinjiang), or its rights in the new
ject, exemplified by the European Union, was intended spheres of outer space and the Internet.
to promote an alternative to traditional power politics.
This divergence in perspective is reinforced by the
Given the bloody history of the twentieth century, it is divergence in approach. Europe is committed to a
understandable why there is such interest in an alter- rules-based order, in line with its longstanding com-
native. But looming on the far side of the globe is a mitment to the rule of law. China, by contrast, has
very different perspective, held by a civilization as old never developed a rule of law perspective throughout
as Europe’s – that of China. its five millennia-long history. Instead, it has generally
viewed the law as an instrument to support previously
While China has been described as more of a “civiliza- established political goals; this is rule-by-law, rather
tional state” than a “nation state,” the bitter history of than rule-of-law. Coupled with Chinese economic
China’s interaction with the West in the nineteenth capability (as the second-largest economy in the world)
and twentieth centuries has made China a fierce and growing technological prowess, China poses a
champion of national sovereignty. Indeed, there is growing challenge to the European and Western
arguably no greater defender of the Westphalian approaches to international behavior.
international order than the People’s Republic of China
(PRC). This growing friction is displayed in the Chinese disre-
gard for intellectual property, in its efforts to circum-
It is therefore ironic that, even as Europe strives to vent restrictions on its access to advanced technology,
downplay nationalism and move toward a trans-na- and its treatment of information flow and access. This
tionalist or post-nationalist order, China warmly pattern of behavior reflects a broader point: that
embraces nationalism. Indeed, Beijing is clearly intent China is unlike most past challengers to the interna-
on defending its rights as a nation state, whether in tional system.
Whether Napoleon, imperial Germany, or the Soviet But the foremost tools China has thus far relied on are
Union, past revisionist powers have tended to rely more in the realm of economics, whether Belt and
more on military capability. In the case of the PRC, the Road Initiative investments or large-scale purchases of
main tool seems to be much more economic and raw materials, and in the realm of political pressure,
informational. Indeed, because of the Chinese Com- often expressed through non-traditional means such
munist Party’s assessment that the twenty-first cen- as Confucius Institutes. The type of challenge China
tury has seen the rise of the Information Age, wherein poses is very different from those that Europe, or the
the ability to generate, analyze, and transmit informa- United States, has confronted in the past century.
tion more rapidly and more accurately than one’s
competitors, information has become the focal point It is therefore essential for national security analysts
of national development. It is no accident that China and thinkers, such as those associated with the Inter-
has focused on developing information-related tech- national Security Forum, to adopt a fresh outlook and
nologies, or has systematically sought out others’ approach. Just as China is not the Soviet Union and the
intellectual property, i.e., information on embryonic world does not face a rerun of the Cold War, it would
technologies. They see information as the lifeblood of be a mistake to rely on past precedent, be it contain-
this new age. ment or arms control, to deal with this returning
power. While longstanding concerns about sover-
This is not to suggest that China has neglected the eignty, nationalism, and deterrence remain central,
development of its military. The recent Chinese how they are expressed in the economic as well as mil-
National Day parade displayed a range of capabilities itary realms, especially in light of advances in informa-
from unmanned aerial vehicles to fighter jets to tion and space technology, will be ever more salient.
advanced missiles. Nor is that military only for
parades; Chinese naval forces have recently engaged The challenge of a revived China, something not seen
in exercises in the Baltic and Mediterranean for the in several centuries, cannot be answered with old
first time in recorded history. approaches, but demands new thinking if other
nations are to be up to the task of meeting it.
A New Challenge: Climate Security

The Geopolitical Implications of Climate Change
By Friedbert Pflüger and Arash Duero
left:
Prof. Dr. Friedbert Pflüger, Director of the European Centre
for Climate, Energy and Resource Security (EUCERS),
Department of War Studies, King’s College London, and
managing partner of Pflüger International GmbH
right:
Arash Duero, Senior Fellow at the European Centre for
Climate, Energy and Research Security (EUCERS), Department
of War Studies, King’s College London, and Advisor to the
World Energy Council’s Global Gas Centre.
After the Russian-Ukrainian gas crisis of 2009, energy The Arctic and Greenland
supply security was pretty much on top of the Euro-
pean Union’s energy agenda, which ultimately culmi- Rising global temperatures are melting our polar ice
nated in pursuing a cohesive strategy of “Energy caps. Over the last three decades, the Artic has experi-
Union” in 2015. Since then, the EU has markedly enced some of the most rapid climate changes on
improved its energy security situation. Now, another Earth, almost twice the global average. As ice fields,
challenge – a more universal one – is emerging that glaciers, and sea ice continue to melt, countries are
must be urgently addressed: climate security, that is, increasingly recognizing their potential to unlock vast
mitigating and managing the geopolitical implications tracts of natural resources like oil, natural gas, and
of climate change. Unfortunately, this challenge has minerals. The Arctic accounts for about 13 percent of
not been given the attention it warrants. Indeed, cli- undiscovered oil and 30 percent of undiscovered gas.2
mate change has become a threat multiplier that is
exacerbating volatile situations around the world with The opening up of the Northeast, Northwest, and
dire geopolitical implications.1 other passages due to the melting ice gives rise to new
questions about who has the right to control seaways
For many, climate change poses an existential threat, or exploit vast undiscovered natural deposits. These
while for others, at least in the short term, it can questions raise serious geopolitical concerns, and
become an advantage. Just one flashpoint to consider rightly so, given the history of tensions in the region
is the Arctic and Greenland. between the five Arctic coastal states (Canada, Den-
mark, Norway, Russia, United States), as well as other
actors like NATO and China.
The U.S.’ Renewed Interest Already, China has sought to project its economic
Recently, President Trump played with the idea of buy- influence through commercial forays in Greenland. A
ing Greenland. While his proposal elicited global Chinese state-owned company has invested in a rare
astonishment and widespread ridicule, it was, in fact, earth elements (REE) and uranium mining project at
not a completely outlandish idea. Greenland has long Kvanefjeld in southern Greenland,6 while another Chi-
been important militarily given its key position nese investment company has expressed interested in
between Russia and North America. In 1940, the U.S. purchasing a former naval station.7 In 2017, the Chi-
seized control of Greenland to prevent the island from nese government applied for permission to build a sat-
being used as a springboard for an invasion of North ellite receiving station. As trade starts to pick up with
America. During the Cold War, Greenland’s strategic the melting ice opening up the seaways, it is likely that
geographic location was used by the United States to China will attempt to increase investments in the
track Soviet submarines and place bombers and later region. Eventually, Chinese capital could make up a
missiles that could attack enemy targets, as well as significant share of the island’s economy, giving Beijing
position missile early warning radars at the American leverage that could be used to pursue not only com-
air base in Thule. Today, Greenland remains as impor- mercial, but also geopolitical interests.
tant as ever for the United States and NATO, particu-
larly in light of Russia’s enhanced military capabilities For instance, if China decides to develop major infra-
and China’s growing economic clout.3 structure along the Polar Silk Road, it will warrant
close attention. Such facilities could easily be re-pur-
Russia’s Enhanced Military Capabilities posed for military use with strike capabilities against
In 2007, Russia staked its claim to Arctic territory by both the United States and Russia, a significant devel-
planting its flag on the North Pole seabed. Fast for- opment at a time when the U.S. is reducing its interna-
ward to 2019, and its interest in the region has only tional engagements while Beijing simultaneously seeks
grown. In November 2019, Russia conducted a major to be recognized as a major power with a growing
military exercise in the Arctic involving 12,000 sol- global reach.
diers, five nuclear submarines, fifteen warships, and
100 aircraft, as well as the launch of the world’s first
“combat icebreaker.”4 Moreover, it has five nucle- Conclusion
ar-powered icebreakers, currently the only country to
have any, and is also upgrading its military installations Whether in discussions about melting ice, rising tem-
at its northernmost airbase in Nagurskoye,5 which will peratures, or extreme and unpredictable weather pat-
give Moscow advanced capabilities to defend its terri- terns, links are being made between a changing cli-
tory and the ability to strike Thule Air Base, the U.S. mate and geopolitical developments. And it is truly a
Air Force’s northernmost base, and thus cause signifi- global problem. Emissions produced in the United
cant damage to its missile defense and early warning States lead to melting the icecaps in the Arctic, which
systems. In geopolitical terms, Russia’s increased in turn is detrimental to Pacific island states and has
activities in the Arctic have two key aims: 1) to gain a security and economic implications for the five Arctic
strategic military position with strike and defense coastal states and beyond. As the manifestations of
capabilities against potential adversaries in the region climate change increase and become more extreme,
and 2) to bolster Russia’s claim to around 1.3 million their effects will play an increasingly important role in
square kilometers of the Arctic. discussions of security and geopolitics.
China’s Growing Economic Clout Although these challenges represent a relatively new
The opening up of the Arctic has also become of inter- field, comprehensive strategies need to be developed
est to countries not usually associated with the region. to respond to climate-induced security threats and
In its 2018 white paper, China launched its Polar Silk geopolitical instability both nationally and around the
Road Initiative, which aligns Beijing’s Arctic interests world. The Paris Agreement is a good first step in
with the Belt and Road Initiative. In the paper, China pushing us to commit to curbing emissions and draft-
describes itself as a “Near-Arctic State” and makes it ing climate adaptation action plans. But pledges and
clear that it has a strategic interest in being involved in promises alone are not enough. We need to step up
natural resource extraction as well as commercial and turn them into concrete action.
activities, including shipping.
Artificial Intelligence, 5G, and Geopolitics

