Science-Based Policy Advice for Disarmament
Hans-Jürgen Hugenschmidt 
Common parlance has it that "it is hard to know what to do." Now, what about the value of the scientific advice in the field of arms control policy? Do the political decision-makers look for such advice at all?
Having worked as Secretary of the Subcommittee on Disarmament, Arms Control and Non-Proliferation of the German Parliament from 1991 to October 1999, I hope I can answer this question from an appropriate distance, at least for the parliamentary sector. Indeed I could take the easy way out and state: "Yes, a solid, matter-of-fact, farsighted, and reasonable policy is unconceivable without scientific advice." Such statement will certainly be true for all areas of politics. However, it would be much too superficial and not very substantiated.
Politics, the shaping of politics, and political decisions are subject to certain framework conditions, which are often hardly recognizable by outside observers and are thus misjudged in many cases. The decision-making process in politics – and it goes without saying that I can reflect only upon my personal parliamentary experiences gained in the field of arms control policy – follows a basic pattern that is generally independent of the actors and the arms control issue.
The arms control politicians in parliament – and in particular the members of the Subcommittee on Disarmament, Arms Control and Non-Proliferation – have taken on the task to shape and implement arms control policy on parliamentary level on their own initiative or on request by their colleagues or parliamentary groups. Alas, there are only very few of them, since arms control has steered into apparent stagnation. As a rule, they follow a more or less coarse guideline of their party. In the past, there were only very few Members of Parliament who were courageous enough to deviate from this guideline as regards fundamental issues, like Alfred Dregger in the issue of nuclear disarmament.
But then again, arms control is such a complex, intricate, and in many areas highly scientific range of subjects. The Members of Parliament know of course that they have to become specialists in their field of choice, and they also know that they cannot do so without scientific consultation and advice in issues in which they wish to express their political interest. The question now is: who should provide the scientific advice in the individual subject area – whose expertise is needed?
To this end, there are three typical approaches:
In a given arms control-related subject area, the Member of Parliament discovers a scientific article that corresponds with the opinion of the MP – the author of this article is very likely to be heard as an advisor because he gets the Member of Parliament seeking advice to believe that he possesses scientific expertise. This happens nearly exclusively to newcomers among the Members of Parliament who have not yet taken part in factual discussions in depth over an extended period of time.
The Member of Parliament gets advice from the scientists representing the political guideline of the respective party and who, in many cases, co-elaborated this guideline. This approach is quite easy and renders the making of points easier; it is the standard approach in the central arms control political subject areas.
Scientists try to rouse the Member of Parliament's interest in their positions and ideas. The Members of Parliament contact these scientists on their own initiative and to adopt and convey their ideas – interesting and plausible as they are – as their own political position.
However, I must admit here that, during my term as Subcommittee Secretary, I had been able to observe such approaches – particularly as regards the Members of Parliament in the Subcommittee on Disarmament, Arms Control and Non-Proliferation – only in very few purebred cases. The reason may be that, with only a few exceptions, the parties' positions regarding arms control political issues are absolutely congruent in most cases, and if there are any differences in opinion, the parties endeavor to reach a consensus whenever possible.
This, of course, inevitably leads to the result that the scientists – who deem themselves arms control political advisors – generally act for all parties. However, an approach like that proves to be difficult if the scientists have to try to meet each individual committee member or the arms control political spokespersons of the parliamentary groups, because this often requires numerous attempts and not infrequently ends in frustration. But this frustration is, as a rule, not caused by the lack of interest or even ostentatious resistance against advice on the side of the Member of Parliament; it is rather due to a wrongly chosen way of approach and bad timing.
During my eight-year term in the Subcommittee on Disarmament, Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, I think I was able to free the scientists from this dilemma to a large extent because I could not only use my function to make the contacts and influence the timing, but also actively requested the scientific advice and made it available to the Members of Parliament, sometimes even including possibly extreme positions. It was always a real concern to me to give each scientist, who wanted to do so, the opportunity to express and explain his position, but it was as important to me to offer the Members of Parliament the entire range of scientific positions. I think this approach is only consequent, since we all expect from our elected representatives of the people that they make their decisions after having carefully considered all pros and cons.
Hence, the scientists do not have to face the challenge of becoming advisors for the politicians – this function is unrenounceable in politics – but of positioning themselves successfully as advisors.
Let me make the following recommendation: Try to contact the committee secretary. He is the one with the ways and means to provide target-oriented and timely information to all committee members irrespective of their party affiliation or to suggest expert talks or hearings with scientists to the chairperson(s) or spokespersons of the parliamentary groups.
At any rate, this principle had stood its test over eight years in the Subcommittee on Disarmament, Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, and it resulted in a politico-scientific network which still exists today and is used extensively by the Members of Parliament.
