Opinion Germany's Dangerous New Foreign Policy Doctrine

With its abstention in the UN Security Council vote on Libya, Germany has abandoned its strict alignment with the West, a basic tenet of German foreign policy for decades. Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle's new doctrine is a dangerous one. It would be disastrous for Germany's Western partners began doubting Berlin's committment.

By

Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle: Let the others take care of unpleasant things.
dapd

Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle: Let the others take care of unpleasant things.


"My God, what will become of Germany when I'm gone?" Konrad Adenauer, West Germany's first chancellor, said 50 years ago. His overriding goal was to keep Germany firmly anchored in the West. He believed that integrating Germany in Europe and keeping it closely allied with the United States was necessary to protect the Germans from themselves. Adenauer was afraid that his compatriots might once again be tempted to veer out and forge their own path. Until a few weeks ago, this fear seemed absurd. But the situation has changed.

By abstaining in the United Nations Security Council vote on the resolution to impose a no-fly zone over Libya, the government has given up what had been a cross-party consensus on German security policy. Until now, Germany was committed to siding with America and France. That wasn't always easy. Sometimes, for example before the 2003 Iraq war, it was impossible. On Iraq, Germany had to choose between one of its two most important partners. But it remained convinced that on no account should it oppose both nations at the same time.

The government has now given up this basic tenet of German policy.

The official explanation is an excuse: Germany doesn't want to take part in a war against Libya, said Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle. If Germany had voted in favor of a no-fly zone, joining the military mission would have been unavoidable, he claims. But such an automatic link between voting yes and taking part doesn't exist. Germany could have voiced its quite justified misgivings and still sided with the other Western nations. That would not have forced it to commit German forces to the military operation.

Central Principles of German Foreign Policy in Doubt

In fact, much more is at stake than the question of a German military contribution. Chancellor Angela Merkel and Westerwelle have called central principles of German foreign policy into question. This will have consequences. Germany's westward integration wasn't just the obsession of Adenauer, a Rhinelander. It was a response to the fundamental problem of Europe's balance of power.

What was to become of this restless nation in the center of Europe that had spent its history shifting between east and west, that for so long entertained a special awareness of its historical role and that started two world wars?

The Germans have come up with three different answers to this question over the last 150 years. Chancellor Otto von Bismarck pursued an equilibrium, trying to preserve peace by preventing other nations from allying themselves against Germany. But even a diplomat as skilled as Bismarck wasn't able to maintain the precarious balance of power. The collapse of his system resulted in World War I. Adolf Hitler tried to solve the problem by trying to dominate Europe by force. That resulted in total defeat. Only with Adenauer's policy of firmly aligning West Germany with the West was the republic able to find its place in Europe and the world.

That makes it so alarming when Westerwelle proclaims Germany's UN abstention as the birth of a new foreign policy doctrine. In the future, Germany wants to cherry-pick its own partners in the world. That can be France, Britain and America, but it could also on occasion be Brazil or India. The principle of "If in doubt, stick with the West'" no longer applies.

Westerwelle's New Doctrine is Contradictory

This new doctrine ignores Germany's history. It is deeply contradictory. On the one hand Westerwelle is exaggerating Germany's international role -- even a superpower like the US can't keep up such a policy of shifting alliances in the long run. Germany would be hopelessly overreaching itself by doing so. If Bismarck didn't manage it, Westerwelle doesn't have a hope. It would be disastrous for Germany if its Western partners began to doubt its commitment to them.

At the same time, Westerwelle is making Germany more insignificant than it really is. He wants Germany to be a country that doesn't send any soldiers on foreign missions and instead serves as a role model for peace. This Germany wants its role in the Security Council to be about abolishing child soldiers and landmines, not about imposing no-fly zones. It wants to leave the unpleasant matters for others to sort out.

The Libyan controversy highlights this double standard. Westerwelle was at the forefront of Western politicians supporting the popular uprisings in Arab countries. But he left it to others to keep protesters from being massacred. That is simply hypocritical. One can't accuse the other European countries of being too slow in backing a weapons and oil embargo while at the same time withdrawing German ships that could enforce such an embargo.

Scoring Domestic Points at the Expense of Germany's Reputation

The pacifist cloak doesn't make the new unilateralism any more appealing. Our partners are as averse to an overbearing Germany as they are to a Germany that shirks its responsibilities. The government is currently doing both at the same time: shooting its mouth off and ducking away. This new German exceptionalism is distasteful -- just listen to how Defense Minister Thomas de Maiziere or Development Minister Dirk Niebel are more or less directly accusing their allies of just bombing Libya for the sake of the country's oil.

This supposed new foreign policy doctrine smacks of domestic populism. Westerwelle has succumbed to such temptations before. He opposed the Iraq war, but then complained that Germany's "no" had damaged the trans-Atlantic alliance. He has been demanding the withdrawal of militarily redundant nuclear weapons from German soil although they are an important symbol of Germany's cooperation with the US. He's more worried about scoring political points at home than about the damage he's doing to Germany's standing in the world.

It has been the same pattern with Libya. Westerwelle's advisors in the Foreign Ministry recommended that Germany should vote "yes" in the Security Council. He ignored their advice because that would have diluted his domestic message: no involvement of German troops.

Angela Merkel didn't stop her foreign minister. She has often shown the right foreign policy instincts. But she probably wanted to avoid a public debate about German military involvement ahead of important regional elections. That kind of thinking would be in line with her character.

Perhaps she agrees with Westerwelle's view that the old certainties no longer apply. In that case a Christian Democrat chancellor would be jettisoning Germany's policy of Western loyalty -- a stance that was part of her party's creed for decades.

Article...
Comments
Discuss this issue with other readers!
8 total posts
Show all comments
Page 1
josepht 03/29/2011
1. German commitment against genocide
The refusal by Germany to participate with other UNSC forces against Libya is a grave mistake for two key reasons: 1. The UNSC and Libyans obviously need help. 2. Regardless of what Germany states, the refusal to participate leaves an impression that Germany do not care about the genocide of Libyans. Considered collectively, Germany really looks bad here. This one act to help Libya could redeem Germany because it could have taken a stand against genocide. As the world can clearly see, Germans truly do not care about people in Africa. Their decision no doubt has links to the racist nature of many Germans. The psychology of the German mind continues to remain out of step with the world. As nations evolve Germany chooses to stand alone. This is a sad time to be a German. Until you change your ways: Shame on you.
pegasusdba 03/30/2011
2.
Zitat von sysopWith its abstention in the UN Security Council vote on Libya, Germany has abandoned its strict alignment with the West, a basic tenet of German foreign policy for decades. Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle's new doctrine is a dangerous one. It would be disastrous for Germany's Western partners began doubting Berlin's committment. http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,753886,00.html
While withholding support for the UN action on Libya may not be wise (given its humanitarian reasons), your article seems to suggest that giving up the tradition of following in the footsteps of the USA is a bad thing. Have you forgotten about Iraq; how about the financial crisis? In another article, it is asked if the USA and "old" Europe can learn from eachother. As an American moving to live in Germany, I can assure you that it is a waste of time to think that Americans, generally, give two cents for what Europeans think. To them, the US is a huge island, surrounded by many little island nations that they could do without. Sad but true. Europeans must remain far-sighted, and not assume that their default action would be what the US chooses. You will see that the USA will be the "Old" country in another 50 years.
javiersosanin 03/30/2011
3. this note is exaggerating!
Zitat von sysopWith its abstention in the UN Security Council vote on Libya, Germany has abandoned its strict alignment with the West, a basic tenet of German foreign policy for decades. Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle's new doctrine is a dangerous one. It would be disastrous for Germany's Western partners began doubting Berlin's committment. http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,753886,00.html
What's wrong with saying NO to the biggest terrorist country in the world -USA- and such pirates and killers countries in Europe -France and Great Britain-?... I'm very proud of german decision. Germany has proved that it's able to neglect its traditional allies if it worths it. There's no need to kowtow to countries wich are just looking for oil, bombing inocent people to achieve it. United States of America and its bootlickers DO NOT RULE the world. Merkel does not need of western killers pirates to be friends. German people can find its place in the world, fighting for justice without blowing cities. It is a very big nation, and I don't think that this article thinks the same..
javiersosanin 03/30/2011
4.
Zitat von josephtThe refusal by Germany to participate with other UNSC forces against Libya is a grave mistake for two key reasons: 1. The UNSC and Libyans obviously need help. 2. Regardless of what Germany states, the refusal to participate leaves an impression that Germany do not care about the genocide of Libyans. Considered collectively, Germany really looks bad here. This one act to help Libya could redeem Germany because it could have taken a stand against genocide. As the world can clearly see, Germans truly do not care about people in Africa. Their decision no doubt has links to the racist nature of many Germans. The psychology of the German mind continues to remain out of step with the world. As nations evolve Germany chooses to stand alone. This is a sad time to be a German. Until you change your ways: Shame on you.
1. If they need help. Why should german army bombs them? 2. German foreing policy was looking for a pacific resoluttion. And I've got a question for you... what about the genocide of United States, France and Great Britain in hospitals of Tripoli? Or are they boming Libia and killing inocent people for Liberty? COME ON!
Observing 03/30/2011
5. Es geht doch gar nicht um die Menschen
Wen interessieren denn schon die Menschen? Was wir brauchen ist ein friedlicher Machthaber der uns das Oel ohne Probleme gibt. Also, es kann mir keiner mehr erzaehlen, dass die Weltpolitiker, die im Dienst der Banken und "Corporations" stehen, die jahrelang die Gesellschaften auch westlicher Laender systematisch mit Privatisierungen und Sozialabbau gequaelt haben, das solche Menschen sich ueberhaupt fuer Menschenleben interessieren.Solche Menschen haben viele Menschen, und andere Lebensarten, bereits auf dem Gewissen. Deutschlands Fuehrungsspitze weiss dies. Da Deutschland staendig daran arbeitet den Euro aufrecht zu erhalten und dauernd irgendwelche Lander retten muss, kann ich schon verstehen, dass ein Krieg in Lybien jetzt einfach mal zuviel ist. Er ist ja eigendlich unbezahlbar, genau wie unsere moderne Gesellschaft. Es geht immer nur einzig und alleine ums Geld, Energie und wie die Boerse angeheizt werden kann damit mehr Geld weg von der Strasse... frei an die Spitze der Finanzpyramide fliessen kann. Jetzt, wie wir das Ende des billigen Oels erricht haben, eben auch Peak Oel erricht haben, wird es viele neue Energiekriege geben. Warum sollte Deutschland da mitmachen? Wir brauchen alle Energie, als Menschheit um eine neue, ein sich selbsterhaltendes Wirtschaftsssystem, zu errichten. Kriege helfen uns dabei nicht weiter, im Gegenteil. Ausserdem, ich frage mich schon, wer kann Laender friedfertig fuehren, welche ihre eigenen Kapazitaeten der natuerlichen Selbstreguliering ueberschritten haben? Da wird es nie mehr Frienden geben, denn die Menschen machen einfach zu viele Kinder die dann alle einen westlichen Lebenstil wollen, in einer Zeit wo die Energie knapp wird, naja, und dann gibt es Rebellionen, und diese werden auch nicht aufhoeren mit Fuehrungswechsel. Es wird nur eine kurze Ruhepause einkehren, bis die Menschen einsehen, das nichts besser wird sondern nur noch schlechter. Wir mussten eigendlich ganz andere Fragen stellen.
Show all comments
Page 1

© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2011
All Rights Reserved
Reproduction only allowed with the permission of SPIEGELnet GmbH


Die Homepage wurde aktualisiert. Jetzt aufrufen.
Hinweis nicht mehr anzeigen.