By Benjamin Fricke
Benjamin Fricke, Policy

Advisor for Transatlantic
Relations at Konrad
Adenauer Stiftung
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is the term generally applied Indeed, artificial Intelligence, 5G and quantum com-
to the process whereby computer algorithms analyze puting will profoundly change our global politics.
and apply huge amounts of data to the point where These technologies will become the most important
machines can “learn” on their own. AI is clearly emerging advancements in the next ten to twenty
becoming one of the most significant and defining years. Our current world order is already challenged
technological developments of the twenty-first century. by rising powers that possess these technologies, and
The next industrial revolution triggered by AI and ena- it is crucial for Germany and the EU to improve their
bled by 5G will profoundly change our human interac- global competitiveness and tap into the vast potential
tions. 5G will enable exponentially faster download of AI, 5G, and big data. Geopolitical and economic
and upload speeds, as well as providing significantly supremacy will be determined by those powers who
reduced latency for numerous devices, while allowing successfully implement and utilize manage AI and 5G.
wireless networks to communicate with each other.
China has explicitly documented that by 2049 it plans
Whether through changes in global supply chains and to become the world’s premier global superpower,
transportation systems (autonomous cars), medical surpassing the United States. Through China’s enthu-
technology breakthroughs (remote surgeries), social siasm for some aspects of markets and profits, its
control mechanisms, or the way modern-day warfare implementation of a prolific and systemic theft of
is conducted, 5G will become the basis of a new global intellectual property (IP) worldwide, a decades-long
communications architecture upon which AI will be forced transfer of knowledge from outsourcing, and
applied and through which the Internet of Everything their own extraordinary hard work, hundreds of mil-
(IoE) will become the backbone of our societies. This lions of Chinese citizens have achieved middle-class
change in technological modernization will not come status or better. This transformation appears to many
without challenges and consequences for the U.S.-led as a counter-model to the U.S.-guaranteed liberal
world order that has endured for the last seventy-five democratic western world order. China’s Hundred-
years. Year Marathon is aimed at replacing the U.S.-led world
order with alternative economic and digital networks, The small number of companies capable of producing
while simultaneously building up a military presence and implementing 5G technologies suggests a high-
in places such as the South China Sea and the Indo-Pa- ly-competitive international market with significant
cific. Essentially, China is combining the geopolitical barriers to entry. National and regional players, such
theories of Alfred Thayer Mahan and Halford Mack- as Germany and the EU, could start forming a more
inder into one national global strategy: sea power vs. independent industry and build up AI capabilities at
land power. home to protect their societies’ open character, but
there is also the critical question of maintaining
The Russian approach, in contrast to the Chinese, is national security. The application of AI and other key
more focused on the military applications of AI. Russia emerging information and communications technolo-
has not only announced the development and produc- gies will be a critical defining factor for the success of
tion of the Avangard (a hypersonic glide vehicle), capa- nation states and alliances in the future.
ble of actively avoiding radar and point defense sys-
tem detection and delivering nuclear and conventional All in all, AI and 5G will become the most important
payloads, but it has also developed a nuclear-powered emerging technologies within the next ten to twenty
cruise missile called 9M730 Burevestnik, capable of years, with the potential to fundamentally alter the
carrying thermonuclear warheads. The Russian Feder- global balance of power. Moreover, geopolitical and
ation is working on AI to create swarms of drones economic supremacy will be determined by those
ready to be used on future battlefields. powers who manage AI and 5G to their advantage.
Russia and China are already challenging the U.S.-led
The most advanced cyber and AI players today are the world order by providing new technological competi-
United States, Russia, China, and to a lesser extent, the tion. Lastly, Germany and the EU are lagging behind in
European Union. Large tech companies, however, are both 5G and AI adaptation. Their global competitive-
mainly located in the United States and China, while ness will continue to decline unless they invest in
Russia is primarily focused on military and government EU-based technology-capable companies that can
efforts. manage big data and exploit the seemingly limitless
opportunities such data offers.
A Technical Forum for Confidence-Building

in the Autonomous Weapons Realm
By Malte Göttsche
Prof. Dr. Malte Göttsche,

Leader of the Nuclear
Verification and Disar-
mament Group at the
Aachen Institute for
Advanced Study in
Computational Engineer-
ing Science (AICES)
Graduate School of
RWTH Aachen University
Today, we find ourselves in a world of diminished trust absence of the human need for rest, endurance during
among global actors, one characterized by power com- warfare would be enhanced. Reaction times would be
petition and a qualitative nuclear arms race. Against reduced if systems did not require a remote soldier to
this background, research and development efforts make decisions. Individual communication links that
that contribute to enabling autonomous weapon sys- can jam would no longer be required. Weapon swarms
tems (AWS) are particularly worrisome, as such efforts would become possible.
may aid the initiation of yet another technological arms
race. Preventing this requires confidence-building, to However, the risks ultimately outweigh the benefits.
which not only the policy, but the scientific community AWS would reduce predictability and control on the
should also contribute. battlefield. Given the impossibility of training the con-
trol program for all possible circumstances in combat,
potentially grave mistakes could occur. Other limita-
Autonomous Weapon Systems tions include that artificial intelligence will in the fore-
seeable future not be able to reliably distinguish
No consensus exists about the definition of AWS. A key between combatants and non-combatants. This inabil-
characteristic is that these systems could autono- ity, along with quick response times, could cause con-
mously select and engage targets. They “will be able to flicts to almost instantaneously escalate.
operate without human control or supervision in
dynamic, unstructured, open environments […].”1
However, it is hard to define a threshold, as the degree Regulating AWS
of autonomy is a spectrum.
States may be tempted to invest vast resources to
The use of AWS may not be far in the future. Proto- develop AWS, either to be the leaders of the develop-
types are being tested in several countries, and several ment, or to avoid falling behind. While there could be
precursors already exist. The current main competitors temporary military advantages, there seem to be no
in this field are the United States, Russia, and China. long-term benefits of such an arms race. Instead, it
AWS may offer advantages to the military: fewer sol- would increase the probability of war, including by
diers would need to directly engage in combat. In the erroneous decisions of AWS.
1 Altmann, Sauer, Survival 59, 2017

These risks should be an incentive to regulate AWS. of an arms control treaty will likely not be the first
There are ongoing discussions in the Group of Govern- step in preventing or limiting AWS.
mental Experts in the context of the Convention on
Certain Conventional Weapons in Geneva. At least A technical forum could build confidence by preparing
thirty states propose to ban their development, the ground for future voluntary transparency initia-
deployment, or use. However, those states investing in tives. For example, it could develop technical
relevant research object to banning AWS. If consensus approach-enabling exercises in which states could
is required, as is the case under the current format, a demonstrate that during certain tests of weapon sys-
ban is unlikely. Germany seeks a middle ground by tems, no autonomous modes were explored.
proposing to formally declare that all weapon systems
must be undergirded by meaningful human control.
How to Assess the Non-Use of AWS?
Overall, the discussions are highly controversial and, at
best, slowly evolving. So what are additional options Since it is unlikely that direct participation in such
to seek progress? exercises would be possible for reasons of sensitivity,
there is no simple way to establish the non-use of
AWS. Also, there are no clear characteristics that could
Scientific Contributions to the Debate be identified upon observing the actions of a weapon
system, for instance via video, to prove that it is acting
The history of nuclear and chemical arms control or has acted autonomously. Even with the ability to
shows the importance of integrating scientists into the fully examine software and hardware – a highly
discussions. In particular, the Nuclear Non-Prolifera- unlikely scenario – it would be hard or even impossible
tion Treaty, most bilateral United States-Russia nuclear to reach a conclusion: the same hardware could be
arms control agreements, and the Chemical Weapons used with or without autonomous mode, and the
Convention have strong verification regimes whose authentication of complex software is extremely chal-
development depended crucially on scientific exper- lenging, sometimes impossible.
tise. In the case of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty,
it was the Group of Scientific Experts that helped pave Even though it was developed for the arms control
the way by developing the verification approach of the verification context, a cryptographic method could
treaty many years before it was finally negotiated. provide a way forward through voluntary demonstra-
tions that prove the actions of a weapon system are
Technical work also acts as a confidence-building the result of orders given by humans.2 According to
measure, as the currently active International Partner- this concept, human-machine interactions would be
ship for Nuclear Disarmament Verification demon- recorded in an encrypted database. When asked for
strates. At a time when nuclear disarmament is a proof that a specific weapon system did not act auton-
highly divisive issue, this group nevertheless success- omously during a specific event observed on video,
fully discusses how it could be verified and conducts the state could make available the particular records.
exercises. The participating countries, who hold
diverse views on nuclear disarmament, do so by not This is only a preliminary idea; much more work will be
spelling out how it could be achieved politically. required to develop it, and perhaps also different and
Indeed, a success factor of the Partnership is that it is approaches can be thought of. The focus of the pro-
more a technical than a political forum. Besides diplo- posed forum should be on technical dialogue. Only
mats, technical experts also participate, including aca- when a certain level of trust has been built through
demics. This enables them to achieve concrete scien- this process can actual exercises be discussed.
tific results.
In conclusion, as consensus in Geneva is far from
How could a technical forum of interested parties be emerging, other avenues should be explored, and new
an avenue for progress in the AWS context? Here, the actors should be engaged in the debate. The scientific
debate is much less framed than in nuclear disarma- community has an important role to play, as it can
ment discussions, which have a legal basis in the contribute to building confidence and generate new
Non-Proliferation Treaty. A verification regime as part and innovative ideas.
2 Gubrud, Altmann, Compliance Measures for an Autonomous Weapons Convention, ICRAC, 2013
Competing Compasses in the Post-Cold War Era

By Jackson Janes
Dr. Jackson Janes,

Senior fellow at the
German Marshall Fund
and president emeritus of
the American Institute for
Contemporary German
Studies (AICGS) at Johns
Hopkins University in
Washington, D.C.
Thirty years after the end of the Cold War, transatlan- After climbing out of the ashes of war, the process of
tic relations are entering another era, yet without a rebuilding Europe took place in a divided Europe and
name and without much consensus about what to required building bridges over both physical and psy-
expect. The post-Cold War era began with a great deal chological barriers. Today, the EU is comprised of 27
of hubris on both sides of the Atlantic with labels like members with a total of 450 million citizens, around
the “end of history,” but now it seems to be ending 15 percent of global GDP and some of the highest
with more sober approaches to the next chapter of standards of living in the world. Yet there are serious
challenges to global security. What will be the descrip- centrifugal forces pulling at its fabric that have led to
tion of the post post-Cold War period? Some have Brexit, populist blowback, economic asymmetries and
suggested a few: The Era of illusions, The Age of Anxi- political grievances, not to mention foreign policy
ety, The Return of Realism. Whatever the name, the challenges that remain unmet.
environment of this era will be shaped by forces we
know but also don’t yet know. These developments have led many to question the
survival of what is commonly referred to as the
Following World War II, the United States held sway “West”: a model of political, economic, and social
over the globe as the most powerful country in the organization that had been championed as the future
world, producing over half of the world’s GDP and pos- of a liberal global order. But that version has been
sessing the only nuclear weapon capability until the challenged by other versions emerging elsewhere
Soviet Union established itself as a nuclear power. around the globe questioning many assumptions
Today the US makes up less than 20 percent of global made in the wake of the fall of the Berlin Wall: the ulti-
GDP, is no longer uncontested militarily, and is chal- mate efficiency of liberal democracy, the necessity of
lenged by alternative political approaches. a global market for capitalism, and the increasing need
for international governance in an interdependent
world. The increasing polarization within the so-called
Western democracies is undermining their capacity to
develop a consensus to confront new challenges.
of nationalist entities. The brutal suppression of

