Germany’s cowardly foreign policy

The German government’s decision not to participate in military action against Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi – primarily for domestic political reasons – is deeply irresponsible, argues Markus Horeld from ZEIT ONLINE.

Germany's cowardly foreign policy
Photo: DPA

The international community spent three weeks squabbling over whether to impose a no-fly zone over Libya. During these three weeks, Muammar Qaddafi bombed his own people and managed to retake most rebel-held territory in the North African country.

Then, when it was nearly too late, the United Nations Security Council agreed a no-fly zone and authorized military intervention last Thursday. But at least the international community showed that it is not totally indifferent to such horrific human rights abuses.

And this should not be taken for granted. In many countries, like Sudan, Congo, Iran, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and China, the world prefers to watch and do nothing rather than stand up for what is right.

Of course, to be honest, the United Nations probably could not have moved much faster. The support of the Arab League was crucial for the no-fly resolution and its enforcement, and it prevaricated for a long time before finally coming out in favour of military intervention in Libya.

The German government, on the other hand, took a more cowardly route. It abstained in the Security Council vote, aligning itself with the likes of Russia and China.

Such an irresponsible move will have consequences, and not only for the reputation of Germany among those protesting and dying for freedom in the Arab world. Our European partners will also remember this the next time Germany presses for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council and demands more international influence.

Some of the concerns that German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle has voiced against this military intervention are certainly valid. And the consequences of attacks on Qaddafi’s forces could indeed be dramatic.

The international community risks being dragged into a bloody civil war. It will have to destroy Libya’s air defence systems to protect its pilots. So what happens if Qaddafi stations his artillery in school playgrounds? What about civilian casualties? And how will the West react if the rebels attack civilians loyal to Qaddafi?

The current conflict in Libya could become a long and dirty war. This is not to argue against a Western intervention with Arab participation, but the risks have to be acknowledged. Hardly any supporters of military intervention are doing that at the moment, and it’s dishonest.

But the German government’s abstention is downright cowardly, particularly because there is a strong suspicion that domestic political concerns influenced the decision. If Germany had voted in favour of the military strikes against Qaddafi in the Security Council, then German participation would have been virtually unavoidable.

With important state elections looming, Chancellor Angela Merkel’s centre-right wanted to avoid this at all costs, because a majority of Germans oppose military engagements abroad. However, a responsible foreign policy cannot be guided by such considerations.

If Westerwelle is now claiming that Germany cannot fight against oppression everywhere in the world, then he has irrevocably cheapened his argument. In that case, no military intervention – including Berlin’s current participation in Afghanistan – can be justified.

This commentary was published with the kind permission of ZEIT ONLINE, where it originally appeared in German. Translation by The Local.

Member comments

Log in here to leave a comment.
Become a Member to leave a comment.


US Congress moves to block Trump’s withdrawal of troops from Germany

US lawmakers have announced a bill that would delay the withdrawal of US troops until after President Donald Trump has left office, thus opening a door to a reversal of a decision announced by Trump in the summer.

US Congress moves to block Trump's withdrawal of troops from Germany
A US soldier in Grafenwöhr, Bavaria. Photo: DPA

The National Defence Authorization Act (NDAA), which still needs to pass through the US Congress, specifies that a troop withdrawal can only happen 120 days after the defence secretary presents a report to Congress analysing whether the troop withdrawal is in the US national interest.

In June, President Trump announced plans to withdraw close to 12,000 of the 36,000 US troops based in Germany, citing Berlin’s failure to meet its NATO spending commitments.

As Trump is to leave office on January 20th, to be replaced by Democrat Joe Biden, the bill casts doubt on the entire troop withdrawal.

READ ALSO: Trump 'to withdraw thousands of US soldiers from Germany by end of 2020'

Trump still has the chance to veto the bill, something he indicated that he would do on Wednesday, although the objections he cited in a Twitter post did not reference the block on his troop withdrawal plans. A two thirds majority in Congress could then overturn his veto.

Trump's plans met with criticism from the US military top brass, as well as from his own Republican party. In Congress, both Democrats and Trump's Republicans announced their opposition to the plans.

The bill now states that Congress continues to value Germany as a strong NATO partner. The presence of the “approximately 34,500 members of the U.S. armed forces stationed in Germany” serves as an important deterrent against Russia's expansionist ambitions in Europe, it states. 

The bill further states that the U.S. troops in Germany are of central importance for supporting U.S. missions in the Middle East, Africa and Afghanistan.

A few weeks after Trump's announcement, the now dismissed US Secretary of Defence Mark Esper made it clear that the plans were to be implemented “as quickly as possible”. As yet though, there has been no troop reduction.

A good half of the 12,000 soldiers were to be recalled to the USA, while 5,600 were to be transferred to other NATO countries.

Three locations in Baden-Württemberg, Bavaria and Rhineland-Palatinate would be particularly hard hit by the plans: Stuttgart, Vilseck and Spangdahlem.