Friede, Freude, Pancakes? The concept of war and what is lost within the NATO alliance^†

† The views expressed in this text are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the German government, the German Ministry of Defence, the Canadian government, or the Canadian Department of National Defence.

Abstract

This article dives into the ambiguity of language and seeks to examine how it impacts upon alliance politics within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), specifically looking at the perceptions and roles of two members of the NATO alliance: Canada and Germany. To accomplish this end, the article will approach the matter through the comparative framework of discourse analysis and, more broadly, a look at communications theory. Next, a case study of Canada’s and Germany’s policies in Afghanistan during the last decade will demonstrate how language has been used in both countries to frame the concept of war. The article shows that, based on various approaches to language and messaging, the use of the term “war” has different meanings for Canada and Germany. Utilizing four distinct avenues of approach in terms of matter, appeal, self-revelation and relationships, this article presents an innovative way to assess how culture impacts international politics at state and organizational levels. Finally, the article makes the case for improved training and education policy within the NATO alliance, addressing increased awareness for cultural aspects of security concepts.

Résumé

Cet article explore les ambiguïtés du langage et examine comment celles-ci influencent la politique de l'Alliance Atlantique, en se concentrant précisément sur les perceptions et les rôles de deux membres de cet organisme : le Canada et l'Allemagne. À cette fin, il aborde ces questions à travers le cadre comparatif de l'analyse du discours et, plus largement, un regard sur les théories de la communication. Ensuite, il présente une étude de cas sur les politiques du Canada et de l'Allemagne en Afghanistan durant la dernière décennie qui démontre comment le langage a été utilisé dans ces deux pays en tant que cadre du concept de guerre. L'article montre que, basée sur diverses approches du langage et du message, l'utilisation du terme « guerre » a des significations différentes au Canada et en Allemagne. En utilisant quatre voies distinctes de l'approche en termes de sujet, d'attrait, d'autorévélation et de relations, cet article présente une manière innovante d’évaluer comment la culture influence la politique internationale aux plans national et organisationnel. Enfin, l'article prône une amélioration de la politique de formation et d'éducation au sein de l'OTAN, à travers une plus forte prise en compte des aspects culturels des concepts de sécurité.

Keywords:

• alliance politics
• language
• Afghanistan
• Canada
• Germany

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the organizers of the “Lost in Translation” workshop, specifically those at the Centre for International and Defence Policy and the anonymous peer–reviewers for their helpful comments and constructive criticisms.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

† The views expressed in this text are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the German government, the German Ministry of Defence, the Canadian government, or the Canadian Department of National Defence.

1. The second author is uniquely qualified to make this assertion as he himself is an infantry officer, and most likely an arrogant one.

2. The model was initially introduced in 1981 (Schulz von Thun 1981). The following discussion of the model is based on provided online (Schulz von Thun 2009, translation by the authors).

3. The Globe and Mail (2014), Walkom (2014), and the “War in Afghanistan”, as but three examples of the pervasiveness of the term “war” in the media.

4. See speeches by Johnston (2013), Van Loan (2008) or McCallum (2015).

5. The term “the road to war” became the phrase associated with the Canadian Army's managed readiness plan that established clear collective training milestones that all units – formed into numerically identified “task forces' – had to pass through prior to deployment overseas.

6. Boyrs, 2015. Moreover, that Canada has competing views on the utility of the use of force overseas – that is, competing strategic cultures – has been discussed at length by others, notably Massie (2002).

7. Warrior nation was short-listed for the John W. Dafoe Prize in 2012, and was a runner-up for the Independent Publisher Book Award for Current Events (Foreign Affairs/Military) in 2013.

8. Article 26 of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany: “(1) Acts tending to and undertaken with intent to disturb the peaceful relations between nations, especially to prepare for a war of aggression, shall be unconstitutional. They shall be made a criminal offence.”

9. For a full chronology, see Weiland (2011).

10. For a more detailed description of caveats and a comparison among those imposed by Canada, Germany and France, see Saideman and Auerswald (2012).