human rights demonstrations in the streets of Beijing
in 1989 should also have reminded us that a global
convergence of values was not self-evident. The tur-
moil in Afghanistan did not subside after Soviet troops
left, but continued to simmer until it boiled over a dec-
ade later in the attacks of Al-Qaeda in Africa – and
then on 9/11 in the US. Regional conflicts continued,
financial insecurities erupted, inequalities deepened,
and the bonds of alliances were increasingly strained.
As Reinhold Niebuhr has written, “The course of his-
tory cannot be coerced in accordance with a particular
conception of its end.”
In 2020, a century after the disaster of one world war As we prepare ourselves for this next era, our past
which was to lay the foundations for another just two milestones can assist in showing us from whence we
decades later, the temptation to draw parallels is per- came, but where we are headed will be dependent on
vasive. What did those who had just seen the worst the assumptions we make about our challenges and
demonstration of mass killing on the fields of Europe the choices we make in confronting them. In the com-
miss in developing tools to avoid an even worse ver- ing decade, there will be competitive models showing
sion? Are we missing our warnings now, made mani- how to respond to climate change, worldwide migra-
fest in the centrifugal forces of nationalism, economic tion, the role of government and the rules of govern-
disparities, fear, and hubris, which provide the oppor- ance, and the responsibilities of citizens and nations to
tunity for demagogues to manipulate all of it? each other. There will also be competing visions of
strategic security. That environment will involve multi-
In contrast, we might ask what warnings were heeded ple levels of power, not shaped in a bipolar or unipolar
after 1945 and how, in the aftermath of World War II, framework but in a world that is multi-dimensional in
they enabled one part of the world to emerge with terms of interests and ideology. There will be asym-
tools to forge a more lasting set of institutions, goals, metries of influence, resources, and ambitions.
and alliances designed to sustain a partially peaceful
world as a model. Part of that answer was in the lead- In that world, what will be the basis for stability? Look-
ership supplied by the United States which committed ing back to 1945, the capacity and willingness to share
itself – this time – to providing the resources to sus- goals was inspired by the catastrophic impact of war,
tain those efforts, build the organizations, and enforce the confrontation with the Soviet Union, and a shared
the rules. Another part was the commitment of part- set of political values. That was the same basis for the
ners to work together on shared goals. The Cold War creation of the EU. In 1990, the hope that this shared
was still a war, and there was a shared threat that framework would expand even further globally was
motivated collaboration. But it was about more than symbolized by the fall of walls. Yet during the next
avoiding war. It was about what the larger world we decades, we were reminded that we are not done with
share might look like if we worked within a framework the debate about the evolution of our various visions
of common interests and aspirations. of modernity. Engaging in that debate requires inclu-
sion of a larger scope of issues about the nature of
But after 1990, while many thought that we had been international security and the parameters of govern-
successful in getting things right after over four dec- ance we need to secure it. That has been the mandate
ades of Cold War, we were quickly reminded that we of CISG, now part of CASSIS at the University of Bonn.
should never take things for granted; history was not
quite finished, and we still had a lot to learn from it. In As Neil MacGregor has said, “the idea of community is
the wake of the disintegration of Yugoslavia, the to embrace not only those who share our beliefs but
return of war to the European continent in the Balkans also who share our world. ‘Who are we’ is the greatest
was one of many red flags pointing at the fact that the political question of our time.” Whatever the next era
melting of Cold War ice sheets had uncovered the fires is to be called, this question will remain pivotal.
Looking Ahead
By Karl Kaiser
Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Karl

Kaiser, Senior Associate
of the Transatlantic
Initiative at the Belfer
Center’s Future of
Diplomacy Project and
Adjunct Professor for
Public Policy Emeritus
at the Harvard Kennedy
School
If one reviews the state of global politics looking at dealing with China’s potential. A dialogue on nuclear
where the most pressing problems lie, four stand out: arms control with China is, indeed, necessary, but its
the breakdown of arms control, the climate crisis, the uncertain outcome should not block a treaty between
erosion of multilateralism, and ensuring that China’s the globe’s two biggest nuclear powers and thereby
rise remains peaceful. potentially unleash a resumption of the arms race in
strategic weapons. The European governments should
The withdrawal of the United States and Russia from use all their available influence inside and outside of
the INF Agreement signals more than an end to the NATO to induce both powers to resume their nuclear
prohibition of intermediate nuclear weapons. It signals arms control.
the end of an era, terminating the practice and habit
of nuclear cooperation between these adversaries As the climate crisis intensifies and progresses, it will
that helped to preserve nuclear peace. President profoundly change global politics, though many of its
Trump’s disruptive and anti-arms control policy has consequences are unpredictable. It is nevertheless
actually been more important than Russia’s violation foreseeable that the increase in global climate temper-
of the agreement’s terms in producing this break- ature will further strain already struggling economies,
down. To be sure, his administration’s argument that eventually causing some to collapse. It will instigate
the growing nuclear arsenal of China must be dealt conflicts over scarce resources (most notably water),
with is entirely valid, but to use the solution of an unleash vast migration pressures (particularly on
inherently difficult problem as a pretext to discontinue Europe because of the neighboring Broader Middle
a working agreement undermines the basis of nuclear East and Africa), make large areas unhabitable, and
stability. The same is true for the extension of the New necessitate massive transfers of people and of coastal
START Treaty on strategic weapons beyond February cities with the rise of sea levels. Practically every coun-
2021. Despite Russia’s willingness to renew the treaty try on the globe will suffer – though some more than
without preconditions, the Trump administration has others – but will this induce cooperative or conflictual
been reluctant to do so, pointing to the necessity of behavior, common solutions, or a nationalistic sauve
qui peut using all the instruments of the state, includ- Finally, China’s rise will restructure international poli-
ing the military? Whatever the outcome may be, it is tics and make the American-Chinese rivalry the central
evident that only a dramatic change of policy to fight feature of the future international system. Whether
climate change can alleviate the crisis and thereby that rivalry will lead to military conflict is entirely
improve the chance for global peace. The EU’s “Green open, but the management of that relationship will no
Deal” is a step in that direction; it will hopefully be doubt be crucial for global stability during the rest of
implemented and induce other major actors to follow this century. China’s expansionist territorial policy,
suit. notably in the South China Sea, does not bode well in
this respect, nor does the authoritarian nature of the
The postwar multilateral order is being eroded at vari- regime. At this stage, the EU enjoys a flourishing eco-
ous levels, most consequentially in a significant part of nomic relationship with China. It nonetheless has eco-
the world economy. The main responsibility lies with nomic and diplomatic problems with China as it faces
the Trump administration and its “America First” pol- the Belt and Road Initiative, with its implied aim of
icy that applies bilateralism and protectionism in its creating dependence, as well as China’s “17+1-policy,”
trade policies, imposes tariffs unilaterally, and is de which attempts to create division inside the EU. But an
facto destroying the World Trade Organization by escalation of the U.S.-Chinese security rivalry to a mili-
blocking its dispute mechanism. But the role of China, tary conflict would inevitably affect Europe as well and
which likes to pose as a defender of multilateralism, in many ways. It is therefore in Europe’s profound
should also be mentioned, since it has consistently vio- interest to contribute wherever it can to maintaining
lated basic rules of fair trade with its subsidization of peace in East Asia.
state firms, forced transfer of technology, and theft of
intellectual property. In this respect, the European
Union, which itself stands for the realization of the
most advanced version of multilateralism in the form
of integration, has a particular responsibility to uphold
the principles of multilateralism as the core of a liberal
trading order. It will hopefully continue not only to
directly resist the Trump administration’s protection-
ism but also “circumvent” the United States with a
series of global trade deals that implement proven
principles of multilateralism, such as its agreements
with Canada, Mercosur, or Japan.
A Challenge for IT Security Experts: Small and

Medium Enterprises and Industry 4.0
By Goodarz Mahbobi
Goodarz Mahbobi,
CEO at the IT and
management consultancy
axxessio GmbH in Bonn
and Darmstadt
Digitization is moving forward at a rapid pace – it To gain a better understanding of the situation, we took
affects society and economy, countries and cities, as a closer look at the state of IT security in Germany’s
well as large companies and small and midsize enter- industrial SMEs. German SMEs are extremely success-
prises. Bigger players usually have enough resources ful; still, the digitization of the industrial sector and the
to deal with the consequences of the digital transfor- improvement of IT security present a major challenge
mation; however, for smaller players often-times this is to them. To overcome this potential disruption and
not the case. Moreover, they need to use their limited keep its status as one of the leading industrial nations,
resources to adapt even more fundamentally. Germany has developed an “Industry 4.0” strategy.
Industry 4.0 requires the integration of digitalized assets
In 2015, Ashok-Alexander Sridharan, Lord Mayor of with communication networks – hence, IT security
Bonn, and I started the initiative “Digital Bonn” to becomes a critical factor for its success.
motivate involved parties in government and business
in the region to take on a more strategic approach to While the perceived importance of IT security among
digital transformation. One of the first plans imple- SMEs is generally high and increases with company size,
mented was the foundation of the “Cyber Security there still is a great discrepancy between perception and
Cluster Bonn” for the Bonn/Rhein-Sieg region to set up action. This is indicated by the small pro-portion of SMEs
an “army of the good.” This has been a major mile- that have actually carried out an IT security analysis.1
stone for the initiative due to IT security’s critical role
in new digital processes. Although IT security is a base This lack of action can be linked to SMEs’ lack of
requirement, even the IT industry itself still has some empowerment regarding IT security, which has been
large blind spots in this area. So do cities and SMEs – confirmed by various surveys. In summary, SMEs
but they cannot simply deal with this by spending would like to understand the IT security problem bet-
large amounts of money. They need a different ter – but there is a need for better information; trust-
approach. worthy external IT-security consulting; training; better,
more user-friendly security software; and standardized
IT security measures.1
1 A. Hillebrand, A. Niederprüm, S. Schäfer, S. Thiele, und I. Henseler-Unger, „Aktuelle Lage der IT-Sicherheit in KMU“.
WIK Wissenschaftliches Institut für Infrastruktur und Kommunikationsdienste GmbH, 2017.
Missing this kind of support, decision-makers in SMEs

do not ignore the problem but turn to sources of infor-
mation they trust. In Germany, they primarily rely on
their social network of other companies to search for
information, exchange ideas, and discuss problems in
closed forums.2 However, by relying on familiar social
networks and not turning to new sources of informa-
tion, the situation stagnates and IT security awareness
cannot be improved. This was particularly evident in
the development of planned investments in IT security
between 2011 and 2017: more companies invested in
IT security, but the overall level of investment did not
increase. Above all, the biggest problem is the 54 per- standing of their assets. Moreover, they assign higher
cent of companies that either have no investments significance to their assets and data protection. This
planned or answered “they don’t know” in response is reflected in the survey results of “Industry 4.0 com-
to a question about whether they are planning new panies” compared to companies not active in the field
investments.1 of Industry 4.0: the need for data protection for R&D
data doubled, rose about 8 percent for process data,
The question remains regarding what measures could and increased by 15 percent for machine data.1
increase the investment in IT security among SMEs at
this point in time. Surveys show that for SMEs, the Clearly, Industry 4.0 has a positive impact on SMEs’ IT
greatest influence on investment in IT security is security activities. At the same time, however, data
exerted by regulatory requirements, digital transfor- protection and data security requirements are still
mation, and customer requirements. Regulatory seen as the biggest barriers for the implementa-tion
re-quirements are powerful since they affect all com- of Industry 4.0 itself.4 The development of Industry 4.0
petitors equally. Digital transformation investments and IT security are heavily interdependent; they can
always come along with IT security investments since boost or inhibit each other.
these form an important basis for digitization. Fi-nally,
customers can exert great pressure on SMEs to meet Oftentimes IT security is not taken into account right
their requirements, which are at this time often linked from the start. Subsequent changes are always expen-
to Industry 4.0 projects. Other incentives for IT security sive and sometimes impossible. Still, we have seen
investments are strategic business orientation, industry that overall interest to invest in existing pro-jects is
standards, and recent media coverage of cyberattacks. low – new, well-planned IT projects, especially in the
Surprisingly, surveys found that current security inci- field of Industry 4.0, can boost the motiva-tion to take
dents in one’s own company or within an industry IT security seriously. Furthermore, the IT security
have the smallest impact, compared to the aforemen- sector can support SMEs’ efforts in Indus-try 4.0 by
tioned reasons.3 better understanding the requirements they are trying
to fulfill. These are often a result of market competi-
Industry 4.0 can play a significant role in IT security tion: 60 percent of surveyed companies responded to
awareness: 76 percent of managers expect an in- be in a cost and quality competition and 31 percent to
creased IT security risk to accompany Industry 4.0 be in a time and innovation competition.5 It is of crucial
investments.2 Therefore, companies active in the importance that the IT security industry adapts its
In-dustry 4.0 sector attribute greater importance to offers to the needs, the competitive situation, and the
IT security and more frequently perform IT security IT security obstacles of SMEs. Only in this way can
analyses. They are forced to deal intensively with their SMEs keep up with development.
processes and data, which leads to a better under-
2 „Cyber Security Report 2018 Teil 2: Unternehmen – das Risikobewusstsein sinkt“. Deloitte, 2018.
3 P. Engemann, D. Fischer, B. Gosdzik, T. Koller, und N. Moore, „Im Visier der Cyber-Gangster So gefährdet ist die Informationssicherheit
im deutschen Mittelstand“. PricewaterhouseCoopers AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft (PwC), 2017.
4 A. Berg, „Industrie 4.0 – Wo steht Deutschland?“ bitkom, 2018.
5 „Industrie 4.0 im Mittelstand“. Deloitte, 2016.
Huawei and Europe’s Strategic Autonomy

By Sönke Marahrens
Col i.G. Sönke Marahrens,

Colonel (GS) and Program
Director of the German
Institute for Defense and
Strategic Studies
During the panel discussion on European technological The European participants followed the discussion
autonomy, the audience witnessedswitness a vivid dis- very intently, adding insider and technical knowledge
cussion between U.S. and Chinese participants regard- and questioning both positions, but finally sided with
ing the issue of Huawei’s control of 5G technology and neither the United States nor China: “At the end, we
its planned application as the base for 5G networks can only choose who will spy on us.”
worldwide. The U.S. participants accused China of
using its technology monopoly to gain control over the The underlying security politics problem runs much
Internet infrastructure of their clients. The Chinese deeper: it is far beyond a choice of technology; it is
participants countered the allegations by reminding a discussion about whether and how Europe and/or
the audience that Huawei has answered all requests Germany will or can maintain decision sovereignty.
for information and provided all the information asked
for by governments worldwide. They tried to shift the The actual U.S. government approach of tolling and
discussion to a point of challenging the United States using national laws to target international competitors
by arguing that, first, U.S. IT businesses cannot provide is hitting European market participants directly and
state of the art 5G technology; and second, that the indirectly. EU producers therefore can be targeted
accusations are part of an economic war conducted by either directly for their market share in the United
the actual U.S. administration in order to protect the States or for future technological superiority over U.S.
weaker U.S. IT companies – an act which China consid- products, as exemplified by China. That, or they might
ers a violation of international trade laws. become collateral damage of U.S. national economic
actions – like the German auto industry, when the
United States hit Mexico and Canada in order to revise
the NAFTA agreement. Although China has proven
that the actual 5G technology is coming without a
backdoor, a simple remote-controlled update might
change this, as history has already proven. From a
European perspective, U.S. tech companies could be
accused of this as well.
The heart of the issue is that outsourcing or loosening and their citizens. It must be understood that the rise
technical independence in essential technology fields of regional hegemons like Russia and China is challeng-
like mobile internet, artificial intelligence, or computing the existing world order and that, currently, even
ing will lead to European and German dependency on the creators of the Bretton Woods system prefer
others, possibly preventing Europe from thriving. nationalism over international trade. Living in a vola-
tile world requires the willingness to break old para-
In a world in which rule-based behavior is constantly digms rather than insisting on maintaining the status
being contested by autocrats and the autocratic ten- quo in the face of actors unwilling to step back or
dencies of democratically elected governments world- down.
wide, strategic decision autonomy is highly dependent
on a secure and available IT infrastructure. Maintain- Future security strategies must be (re-)expanded by
ing this strategic decision-making autonomy requires aspects of diplomacy, cyber, and economics in order
stringent holistic and critical analysis and a common to cover all changes, chances, threats, and challenges.
understanding of critical IT infrastructures. Critical To cope with the unreliable behavior of allies as well as
infrastructure must be understood in all dimensions. the hegemonic actions of China and Russia, the society
Undisturbed and uninfluenced internet access to con- and population must be prepared to confront this
trol national or European CRITIS is as important as the behavior. European states must decide on how they
provision of life-essential power supplies or water. want to shape the future – actively or passively. This
requires investment, R&D funding, and a clear under-
Therefore, future European and German security standing of the dynamics of international politics.
strategies must claim national/European decision-
making autonomy equally in order to respond to
today’s common issues of protecting their territory
Artificial Intelligence in the European Union:

Choosing the Right Path
By Nicolas Mazzucchi
Dr. Nicolas Mazzucchi,

Research Fellow at the
Fondation pour la
Recherche Stratégique
(FRS) in charge of cyber,
energy, and primary
goods issues
Artificial intelligence (AI) has been defined by Marvin follow routes with road signs is a problem for vehicles
Minsky as, “the science of making machines do things intended to be used off-road in the desert.
that would require intelligence if done by men.” AI
could be considered a game-changer in most activities Nevertheless, the most promising AI-based technolo-
as it would address most human activities when gies, which provide support to the decision-maker,
mature. In the military, the use of AI could be consid- would revolve around symbolic AI, which is currently
ered not only an enhancer but a strategic leap, as under-developed. Because developers, from GAFAM
these technologies would complement the work of (Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, and Microsoft)
soldiers and experts. AI-based technologies could be and other major companies remain focused on tech-
present from the HQ to the forefront of the battle- nologies that can be quickly released to the market,
field. As a consequence, the race for AI is open amount of funding on symbolic AI appears limited.
between major powers. Considering this framework, Here is a clear opportunity for public and private
the European Union (EU) must enter the competition spending to complement one another, allowing
for AI with its specific areas of interests, according to research and development to achieve the conver-
its own goals. gence of symbolic-connectionist AI.
The position of EU countries regarding the develop-

AI: From Buzzword to Strategic Issue ment of AI-based technologies appears to be far
behind the two superpowers: China and the United
At present time, AI remains mostly an in-development States. As demonstrated by the number of patents
family of technologies. Very few genuine AI applica- and the figures on public and private investment on AI,
tions are available, especially in the military, and those there is a gap that seems impossible to fill, unless EU
are mostly based on connectionist technologies mak- policymakers can clearly decide on supporting specific
ing an extensive use of data to achieve a proper result. technologies. Alongside this issue, the EU has to
Moreover, on-the-market AI solutions mostly use choose how it seeks to regulate AI-based technologies
structured data making them of little use for the in the military at a global level, including technological
military. Having an autonomous vehicle that can only and industrial forums.
A Follow-Up of EU Global Orientation on Which Technologies to Focus On?

