On Notion and Nature of a CESDC

1. On Notion and Nature of a CESDC Prof. DDr. Christian STADLER

2. Agenda • On Sciences vs. Humanities • On Culture and Hermeneutics • On Military Sciences vs. Military Culture • On Notion & Nature of “Civil Security” • On Notion & Nature of “Military Defence” • On Notion & Nature of “Security & Defence” • On Notion & Nature of “Europe” and its “Security” • On “Military Ethics” vs. “Defence Ethics” • On “Strategic Culture” vs. “Defence Culture”

3. On Sciences vs. Humanities • Sciences are – to make it short – “natural sciences”, that means they are – concerning their object and their method – diametrically opposed to the Humanities • Sciences are dealing with Nature, which follows the laws of nature, their basic interaction depends on the principle of causality. Their adequate method is Induction from concrete experiences up to an abstract principle or notion (Empirisme, Aristotle) • Humanities are dealing with Culture, which follows the natural law, their basic interaction depends on the principle of responsibility. Their adequate method is Deduction from an abstract principle or notion down to concrete experiences (Rationalism, Plato) • Kant: Experience without notion is blind, notion without experience is empty (Transcendentalism)

4. On Culture and Hermeneutics • The Humanities are therefore dealing with “Culture” • Culture may be understood as opposed to Nature – following the “Natural Law” of responsible Freedom and not the “Laws of Nature” of irresponsible Causality • Hermeneutics is the inductive method to deal adequately with Humanities reps. Culture: • Nature has to be explained by Biology, Physics, Chemistry • Culture has to be understood by History, Philology, Philosophy – managing the Interpretation and Judgement of Culture.

5. On Military Sciences vs. Military Culture • Considering the differences between Sciences and Humanities, talking about “Military Sciences” is not neutral – like in German “Militärwissenschaften” - but means a very specific approach how to deal with the Military in a scientific or systematic way – Military primarily seen as part of Nature, following the laws of nature – without responsibility and freedom. Military as Machine. • Concerning the key characterization of the Military since the days of ancient Greece, we associate: Duty, Honour, Order, Responsibility, Decision, Hierarchy, Loyalty, Comradeship, Tradition etc. – and that are moments of Culture and not Nature – linked with Freedom, and not with Causality – following more the deductive than the inductive way of thinking and arguing.

6. On Notion & Nature of “Civil Security” • Security is a very complex and multi-dimensional notion • It can be understood as absence from physical threat (Hobbes) • It can be understood as absence from financial threat (Locke) • It can be understood as absence from social threat (Rousseau) • In any case – it is by definition and nature the key purpose of political acting: • In its physical form (Hobbes) of a Police State / Safety • In its economic form (Locke) of a Liberal State / Property • In its social form (Rousseau) of a Welfare State / Justice

7. On Notion & Nature of “Military Defence” • Security – as it is mainly understood – has a “civilian” connotation – Hobbes / Locke / Rousseau • Security – as a comprehensive challenge – has also a “military” connotation – in the transcendental approach, which includes to the empiric phenomena the conditions of their possibility • The basic condition of the possibility of “Civil Security” is Military Defence. • Without the guarantee of Military Defence – there is no sense in debating the different concepts of Civil Security. • This also indicates the core mission resp. challenge to be met by “post conflict peace missions” – in order to make the implementation of “Civil Security” possible, there has to be Military Defence to be provided.

8. On Notion & Nature of “Security & Defence” • As understood in the EU, there has a “Common European Security and Defence Policy” to be developed. • Security and Defence – this is a transcendental relationship • Defence is the condition of the possibility of Security • So Military is the condition of the possibility of Civility • That means – without Soldiers there are no Citizens • That means – without Soldiers there is no “Rule of Law” • That means – without Soldiers there is no “Social Justice” • That means – without Soldiers there is no “Freedom” • The Military – serving the Civilian Sphere of Law, Justice and Freedom – has by doing so to safeguard these principles and values as its original principles and values. • One cannot serve values by hurting them!

9. On Notion & Nature of “Europe” and its “Security” • The Common European Security and Defence Policy has therefore multiple implications: • It has pragmatically to protect the territory and population of the European Union from external threats and challenges • It has to found the development of a European Civility, i.e. a European Society, which is based on Rule of Law, Justice and Freedom • Therefore the EU has to develop a unique, reasonably federal - version of “Statehood” • In order to be able to develop such a “Federal Statehood” (= sphere of supplementary security guarantee), the transcendental condition is a – federal – Military.

10. On “Military Ethics” vs. “Defence Ethics” • In our understanding – Defence is founding Security – and Security is the condition of Civility and Civilization. • Therefore Defence is the condition for the possibility of “Rule of Law”, “Justice” and “Freedom” • Defence is therefore the “reasonable” and with that “moral” mission of the Military. • Military – in a transcendental approach – has primarily one core mission – to defend Civility, to make Civility possible. • Military – in a transcendental approach – has not primarily the mission to serve the geopolitical interests and rivalries of the State Leaders, which demands “Military Ethics” • According to Spinoza however – the Military has the reasonable mission to prevent a threat to reasonable Civility already pre-emptively. According to Kant, Military has the reasonable mission to intervene in unjust States.

11. On “Strategic Culture” vs. “Defence Culture” • Internationally – in the Anglo-Saxon resp. English speaking world – there is a very intense debate on “Strategic Culture” – be it of the US, Great Britain, the European Union, China, Japan or Russia - researching the question of how military force is employed, how political power is projected – so technically discussing questions and challenges of “strategy”, the way and art of using the military force – without taking the “Telos”, the aim, goal, target of Military action primarily into account. • The Continental approach is more “Defence”, “Security” and “Justice” oriented – therefore the Telos, aim, goal, target of Military action is also taken into account. • This is not question of a “nice to have” additional sensitivity in International Relations, but of Reason, Justice and Sustainability in providing successfully Peace which only legitimates the use of military force!

12. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR KIND ATTENTION • I AM GREATEFUL FOR YOUR REMARKS AND READY TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS