The Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy (IFSH) researches the conditions for peace and security in Germany, Europe and beyond. The IFSH conducts its research independently. It is funded by the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg. Since 2019, the institute also maintains an office in Berlin.
DM: How long has your institute been in existence and what do you deal with on a daily basis?
Anja Dahlmann: The Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy at the University of Hamburg has been in existence since 1971, i.e. for over 50 years. Since 2019, we also have an office in Berlin.
We deal with a broad field of topics, divided into four areas: first, European peace and security orders, i.e. looking at the EU and OSCE as peace projects; second, societal peace and internal security, for example with research on extremism or conspiracy narratives; third, climate research, because global environmental changes have an impact on peace and security. Fourth, we are concerned with arms control, especially for newer technologies such as cybersecurity, autonomous weapons systems, and hypersonic weapons, but nuclear weapons concern us. Especially in this area, the interdisciplinary exchange between social and natural science peace researchers plays an important role.
Overall, the IFSH thus implements the concept of integrated security policy in its research, because the solution of complex problems can only function in an interdepartmental manner. It is important that our academic research is linked to knowledge transfer, i.e., the constant exchange with society and politics. In this way, we make a concrete contribution to addressing security policy challenges.
DM: Can conditions for peace and security be clearly defined?
Anja Dahlmann: These conditions are manifold and mutually dependent. In a broad understanding of peace, this is not only the absence of war, but also the absence of structural violence from need and oppression. Or, in other words, peace is a process of increasing justice and decreasing violence. Similarly, security is not a fixed state. It remains a permanent task to establish security for as many people – not states – as possible.
This is not easy given the many crises humanity is currently facing. Global phenomena such as the pandemic and the climate catastrophe are not only dramatic in their own right, but also exacerbate other crises and conflicts. It is therefore not enough to consider one problem after another in isolation – neither in peace and security policy nor in peace research.
DM: So, are worldwide peace, global understanding and security of all places a mere illusion?
Anja Dahlmann: It is at least a vision. But this can and must guide us as a society to reduce violence and create justice. With concepts such as human security and feminist foreign and security policy, we can come a good deal closer to this. We know from research that societies without equality are significantly more prone to conflict than others. The participation of women and marginalized groups in political decisionmaking processes and the equitable distribution of resources make societies safer and strengthen peace.
DM: Are threatening gestures and saber rattling necessary to keep the peace?
Anja Dahlmann: No. In order to create stability and security between states, the interplay of defense capability, arms control and willingness to engage in dialogue is crucial. This includes, in particular, institutions for peaceful conflict management, especially the United Nations. Modernizing these institutions to include the Global South on an equal footing is certainly one of the major challenges. Democratic structures and civil society participation must also be strengthened within the state.
DM: What is your assessment of the situation in the Ukraine war? What way out can there be?
Anja Dahlmann: There is no justification for Russia’s attack on Ukraine. Russia can end the war immediately by withdrawing from Ukraine. For long-term peace, this would probably have to include occupied Crimea, where an armed conflict has been simmering since Russia’s annexation in 2014. Since this is clearly not happening voluntarily, the international community needs to strengthen Ukraine to make it clear to Russia that it cannot win this war. This includes making sure that neither nuclear blackmail nor terrorizing civilians will help it achieve its goals. If there is no clear military decision – and there rarely is in wars – negotiations will ultimately have to end the war.
Interview Christian Barth