Cyber Issues
As a consequence of EU strategic orientations on both
AI is a cyber-based family of technologies and relies cyber issues – especially regarding data and the devel-
mostly on two elements: computer processing capa- opment of military technologies under European
bilities and availability of data. As the technology gap Defense Agency or Permanent Structured Cooperation
between European industries and U.S. or Chinese (PESCO) – EU policymakers are taking a deep look at AI
industries is widening, the risk of a technical lag of solutions. Armed forces all over Europe, especially
Europe in AI is high. As Europe did not encourage the France and Germany, are considering the use of
rise of major data processing companies, following a AI-based technologies to enhance their operations
competitive path on pure computation power or data and limit the gap with major non-EU military powers.
management seems to be unrealistic. Nevertheless, According to national strategic documents, these tech-
the EU has not been inactive on cyber issues and nologies may be used in nearly all military functions,
technologies, adopting regulations on the use and from intelligence to cybersecurity or predictive main-
security of cyberspace and data for years. tenance. Nevertheless, with this wide area of applica-
tion, there is the need to focus on specific technology
Regarding the three pillars of information manage- issues to avoid the inefficient “spreading” of invest-
ment – availability, integrity, and confidentiality – the ments, especially with national priority divergences.
European Union made the choice to focus on confi-
dentiality. The recent European regulations on data To be coherent with prior policy positions, it seems
and cybersecurity emphasize this choice, as both the that the EU should focus on AI explicability, as this is a
Network and Information Security (NIS) directive and major issue. Explicability is an important feature for
the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) are the training of AI with a wide variety of data to achieve
focused on protecting the privacy of European citi- a certain agility of the system. These AI technologies
zens. The extension from a cybersecurity policy could provide both agility and sturdiness for the sys-
dependent on critical infrastructure operators to one tems they would equip, especially considering the pos-
based on data and information providers is a major sibility of deceiving or jamming the recognition pat-
evolution of Europe toward the protection of Europe terns. As the US DARPA is doing with several research
and its citizens. programs, the EU – through the European Defense
Fund – should have a clear focus on this strategic
GDPR especially is considered a first attempt for the issue.
EU to implement a regulation with extra-territorial
consequences. Having the upper hand on the confi- Second, the EU should also focus on the certification
dentiality of data helps the administrations to control of AI results. As some military AI would be used on the
the use of European data by private companies. battlefield, the need to ensure that the results of AI
processing are not corrupted is a major concern. In
terms of cybersecurity products, the EU and most of
the member states have been able to ban non-compli-
ant products from Europe. This policy could be
extended to AI-based technologies, requiring a Euro-
pean body of AI scientists to evaluate the compliance
of various technologies. This ex-post strategy appears
to be the most adequate balancing of past EU cyber
policy and the limits of European military industries.
This specific orientation would also manifest a specific
European position at the global level regarding AI
technologies in the military, charting a third way
between the interdiction of autonomous systems and
their unrestricted use.
A Fatal Neglect: On the Significance

of U.S. Soft Power Today
By Hendrik W. Ohnesorge
Dr. Hendrik W.
Ohnesorge, Managing
Assistant and Research
Fellow at the Center for
Global Studies and Chair
in International Relations
at the University of Bonn
In modern times, U.S. presidential campaign slogans phrase did not lose any of its significance. On the
have become a crucial hallmark for what to expect contrary, not only have the “MAGA” caps sported by
from an incoming administration. Bill Clinton’s “It’s the Trump supporters become an omnipresent reminder
Economy, Stupid!”, for example, famously encapsu- of the slogan, the official webpages of the White
lated the president’s promise to focus on economic House also frequently utilize varieties of it. For Trump
reform and recovery after the end of the Cold War. In himself, as indicated in a January 2017 interview with
a way, such slogans are, of course, vastly oversimplify- The Washington Post, the emphasis in his quest for
ing, and their effective explanatory power may be lim- “Making America Great Again” lies in a restoration
ited in a world of complex challenges. Still, they offer a and, if possible, increase of its hard power, exemplified
glimpse into the mind and worldview of a candidate by the president’s references to “jobs,” “industry,” and
or, if elected, president, and provide insight into a “military strength.”1 The U.S.-China trade war, economic
(prospective) administration’s setting of priorities – sanctions slapped on a variety of actors, the surge in
both with respect to its ends and its means. military spending, and the establishment of the United
States Space Force are but a few, if arguably among
This holds particularly true for the incumbent in the the most striking, expressions of this decided focus on
White House, Donald J. Trump, and his campaign slo- hard power. A crucial dimension of power fatally
gan “Make America Great Again” (“MAGA”). The cen- neglected by the Trump administration, however, is
trality of the slogan was expressed not least in Trump’s that of soft power.
inaugural address, the last words of which repeatedly
echoed the mantra. After inauguration, the catch-
1 Quoted in Karen Tumulty, “How Donald Trump Came up With ‘Make America Great Again’,” The Washington Post, January 18, 2017,
online at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-donald-trump-came-up-with-make-america-great-
again/2017/01/17/fb6acf5e-dbf7-11e6-ad42-f3375f271c9c_story.html (January 10, 2020).
Whereas the former rests upon military and/or eco- more, an unprecedentedly blunt rhetoric, a high
nomic coercion, the latter draws upon the forces of degree of political volatility, and major changes of
attraction in international relations. In Joseph S. Nye’s course have unsettled friend and foe alike. Taken
definition, soft power thus refers to “the ability to get together, these trends have delivered a considerable
what you want through attraction rather than coer- blow to U.S. credibility, a crucial currency of soft
cion or payments.”2 In this context, culture, values, power. Consequently, observers like Stephen M. Walt
policies, and personalities can be potent sources of have already identified the downsides of what Walt
soft power, which frequently even eclipse those of called the administration’s “bullying approach” to
great armaments or economic prowess, as countless foreign affairs.4
examples in the long annals of international relations
prove.3 In a world facing rising or revisionist powers and vast
security challenges ranging from climate change to
To date, however, the Trump administration has indi- nuclear proliferation to international terrorism to
cated as much disdain for attractive soft power as it cyber threats, the forces of attraction are of vital
has displayed a proclivity toward the coercive instru- importance. Of course, military and economic power
ments of hard power. Whether it is the slow (or even continue to loom large in international affairs. The
still absent) filling of crucial posts in the state depart- neglect of the instruments of soft power, however,
ment, major cutbacks in relevant agencies and pro- comes at a considerable price. A president who has set
grams, the termination of various international trea- out to “Make America Great Again,” therefore, would
ties, or the scorn toward traditional multilateral fora, do well to take them into consideration. This observa-
Washington seems to disregard the tools of soft power tion becomes all the more glaring given that a major
to a degree seldom, if ever, witnessed before. Its pub- part of America’s historical international clout has
lic diplomacy, crucial for conveying one’s message to sprung from its prodigious soft power.
an international audience and understanding foreign
perceptions, is in dire straits today as well. What is
2 Joseph S. Nye, Jr., Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics (New York: PublicAffairs, 2004), p. x.
3 Hendrik W. Ohnesorge, Soft Power: The Forces of Attraction in International Relations (Cham: Springer International Publishing,
2020).
4 Stephen M. Walt, “America Isn’t as Powerful as It Thinks It Is,” Foreign Policy, April 26, 2019, online at:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/04/26/america-isnt-as-powerful-as-it-thinks-it-is/ (January 10, 2020).
Tough Choices Ahead for European Security

By Benjamin Rhode
Dr. Benjamin Rhode,

Senior Fellow for
Transatlantic Affairs and
Editor of The Adelphi
Series at the Interna-
tional Institute for
Strategic Studies (IISS).
The views expressed
here are his own.
The International Security Forum convened by the Since the Forum took place, several events have con-
Center for Advanced Security, Strategic, and Integra- firmed the pressing nature of these questions and the
tions Studies and the American Institute for Contem- predicament in which European states find them-
porary German Studies in early October 2019 featured selves. Ongoing revelations about U.S. president Don-
several important discussions concerning the role of ald Trump’s dealings with Ukraine suggested that he
the European Union and its constituent states in a was willing to jeopardize the security of a European
world increasingly marked by the exercise of “hard partner – albeit one that was not a NATO member – in
power,” and whether the EU’s non-military strengths the hope of securing its assistance in a defamatory
could serve as a substitute for its continuing ineffec- campaign against a domestic political opponent. In the
tiveness in the military domain. One participant Middle East, Trump’s abrupt withdrawal of U.S. forces
employed an imaginative and thought-provoking pale- from northern Syria highlighted his administration’s
ontological metaphor: while the EU was, in essence, a determination to shed itself of existing military com-
herbivore dinosaur, could it make itself sufficiently mitments, whether or not this involved the abandon-
large and intimidating, as the brontosaurus did, so that ment of its allies. While they did not suffer the cata-
it could remain secure in a world dominated by carni- strophic consequences experienced by America’s
vores? Unfortunately, Europe’s continued security in Kurdish partners, Trump’s announcement caught
recent decades has not been a result of its develop- Washington’s European allies off guard. Moreover,
ment of a novel paradigm in which it is able to fend off Turkey’s invasion of Syria shortly afterward illustrated
or deter predators despite being largely ineffective as and exacerbated longstanding divisions within NATO.
a military actor. Rather, it has in practice been guarded During tensions between the United States and Iran in
by an extremely potent carnivore – the United States – January 2020, which many feared could produce a
which is now in the process of resiling from its former major conflagration, the extent to which European
commitments. states had little to no meaningful influence over
events that affected their national interests was strik-
ing. More generally, U.S. policy toward Iran since 2018
and the collapse of the JCPOA have demonstrated the
futility of European states’ hopes that they could pur-
sue an independent policy toward Tehran.
mediated by his officials and could for the most part be

safely ignored. Trump has repeatedly demonstrated
that his views are the primary determinant of U.S.
foreign policy, with officials scrambling to create post
hoc rationalizations for his often-impulsive decisions.
Although their diminishing global influence is increas-

ingly apparent, European states have not experienced
a direct and severe threat to their security since
Trump’s accession to the presidency. That would
change were Trump to announce Washington’s with-
drawal from NATO. It has been widely reported that
Trump’s startling announcement of the U.S. with- aides had to dissuade him from doing so at his 2019
drawal from Syria was one of several challenges to State of the Union address. There remains a strong
NATO that French president Emmanuel Macron dis- possibility that in 2020 the president will both be
cussed in his interview with The Economist in autumn acquitted of impeachment charges and re-elected to
2019. While this interview attracted widespread cov- the presidency, which he would interpret as validation
erage – and a fair amount of indignation at Macron’s and legitimization of his policies at home and abroad.
outspoken remarks, especially that NATO was “brain It is likely that a second Trump administration would
dead” – it is noteworthy that many critiques focused continue to retrench from Washington’s global com-
less on the substance of Macron’s commentary and mitments and undermine traditional alliances – but
more on its apparent indiscretion. Macron’s ominous much more dramatically than before. While the U.S.
prognostications about the future of NATO’s Article V Congress has sought to employ legislative means to
were condemned for themselves undermining NATO’s forestall American withdrawal from NATO without its
credibility; yet he was reflecting broadly held concerns approval, the stubborn fact remains that a presidential
over whether the Trump administration would honor declaration that Washington would not respond to an
its commitments to defend European allies, height- invocation of Article V with military support would
ened by Trump’s open musings over whether Wash- itself deal a devastating blow to the Alliance’s credibility.
ington would protect states such as Montenegro.
European states are well-aware of the scale of the
In his dealings with allies in the Middle East and Asia, threat that these developments pose to their security.
President Trump has repeatedly demonstrated a nar- The UK defense secretary has recently made public his
row interpretation of the national interest, typically concerns that London’s assumption since at least 2010
identified in financial terms. For example, he has that any future war involving British forces would see
repeatedly threatened to withdraw U.S. forces from them fighting alongside U.S. allies may be misplaced.
Japan and South Korea unless those states increase Paris and Berlin are also conscious of the changing
their financial payments to Washington dramatically; strategic landscape shaped by U.S. retrenchment. Yet
and he has recently claimed that the United States has there remains an apparent division between the views
received large payments from Middle Eastern allies in of Macron and his advisors that Trump represents a
return for military protection. Whether these claims broader shift in U.S. attitudes requiring a commensu-
are in fact correct, these declarations are illustrative rately dramatic European response, and the implicit
of a firmly-held worldview that scorns traditional alli- hopes of many within German diplomatic and political
ances, and they validate concerns voiced privately and circles that, were a Democrat to defeat Trump in the
publicly by European states about the extent to which 2020 election, the figurative storm would pass, and
they can continue to depend on the United States for they could return to the comfortable status quo ante
their security. Events over the past six months or so, in which Washington bore the cost and responsibility
moreover, have undermined the consoling narrative for defending Europe. Events over the next year or so
that President Trump’s alarming announcements were may reveal which of these assumptions are correct.
AI and Warfare: Pending Issues for Europe

By Kaan Sahin
Kaan Sahin, Research

Fellow for Technology
and Foreign Policy at the
German Council on
Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) will impact and intelligence gathering, the enhancement of command
permeate most aspects of life, and the military and and control capabilities, and unmanned naval, aerial,
security domain are not exempt from these progres- or land-based vehicles.
sions. AI holds great potential for warfare to be waged
in a faster, more precise, and ‘less human’ fashion This poses enormous challenges for armed forces such
with new enhanced capabilities. Faster, because AI as, among others, the question of how to incorporate
systems can process large-scale data and make decisions this wide variety of AI-enabled systems into the strate-
for military operations based on that; more precise, gic, operational, and tactical planning and implementa-
since machine-learning enabled tools such as object tion. Furthermore, the implications of becoming more
and facial recognition as well as foresight analyses reliant on machines in the military realm must be ad-
promise, in theory, superior accuracy; and ‘less human’ dressed from the technical, political, and ethical side.
as decision-making powers are transferred to machines
– be it in terms of anticipating or mitigating crises or
even in battlefield situations. A Shift in the Public-Private Nexus
Concerning the development of potential new capabil- However, not only the tools or the way warfare is con-
ities, the international debate (especially in Europe ducted are subject to change, but there is also a shift
und Germany) on how AI is transforming the battlefield concerning the sources of technological develop-
is predominantly focused on the development of lethal ments, including relevant defense technologies. The
autonomous weapons systems (LAWS) or – in a more source of technological innovations is now the private
plastic visualization – ’killer robots’ and how to stop or sector in the first place, which is manifested in how
contain these developments. It is to some extent the market value of great tech-companies such as
understandable that a particular focus is on AI-ena- Google, Amazon, Baidu, and Alibaba have increased
bled capabilities with the biggest possible ‘nightmare over the last years.
scenarios’. However, as indicated above, AI in the mili-
tary context goes beyond LAWS. The potential appli- This has profound implications for governments in
cation possibilities comprise several fields, including general which are becoming more and more reliant on
cyber and information operations, logistics, data and private companies. In other words, this entails a shift
in the public-private nexus. For instance, the two as food for thought “Digitalization and Artificial Intelli-
so-called AI superpowers – the United States and gence in Defense”, which is a good point of reference
China – have increased the collaboration between for the current status of the EU in this realm: Although
their militaries and commercial enterprises in recent it presents a good overview about how the drafters
years. In the U.S. case, the Pentagon and DARPA perceive the issue, it is salient that the paper´s prime
(Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) as its purpose is to pose unanswered questions.
main R&D entity is pushing for collaborations with big
tech companies in the framework of Project Maven to
integrate AI systems into the military realm. And China Challenges Ahead for Europe
is developing the so-called state-led ‘military-civil
fusion’ to produce dual-use technology systems such Broadly speaking, three areas for action for the EU and
as AI and better integrate and transform commercial its member states can be identified: First, in order to
developments into their armed forces. achieve a productive transfer and adaptability of com-
mercial AI technology for military purposes in Euro-
Given this geopolitical context, the EU and its member pean context – as trivial as it may sound – a strong AI
states are trailing behind in the development of most industry in Europe in the long term is an essential pre-
of the emerging technologies such as AI. The militaries requisite, with the need of more investments. Since AI
and the defense sectors are affected by these devel- is a general-purpose technology, the development of
opments. an AI ecosystem on the European level will benefit all
kinds of areas and industries, including militaries and
the defense sector. For instance, advances in image
Recent Activities on National and EU Level recognition algorithms for non-military intents can
also be modified for object identification in combat
These new emerging parameters pose a series of situations. Furthermore, to increase AI-related
questions. The EU is under pressure to find solutions defense research and in order to materialize the
and approaches to cope with the growing significance notion of a European innovation system, more joint
of AI in the military. Yet, initial approaches and devel- laboratories and research partnerships are needed to
opments toward that direction can be identified lately. facilitate closer research between the military, the
defense industry, commercial enterprises, and aca-
First, European states have started to draft AI-related demic institutions.
military documents: In September 2019, the French
defense ministry published its first AI military strategy. Second, since the EU itself and its member states are
It is hardly surprising that Paris took the initiative in still very much in the early stages concerning the inter-
that context since the French AI strategy (For a mean- face of AI and warfare, a fundamental analysis about
ingful artificial intelligence) from March 2018 already the current status of AI military integration in the
emphasized the need for the creation of synergies of member states must be carried out. This will help to
civil and military technological innovations to develop point out the gaps and identify how to pool and develop
AI capabilities in the security realm. Also, in Germany, AI-related capabilities in order to boost cooperation in
where the defense community has been rather timid the field of AI among the member states. The European
in acknowledging the military AI dimension (beyond Defense Fund can play an important role in this context.
arms control matters) in the past, the German Army
Concepts and Capabilities Development Centre released Third, in order to achieve a thriving AI defense ecosystem
a position paper on AI use for land forces one month on a European scale, the EU and its member states
later. have to set regulatory framework conditions and show
the political will to include AI in the European security
Second, those developments are flanked by recent context beyond ethical arms control discussions.
initiatives on the EU level. In August 2019, AI was on
the agenda of an informal meeting of EU defense min- In sum, Europe is at the beginning of the process of
isters, whereas Finland has further pushed the issue integrating AI technologies into the military realm.
during its presidency of the Council of the EU in the However, considering the global developments, the
second half of 2019. Beforehand, in May 2019, Finland, need to act is pressing.
Estonia, the Netherlands, Germany, and France issued
The Challenge of Digitalisation – the Bundeswehr

Cyber and Information Domain Service
By Jürgen Setzer
GenMaj Jürgen Setzer,

Vice Chief of the
Cyber- and Information
Domain Service and Chief
Information Security
Officer of the
Bundeswehr
Digitalisation offers tremendous opportunities for sci- As early as 2016, at the summit in Warsaw, NATO
ence, economy, government and civil society and thus recognised cyberspace as a military domain in its own
for each and every one of us living in democratic and right – much like the domains of land, air, sea and
liberal societies. space. Armed forces can both reconnoitre and engage
enemy systems in cyberspace. In practical terms, this
At the same time, however, it also provides enormous could involve, for example, the interruption of logistic
opportunities for potential enemies – be they crimi- chains or the modification of data crucial to enemy
nals, terrorists or state actors – and thus involves con- operations. Paralysing C2 and information systems
siderable dangers to our society. The possibilities of would also be an option.
digitalisation have given rise to a new form of conflict,
for which we need to prepare. Cyber attacks on states In the Bundeswehr, we have deliberately chosen a
and their critical infrastructure as well as business broader definition of this new military dimension –
enterprises and private households have already one that includes the above-mentioned information
become reality. From a technical point of view, future domain as well as its central aspect: information.
conflict scenarios will be characterised by digitalisa- Information is perceived, interpreted and dissemi-
tion, artificial intelligence and automation. nated by human beings. Hence, what is called “pub-
lished opinion” constitutes an essential part of the
Besides attacks from cyberspace, activities intended information domain.
to manipulate or influence opinion, such as fake news
campaigns and disinformation, have become all too The new cyber and information domain is character-
common. Therefore, the inclusion of the information ised by a high level of complexity. Territoriality is com-
domain is of particular importance. Consequently, both plemented by virtual reality. Cyber and information
cyber and information space are of vital importance space cannot be divided into traditional combat sec-
when it comes to national security and thus the military. tors with clear spatial boundaries.
Contrary to classic kinetic operations, cyber operations effective institution whose activities, taken also in
can also achieve the desired effects by non-lethal cooperation with other actors, will significantly
means or for a limited period of time. Nevertheless, enhance Bundeswehr mission accomplishment in the
physical effects can be achieved in cyberspace, too. age of digitalisation and hybrid warfare. This opens
Moreover, the place where cyber operations create additional, non-kinetic courses of action for the mili-
an effect can theoretically be tens of thousands of tary and political leadership and expands the range of
kilometres away from where the action was initiated. suitable responses in crisis situations. The Bundeswehr
Time, too, plays a different role in cyber and informa- Cyber Security Centre pools the cyber defence capa-
tion space. An effect can be achieved over any distance bilities of the Bundeswehr. It is here that the Bunde-
almost without delay. Hence, effects are achieved in swehr computer networks at home and abroad as well
real time. as in theatre are monitored 24/7. If cyber attacks are
detected or critical IT security incidents occur, Bunde-
Against this backdrop, the Bundeswehr established its swehr computer emergency response teams restore IT
new Cyber and Information Domain Service on 1 April security around the globe.
2017. Thus, the importance of this new domain is now
reflected in our organisational structure. Cyberspace knows no borders. Hybrid strategies exploit
interfaces between responsibilities, for instance inter-
As the Cyber and Information Domain Service was nal and external security. Therefore, it is indispensable
established, its main tasks were defined. These tasks that we close ranks and share knowledge both at the
are considerably more comprehensive than the com- national level – as part of an interagency approach in
monly used shorthand description “cyber” may sug- cooperation with enterprises, science and society –
gest. The Cyber and Information Domain Service is in and at the international level.
charge of protecting and operating the Bundeswehr IT
system in Germany and on operations abroad. In addi- Cooperation projects aimed at the mutual exchange of
tion, the Cyber and Information Domain Service is also information, knowledge and personnel as well as the
responsible for military intelligence and provides situ- mutual opening of basic and advanced training pro-
ation information in the form of thoroughly evaluated grammes are essential when it comes to strengthen-
reconnaissance results. We can access enemy IT net- ing national resilience. In addition, an active exchange
works to gather or manipulate information and at the international level is vital. Attacks from cyber-
employ electronic warfare capabilities to ensure the space as well as campaigns on social media and mes-
safety of own and friendly units on missions abroad. senger services do not stop at national borders. Their
The Bundeswehr Geoinformation Centre provides effects can be felt at the transnational level. Interna-
each user with individual geo-referenced information tional cooperation across national boundaries is abso-
– from weather forecasts and soil conditions to digital lutely imperative if we are to master these challenges
3D terrain models. successfully. In the military sector, close bilateral
cooperation is already taking place at the EU and
The Cyber and Information Domain Service has pooled NATO level. Here, too, an effective contribution to
the existing expertise in the Bundeswehr, established national security must always be one of our goals.
and developed additional capabilities and strength-
ened those areas that will be of particular importance
in the future. At the command level, our Joint Cyber
and Information Domain Situation Centre provides the
Bundeswehr as well as other ministries with a fused
situation picture of cyber and information space. As
the responsibilities of the Cyber and Information
Domain Service increased more and more, the Cyber
Operations Centre was established in spring 2018. This
agency pools the specific capabilities that are required
in today’s world to prepare and conduct military cyber
operations for the purpose of reconnaissance and
effects. As a result, the Bundeswehr possesses an
5G- and Huawei’s-Mobile Wireless Network-

