Suchergebnisse

Die deutsche Asyl-und Einwanderungspolitik soll neu gestaltet werden. Darüber herrscht weitgehende Einigkeit zwischen den Parteien, die sich Hoffnungen auf einen Einzug in den Deutschen Bundestag am 24. September 2017 machen. Der Autor, Wissenschaftler am BICC, fragt kritisch nach, ob das viel zitierte "Vorbild Kanada" auch für Deutschland taugt. Als ein Vorbild für die Neugestaltung der deutschen Asyl- und Einwanderungspolitik gilt derzeit für viele Kanada mit seiner strikten Trennung von Arbeitsmigration und Asyl, seinem quotengesteuerten Punktesystem und seinen umfangreichen humanitären Umsiedlungsprogrammen. Die SPD erwähnt das kanadische Modell sogar wörtlich in ihrem Wahlprogramm. Auch Vertreter der Grünen, der FDP und selbst der AfD bezogen sich in Interviews auf dieses Vorbild. Lediglich die Linke lehnt aus humanitären Gründen eine Trennung von Flucht und Arbeitsmigration sowie Quotenregelungen strikt ab. Doch wie funktioniert die kanadische Asyl- und Migrationspolitik eigentlich und eignet sie sich als Vorbild für Deutschland?

The Greater Sahel region has never experienced such a high-level of arms availability. Given the large array of efforts now in place across the region to stem the proliferation of small arms and light weapons (SALW), it is pertinent to take stock, assess who is doing what, and reflect on opportunities to reduce programmatic duplication through enhanced co-ordination. This Working Paper is a first step in this regard and provides an overview of small arms control efforts in the Greater Sahel region for 2015 to 2016. The information presented is drawn from a practitioner survey and accompanying literature review, and outlines not only current small arms control projects in 12 countries but also current capacity shortfalls. Produced as part of a joint African Union-Germany project on enhanced SALW control, this Working Paper aims to serve as a continually updated reference document, which will eventually become a comprehensive repository of SALW projects in the Greater Sahel.

As the numbers of returnees in many regions of South Sudan increase, and livelihood opportunities need to be established to foster development and prevent new causes of displacement, aid agencies should address the full cycle of displacement to reintegration at a given location. Programmes therefore have to focus on issues beyond emergency aid and be long-term until returnees have indeed become self-sufficient.
Young people are very influential in stabilizing the peace process. To promote local economic development, jobs and higher education, for instance, should therefore be offered not only to returnees, but also to hosts to provide alternatives to engaging in violence. Besides vocational training, "spaces" for recreational activities should also be established.
Trainings are particular successful when communities participate in designing the programmes. A diversification of income activities (e.g. rural and urban) also promotes the sustainability of return. Local dynamics have to be studied beforehand to prevent the failure of programmes and enhance sustainability.
Dialogue platforms help to share information about the peace process and the situation at the return location. Radio broadcasts, in particular, have proven to be a good practice to share information and spread the word of peace. The media thus can be an important tool for fostering communication between groups and, consequently, the reintegration of returnees.

This Working Paper investigates the challenges South Sudanese returnees and displaced persons face from their very own perspective. Building on field research in the autumn and winter of 2015 , it analyses the patterns of return and coping strategies of returnees, as well as any assistance that aid agencies can provide. The findings indicate that return is neither a simple, linear nor necessarily durable solution. From the viewpoint of the returnees, the main challenges of return are the lack of physical security, food, water, education and jobs. As resources in South Sudan are very scarce overall because of a collapsing economy and continued fighting, competition over resources between returnees and local communities, as well among returnees, is common. The easy access to small arms, ethnic divisions and mistrust between groups further exacerbate these tensions. The sustainability of return seems to depend largely on how well returnees can access resources at their return location and thus secure a livelihood for them and their families, which, in turn, is not only influenced by the social network and political access the returnees have but also the economic situation at the return location. Aid agencies therefore should support livelihood opportunities and early development programmes at the preferred return locations, including local communities and youth groups in their efforts, to reduce feelings of inequality between groups. Besides diversified and long-term economic development initiatives, higher education opportunities as well as psychological support must also be provided to guarantee self-sufficiency of returnees and prevent renewed displacement.

The proliferation and trafficking of small arms and light weapons (SALW) in Africa is partly attributable to weak national controls, the porosity of state borders, and ongoing armed conflict on the continent. To address these problems a number of initiatives have been undertaken by states, regional organisations, and other various implementing agencies with the aim of enhancing small arms control. This report examines these initiatives over a ten year period (2005–2015) in sixteen countries across the Greater Sahel region and generates a set of lessons learned. These lessons cover topics such as project duplication, the impact of internal donor restructuring, and the importance of identifying the needs and implementing capacities of local partners. While these lessons are intended to contribute to the existing body of research on small arms control, they are also, more importantly, intended to help donors and practitioners improve project design and impact.

There are still large deficiencies in small arms and light weapons (SALW) and conventional ammunition (CA) storage and management in the Great Lakes Region, the Horn of Africa and bordering states. Particularly state capacities to plan and implement physical security and stockpile management (PSSM) interventions remain limited. Addressing these capacity shortfalls, the Multinational Small Arms and Ammunition Group (MSAG, with Germany as the lead nation), in collaboration with the International Peace Support Training Centre (IPSTC) in Nairobi, has implemented a PSSM train-the-trainer project since 2014. This report provides an overview of the project's achievements and challenges, and gives recommendations on the way forward to enhance PSSM capacity in the region. The information provided is mostly drawn from interviews with training participants.