Technology: Is the UK-Compromise of excluding
Huawei from its Core-Network Sufficient?
By Frank Umbach
Dr. Frank Umbach,

Research Director at
the European Centre
for Climate, Energy
and Resource Security
(EUCERS), King’s College,
London
This year will decide how fast and secure the newly inclusion by taking into account complex as well as
introduced mobile wireless-network technology of 5G difficult conflicts of objectives and interests. They all
for Europe’s industries and critical infrastructures will need to balance shorter- with longer-term strategic
be deployed and to which extent Europe will become interests of its industry-, technology- and cybersecu-
technologically dependent on Huawei and an ever rity policies as the EU only recommends security
more nationalistic and authoritarian China, which is guidelines and leaves the technological sovereignty of
officially been viewed by the EU as a “systemic rival”. the 5G-network build-up und Huawei’s involvement in
Alongside, it will also become clear to which extent the responsibility of the individual member states.
the EU member states will accept increasing cyberse-
curity risks of industrial and political espionage as well The British Security Council and UK’s National Cyber
as potential sabotage as the result of its wider eco- Security Centre (NCSC) have stated that it can manage
nomic dependencies on China. At the same time, the remaining risks of deeply entrenched Huawei tech-
these decisions of the EU member states will also nologies and shrink them to “acceptable levels” in
show, to which extent the EU is able to agree on com- order to mitigate the key threats of industrial and
mon strategies of its industry, technology and cyber political espionage, theft or alteration of data, black-
security policy, such as determining and implementing mail and network sabotage. But the NCSC has also
common cyber security standards for 5G networks. admitted that the risks of using Huawei’s technologies
in its 5G network can never be completely removed.
The British government has decided on January 28 Already previously, the NCSC has evaluated Huawei as
that Huawei will be excluded from the core 5G net- Britain’s only high-risk vendor to build its new ultra-fast
work and restricted to its periphery. It also imposed a high-speed mobile network. The assessment is not
future market share cap for Huawei in UK’s non-core only based on China’s National Intelligence Law of
5G network from presently 44% to 35% in 2023. With- 2017, which allows the Chinese government to “compel
out the British governmental intervention, Huawei anyone in China to do anything”. The NCSC has also
would have acquired a future market share of the UK’s warned that China’s state and associated actors “have
5G network up to 70% within the next three years. carried out and will continue to carry out cyberattacks
Within the EU, also other member states – such as against the UK and our interests”. It has also repeat-
Germany – need to decide about Huawei’s technology edly criticized (as many independent international
cyber security experts for years) that “Huawei’s cyber- as the traditionally defined “core” (where customer
security and engineering quality is low and its pro- information is stored and processed) of the future
cesses opaque”. In its 2019 report it confirmed that 5G-network can’t be clearly separated any longer from
the Chinese company has also made “no material pro- the periphery (Huawei’s antennas and base stations) in
gress” in addressing “major defects” and significant contrast to the 3G and 4G networks. More computing
security concerns already being raised the year before. power, clouds, servers and processes will move from
the core to the periphery as the numerous appliances
Huawei’s 5G technology policies are a perfect example of the industry 4.0 demand much more decentralized
of China’s long-term thinking by defining the future 5G networks.
disruptive technologies and industry applications. As
Huawei’s technologies are very hardware-centric, they The future mobile networks will run on advanced soft-
are deliberately not compatible with most of other ware in an increasingly virtualised network that
vendor’s technologies. That creates technology includes the traditional core and the system that
path-dependencies over several technology genera- manages all the hardware from smartphones to auto-
tions. It is another example of China’s supply and value mated factories, driverless cars and telemedicine for
chain strategies which seek to control the worldwide rapidly processing data and communication with the
research and development, the critical raw materials network. The various hardware, software application,
for the new technologies up to semi-finalized and end protocol and code layers include proprietary informa-
products in future key technology sectors. tion, which makes it almost impossible to verify net-
work messages over the hardware back to end con-
sumers such as Huawei (and ultimately China’s KP or
Cyber Security Challenges beyond Huawei its secret services).
The build-up of national 5G mobile networks might The dynamic deployment of 5G networks will dramati-
result in a dramatic increase of cyber risks and vulner- cally change the cybersecurity landscape by increasing
abilities as it will connect the future networks of criti- the scale of surface attacks and restricting effective
cal infrastructures and “industry 4.0” with millions of surveillance and control. Traditional monitoring meth-
unsafe Internet-of-Things-appliances. With every addi- ods will become ineffective and obsolete. The 5G net-
tional connection, it becomes harder to figure out any work may become so complex that managing the risks
vulnerabilities of the system. They will also increase of China’s involvement could overwhelm all national
resources. Therefore, cyber security experts have
demanded to disclose the source and programme
Figure 2 codes for the 5G networks. But it is contradicting
Huawei: Revenues by Region 2012 – 2017 traditional commercial businesses.
Restricting Huawei’s technologies to the 5G’s periphery

alone – as suggested by UK’s policies and the EU’s rec-
ommendations – won’t solve many fundamental
cybersecurity challenges of the new virtualised net-
works and, therefore, is not sufficient. Moreover, UK,
Germany and few other EU member states may be
able to define and implement “acceptable levels” of
remaining cybersecurity risks. But 10 other EU mem-
ber states have neither any institutionalized cyberse-
curity expertise and capacity nor do they have compa-
rable rigorous security-risk mitigation strategies and
any entrenched cybersecurity risk culture to evaluate
new cyber risks of new disruptive technologies such
as 5G.
www.GISreportsonline.com
Source: FT 2019
Opportunities and Challenges in Developing

Military AI Applications
By Yixiang Xu
Yixiang Xu, New Research

Initiative Fellow at AICGS
working on the Institute’s
China-Germany-U.S.
triangular relationship
initiative
Incorporating artificial Intelligence (AI) for national enhancing human capabilities, scaling, and information
defense is a current priority for countries around the superiority. AI tools can handle larger volumes of data
world following its rapid development and multitude more efficiently, providing additional analytical capac-
of applications in the commercial sector. Increased ity for early stage information processing, freeing up
research and development funding from military human analysts to concentrate on decision-making.
research agencies are on course to push the global AI-enabled tools are especially important in cyber-
military AI and cybernetics market to a projected space operations as they can be trained to perform
$13.11 billion in 2024 at a compound annual growth preemptive and real-time detection, evaluation, and
rate of 18.66 percent.1 response to network activities on a large scale, thus
presenting a more comprehensive and dynamic barrier
Currently, militaries around the world are considering to attack.3 AI analysis tools could also help to stream-
a wide range of AI defense applications. These include line operations and generate greater cost savings.
intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, logistics,
cyberspace operations, information operations, com- In the United States, the Department of Defense
mand and control, semiautonomous and autonomous launched the Algorithmic Warfare Cross-Functional
vehicles, and lethal autonomous weapon systems Team (Project Maven) in 2017 to rapidly incorporate
(LAWS).2 AI into existing DOD systems and is committed to
spending $1.75 billion over six years through the Joint
The main benefits of integrating AI into military systems Artificial Intelligence Center (JAIC) and $2 billion to
include labor substitution, efficiency, cost reduction, invest in dozens of programs through the Defense
1 “Global Military AI and Cybernetics Market to Reach $13.11 Billion by 2024.” CISION PR Newswire. November 7, 2019.
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/global-military-ai-and-cybernetics-market-to-reach-13-11-billion-by-2024--300953679.html
2 “Artificial Intelligence and National Security, Updated November 2019.” Congressional Research Services
3 Scott Rosenberg, “Firewalls Don’t Stop Hackers, AI Might,” Wired, August 27, 2017.
https://www.wired.com/story/firewalls-dont-stop-hackers-ai-might/
Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).4 China serious ethical and legal questions need to be raised
released a national AI strategy in 2017 that heavily regarding their deployment. The United States has so
relies on military-civil fusion to facilitate AI technology far refused to participate in negotiating legal or politi-
transfer, which has already yielded results in large-scale cal instruments to regulate autonomous AI weapons
visual recognition systems. Russia employs a similar at the United Nations. Other countries, while voicing
centralized AI development approach and has achieved concerns, are unwilling to restrict their own autono-
some early success in developing unmanned ground mous weapons development. Nevertheless, avoiding
vehicles. Countries including France, Israel, and South the possibility of unpredictable, large-scale, and
Korea are also expanding efforts to deploy and inte- potentially unaccountable destruction brought by
grate AI tools in their militaries. LAWS means we must continue to push for an interna-
tional, legally binding instrument that ensures mean-
These investments hint at a looming global AI arms ingful human control over weapons systems.
race. Unlike the nuclear arms race of the twentieth
century, AI-enabled machines will not only perform Some efforts are being made to address potential
tasks, but also make decisions. Yet so little of their ethical hazards, although more needs to be done to
process and performance impact is understood by ensure secure, ethical use of military AI. In the United
those who finance their development or are tasked States, the DOD-commissioned Defense Innovation
with their operation. AI algorithms can produce unpre- Board released recommendations on the ethical use
dictable results, become subject to bias based on of AI by the DOD that are consistent with the Law of
training data, and could experience simultaneous fail- War and domestic law, establishing a set of high-level
ures. The most sophisticated and highest-performing ethics goals.5 As the development of AI for defense
AI algorithms are often unable to explain their pro- applications moves further along, specific principles
cesses. In areas of human-machine interaction, the should be developed. Amid the increasing public-
lack of explanation cautions humans to determine private partnership in military AI development, gov-
appropriate levels of trust in AI systems. ernments need to set higher digital infrastructure and
cybersecurity standards in the commercial sector, as
These concerns about AI become more profound with well as safeguard against exploitation and proliferation
increasing levels of system autonomy. In the case of with policies including investment screening and
LAWS, weapon systems that independently identify export control.
and destroy targets without manual human control,
4 “DARPA Announces $2 Billion Campaign to Develop Next Wave of AI Technologies.” DARPA, September 7, 2018.
https://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2018-09-07
5 “AI Principles: Recommendations on the Ethical Use of Artificial Intelligence by the Department of Defense.”
Defense Innovation Board, October 31, 2019.
https://media.defense.gov/2019/Oct/31/2002204458/-1/-1/0/DIB_AI_PRINCIPLES_PRIMARY_DOCUMENT.PDF
The U.S. Decoupling Attempt Is Too Costly