Der Globale Militarisierungsindex des BICC bildet alljährlich das relative Gewicht und die Bedeutung des Militärapparats von Staaten im jeweiligen Verhältnis zur Gesellschaft als Ganzes ab. Das vorliegende Update des GMI 2014 basiert auf Daten des Jahres 2013 (d. h. den aktuellsten vorliegenden Zahlen) und umfasst 152 Staaten. Der GMI des BICC wird durch das Bundesministerium für Wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung (bmz) gefördert. Unter den zehn Ländern mit den höchsten Militarisierungsgraden befinden sich mit Israel, Singapur, Armenien, Syrien, Russland, Zypern, Südkorea, Jordanien, Griechenland und Aserbaidschan (Reihenfolge 1 bis 10) drei Staaten aus dem Nahen und Mittleren Osten, zwei aus Ostasien sowie fünf aus West- und Ost europa. Die hohe Militarisierung in diesen Ländern findet insbesondere in umfassenden Rüstungsbeschaffungen Ausdruck. Die Ursachen für die allgemein hohe Militarisierung im Nahen und Mittleren Osten sind vielfältig. Die Verteidigung bestehender autoritärer Regime vor möglichen internen Gegnern gehört ebenso dazu wie externe Konflikte und potenzielle äußere Bedrohungen. Insgesamt ist davon auszugehen, dass die Militarisierung in der Region auf einem hohen Niveau verbleiben wird oder noch weiter ansteigt. Die beiden in den Nagorny Karabach-Konflikt involvierten, zu Europa gehörenden Nachbarstaaten Armenien (platz 3) und Aserbaidschan (platz 10) haben sehr hohe Militarisierungsgrade und steigerten in den vergangenen Jahren ihre Militärausgaben erheblich. Diese Militarisierung ist jedoch nicht isoliert zu sehen ist. Russland (platz 5) liefert Rüstungsgüter an beide Konfliktparteien im Südkaukasus und verfolgt seit 2008 selbst eine umfassende Militärreform. Zwischen 2009 und 2013 sind innerhalb der europäischen NATO-Staaten die Ausgaben für Ausrüstung und Beschaffung um mehr als neun Milliarden Euro gefallen. Dennoch zeigen einige hohe Militarisierungsgrade (Griechenland: 9, Estland: 21, Türkei: 24, Bulgarien: 27, Portugal: 28). Mit Singapur (platz 2) und Südkorea (platz 7) befinden sich zwei Staaten aus Ostasien unter den zehn höchst militarisierten Ländern der Welt. Singa pur reagiert mit Beschaffungen auf ungelöste Territorialfragen und die chinesische anti-access/area-denial Strategie. Südkoreas hohe Militarisie rung muss im Kontext des anhaltenden Kriegszustandes mit Nordkorea aber auch mit unge lösten Territorialfragen mit Japan und China im Gelben Meer gesehen werden.

The Global Militarisation Index (gmi) depicts the relative weight and importance of the military apparatus of one state in relation to its society as a whole. The update of the GMI 2014 is based on data from the year 2013 (i. e. the most recent year for which data has been available) and comprises 152 states. BICC's GMI is supported by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (bmz). In the 2014 GMI, Israel, Singapore, Armenia, Syria, Russia, Cyprus, South Korea, Jordan, Greece and Azerbaijan (position 1 to 10) are amongst the ten countries with the highest levels of militarisation—three of which are situated in the Middle East, two in East Asia and the remaining five in Western and Eastern Europe. The high levels of militarisation in these countries are mostly the result of comprehensive arms purchases. The causes for the generally high levels of militarisation in the Middle East are manifold. They range from the defence of existing authoritarian regimes against possible internal adversaries to external conflicts and potential threats from the outside. All in all, one will have to assume that the level of militarisation in the region will remain high or will even increase. The neighbouring states Armenia (position 3) and Azerbaijan (position 10), both belonging to Europe, show very high levels of militarisation and have initiated major increases in their military expenditures over the past years. The high levels of militarisation in these two countries must, however, be seen in the overall context. Russia (position 5) delivers arms to both South Caucasian republics and has been pursuing a comprehensive military reform since 2008. Between 2009 and 2013, expenditures for equipment and procurement in European NATO states fell by more than US $9 billion. Still, some states show high levels of militarisation (Greece: 9, Estonia: 21, Turkey: 24, Bulgaria: 27, Portugal: 28). Singapore (position 2) and South Korea (position 7) are the two countries within East Asia that are amongst the most militarised countries. Singapore's procurement efforts are a reaction to its many unresolved territorial issues, the importance of strategic waterways in the region and the Chinese anti-access / area denial strategy. South Korea's high level of militarisation can be understood in the context of the ongoing state of war with North Korea, but also with unresolved territorial issues with Japan and China in the Yellow Sea.

The environment-security nexus is not a new topic in academic and political discourse, but it has currently gained new significance due to a number of factors. Growing concerns about global environmental change including climate change and fears about increasing demand and competition for natural resources caused by population growth and economic development both figure prominently among these factors.