for the World
By Zhexin Zhang
Dr. Zhexin Zhang,

Assistant Research Fellow
at the Center for Asia
Pacific Studies and
Assistant Director of the
Institute of Taiwan, Hong
Kong, and Macao Studies
at the Shanghai Institute
for International Studies
Comprehensive and inspiring as it was, the 2019 Inter- dent Xi Jinping’s announcement of five new measures
national Security Forum in Bonn witnessed another to promote China’s opening-up on the second China
step toward the United States decoupling from China, International Import Expo (CIIE) has further strength-
which it accused of “predatory industrial policies,” ened the confidence of the global business community.
“violating international law and rules,” and “threaten- Meanwhile, China is making increasing contributions
ing values of the free world.” This attempt, grounded to global governance ranging from tackling climate
in accusations that appear unfair, impractical, and change and sustainable development to UN peace-
harmful to world peace and prosperity, can hardly gain keeping and upholding the international system.1
much support from the international community. Considering this progress and the new opportunities
China presents to the world, it is senseless to over-
It is true that China enjoys significant advantage in state China’s imperfectness and feel victimized by
global technological, industrial, and commercial com- China’s “growing pains.”
petition through its state-led approach (e.g., “Made
in China 2025” and the Belt and Road Initiative), and Yet, the Trump administration appears keen on decou-
there is much room for China to improve its intellec- pling from China by restricting bilateral ties in political,
tual property rights protection and ensure an open economic, cultural, and other fields. Despite Vice Pres-
and fair domestic business environment. Yet, com- ident Mike Pence’s statement on 24 October that the
pared with two decades ago, the Chinese market has United States does not seek to decouple from China,
undeniably become much more open and international much damage has been done to U.S.-China relations
rules-based. For instance, China’s average tariff rate and the U.S. economy as well, including the ongoing
has dropped from 45 percent to 6.7 percent; the nega- trade war that is projected to cost the U.S. economy
tive list for foreign investment in specific fields has billions of dollars and 300,000 jobs2; technological
shortened from 190 in 2011 to 40 in 2019, and Presi- sanctions against Chinese companies that have much
1 White Paper on “China and the World in the New Era,” September 27, 2019.
2 CBS, September 12, 2019
disrupted global industrial chains; increasing limitations predicts that the lasting trade war will cost the global
to people-to-people exchange that have reduced economy $700 billion by 2020, slowing global economic
Chinese visitors to the United States by 20 percent; growth to lower than 3 percent and triggering more
growing regional tension over Taiwan, Hong Kong, and protectionist and unilateral policies in many countries;
the South China Sea due to U.S. intervention; and, as as more trade and technological barriers emerge,
this Bonn Forum showcases, a global public opinion global investors will have less incentive to invest, fur-
campaign to alienate China from all “like-minded ther exacerbating unemployment and radical populism
countries.” As a result, the Trump administration has in developing and developed countries alike. China’s
begun to encounter a backlash both at home (e.g., close economic partners, including EU countries, will
some members of Congress have proposed legislation be compelled to take sides between China and the
to curb presidential tariff power) and, ironically, from United States. Worst of all, a new Cold War may take
the 192 American enterprises that attended the sec- shape where an isolated and cornered China becomes
ond CIIE, an 18 percent increase from last year, in spite more politically and economically closed and seeks to
of the administration’s decoupling advocacy. Opposi- expand its sphere of security and economic influence
tion has also emerged from abroad (e.g., the UK and worldwide, which, like the Cold War decades ago, truly
Germany seem to hold an open stance to China’s Hua- reflects the much-hyped notion of today – “one world,
wei participating in their 5G network construction); as two systems.”
close partners of the Indo-Pacific Strategy, both India
and Japan have openly rejected the scenario of building Fortunately, this is not a reality yet. As Mao Zedong
a geopolitical bloc against China, but rather seek to (and similarly, Carl Schmitt) famously put it, politics is
bring relations with China to “new heights” instead. an art to “foster as many comrades (friends) and as
With the presidential election approaching, the United few enemies as possible.” Indeed, after three decades
States’ decoupling goals will be even more difficult to of globalization, the interdependent world cannot
achieve. afford deliberate schisms and manufactured enemies,
but rather needs more common understanding and
That said, if the Trump and later U.S. administrations consultation on the shared interests and coordinated
are determined to further decouple from China, the approaches among countries, which I hope can become
world will certainly face a gloomy future: the IMF the dominant theme for this Forum next year.
Co-Host:
A very special thanks also to Guido Goldman.
Special Partner:
Partners:
Contact Imprint
Center for Advanced Security, Strategic and Integration Studies Editing

University of Bonn Simone Becker
Römerstraße 164 Philip Ackermann
53117 Bonn, Germany Dr. Enrico Fels
Jessica R. Hart
Prof. Dr. Wolfram Hilz Merit Thummes
Acting Director Malte Schrage
Phone: +49 (0) 228 73-3553
Email: sekretariat.hilz@uni-bonn.de Design
designlevel 2
Dr. Enrico Fels www.designlevel2.de
Managing Director
Phone: +49 (0) 228/73 62995 Image Rights
Mail: fels@uni-bonn.de All pictures ©Volker Lannert
Philip Ackermann Copyright:

Project Manager The copyright (2020) lies with the Center for Advanced
“International Security Forum Bonn” Security, Strategic and Integration Studies. Any form of
Phone: +49 (0) 228/73 62972 reproduction outside the boundaries of the copyright is
Mail: philip.ackermann@uni-bonn.de prohibited.
https://www.cassis.uni-bonn.de Printing
https://www.facebook.com/CASSISBonn/ Druckerei Eberwein OHG
https://twitter.com/CASSIS_Bonn
Last Update
02/2020
Center for Advanced Security,
Strategic and Integration Studies (CASSIS)
University of Bonn
Römerstraße 164
53117 Bonn, Germany
cassis.uni-bonn.de

Preparing For The Unknown

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Preparing For The Unknown

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Preparing For The Unknown

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INTERNATIONAL SECURITY

FORUM BONN 2019

Special Focus Day

Scenario Round-Table Report

COMMEN T S A ND PER SPEC T I V E S

Frank Umbach: 5G- and Huawei’s-Mobile Wireless Network-Technology:

Co-Host, Partner & Supporters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

After the enormous optimism following the fall of the

Prof. Dr. Volker

We can’t solve problems by using the same

Setting the Scene for International Debate

As the unraveling of the current international order

Jonas Abs Dimitria Clayton

Dr. Mischa Hansel Dr. Jackson Janes

Austin Hudgens Prof. Dr. Volker Kronenberg

Alexander Graf Lambsdorff

David Llorens Fernández

Col i.G. Soenke Marahrens

Dr. Jana Puglierin

Dr. Benjamin Rhode

Prof. Dr. Jakob Rhyner

GenMaj Jürgen Setzer

Prof. Dr. Yi Shen

Ashok Sridharan Yixiang Xu

Michelle Combs Watson

The 2019 International Security Forum in Bonn aimed

Prof. Dr. Volker

Dr. Oliver Gnad,

The crisis of what is commonly referred to as the

Dr. Norbert Röttgen,

Dr. Jana Puglierin,

Over recent years, the end of liberal hegemony and the

Part of these contentions are due to the fact that the

The EU’s Dilemma

Europe’s dilemma of trying to find a balance between

However, the experience of recent years shows that EU

Hanna Müller, German

The Bonn Power Shift Monitor

Power Shift Forecast: USA and China

current parity forecast

Rather than an emerging power, China is better

Dr. Antoine Bondaz,

Dr. Dean Cheng,

Chinese Power increase gravitational forces that pull other countries

Dr. Antoine Bondaz,

Cyber Security and

Cyber Security Cluster Bonn e.V.

The Cyber Security Cluster Bonn e.V. is a new institution

left: Dr. Katharina

Prof. Dr. Jürgen Rüttgers,

Prof. Dr. Wolfram Hilz,

Prof. Dr. Yi Shen,

Dr. Sven Herpig, Stiftung

Conclusion fact that traditional state-centric multilateral agree-

left: Dr. Alexander

Preparing for the Unknown

left: Alexandra Paulus,

right: Dr. Niklas Helwig,

Strategic Foresight as a Method At the scenario workshop, Carlo Masala encouraged

■ A splinternet could be prevented through diplo-

3 Andrey Kortunov. Will Russia Return to Europe? 06.11.2018. URL: https://russiancouncil.ru/en/analytics-and-comments/