Germany likes to pride itself among European countries as one of the main supporters of disarmament, of curbing the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and of protecting existing conventions such as the prohibition of chemical weapons.
Judy Dempsey
More from this author...But when, not for the first time, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime allegedly dropped a barrel bomb containing poison gas, this time on the town of Douma, the United States, France, and Britain responded. They attacked Assad’s chemical weapons plants. Germany remained on the sidelines. Angela Merkel had categorically ruled out any German involvement.
“Germany will not be militarily involved,” Merkel said. “We recognize and we support the fact that every effort is being made to signal that the use of chemical weapons is unacceptable.” Once the Western strikes had taken place, Merkel said that “the military response was successful and appropriate.”
It’s hard to know what “successful” and “appropriate” means given the appalling suffering meted out by the Assad regime and the rebels on civilians and how Assad’s military infrastructure is still intact. “We make it easy for ourselves, letting the others do the dirty work,” said former German defense minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg from Bavaria’s conservative Christian Social Union.
What is clear is that German foreign policy with regard to Syria, Russia, and Iran is becoming increasingly shortsighted.
Take Syria. No Western country emerges well from this seven-year and counting war—leaving aside Merkel’s decision to take in over one million refugees fleeing the violence.
The vacuum left by the United States and European countries to keep out of the war, at least formally, has been filled principally by Iran and Russia. Without their military support, the Assad regime would have had already collapsed.
Iran and Russia are now intent on carving out an arc of influence in this part of the Middle East. No wonder Israel is extremely worried. Since the West isn’t going to rein in Iran, Israel has been forced to launch air attacks on Iranian targets in Syria to try and stop Tehran from establishing a permanent foothold close to its border.
Germany’s response to Iran is similar to France’s and the EU’s. All three have been fawning toward Iran.
For Merkel, French President Emmanuel Macron and the EU’s foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini, saving the Iran nuclear deal in the wake of threats by the Trump administration to tear it up is their priority.
It is rare to hear, if at all, EU governments speak out against Iran’s support of Hezbollah, of Hamas, and how it is propping up the Assad regime. Not to mention the fact that Iran refuses to accept Israel’s right to exist.
As for Russia’s role in Syria: in addition to its cyberattack on the German foreign ministry and the parliament, Russian meddling in elections in EU member states, and the poison attack on Sergei Skripal, Merkel’s coalition of Christian Democrats and Social Democrats is floundering. There is no clarity about how to respond to Russian interference.
The Christian Social Union—the sister party of Merkel’s Christian Democrats—have repeatedly questioned EU sanctions on Russia and their effectiveness. German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier, a Social Democrat, and Michael Roth, Germany’s minister for Europe, have each warned against Germans demonizing Russia.
Heiko Maas, Germany’s Social Democrat foreign minister, who has been tougher than his party colleagues on Russia since taking office a few weeks ago, said there can be no military solution, only a political solution, to the war in Syria.
“It is time, I think, to point out that we expect constructive contributions from the Russian side, including on the Syrian conflict. And also that they don’t always simply protect al-Assad,” he said. “Whether we like it or not, this conflict cannot be solved without Russia.” But on what, and whose, terms?
Russia has repeatedly vetoed resolutions by the United Nations Security Council over Syria, leaving it toothless. Macron didn’t seek support by the EU for France’s missile attacks on Syria. The UN and the EU are competing for helplessness in responding to the war.
As for Berlin, if it is going to sit on the sidelines when it comes to upholding the ban on chemical weapons, it could adopt a much stronger policy toward Russia.
Merkel should, for example, abandon the Nord Stream 2 pipeline that is being built by a consortium of German and other European energy companies led by Gazprom. Merkel has repeatedly described the project as a commercial one. It isn’t. It is a highly political one. The pipeline will not only deny Ukraine important transfer fees for sending Russian gas to Europe; it will increase Germany’s dependence on Russian gas and tie German energy companies even closer to the Kremlin.
Also, statements by several Social Democrats and Christian Social Union politicians about the need to have a dialogue with Russia tend to forget two things. First, Russia’s involvement in Syria has prolonged the war and helped create a refugee crisis. Furthermore, when it comes to Ukraine, cyberattacks, and the disinformation war, Russia is the aggressor. This is a word rarely, if ever, used by Mogherini, by Steinmeier, or by other officials who yearn for a return to business as usual with Vladimir Putin. Merkel should put the record straight—and match it with deeds to put some teeth on German and European foreign policy. Otherwise, helplessness will turn into irrelevancy.
Comments(9)
Good lord ... once again self-righteous interventionist laments that fewer and fewer countries buy the narrative of getting militarily involved in MENA quagmires. Fact is the one principle majorities of germans adhere to is that military force for anything but self-defense is borderline amoral and unethical ... and at least morally unconstitutional. That is what drives the german political meandering for the most part: A different policy would cost them in the domestic arena and given the recent problems with forming a (somewhat unstable governing coalition) neither the CDU nor the SPD want to have a domestic strife about this topic lest it could end up in a debate that neither party could contain or even control anymore. The fact that the constant hawking from interventionist and atlanticist circles (including this ThinkTank here) keeps bouncing off german perceptions is obviously galling to its proponents ... as this opinion piece reveals.
A fresh and pertinent take on why Germany needs to take a more constructive role in shaping the EU's and, more broadly, the West's policy in the Middle East.
You have forgotten very good and closed relationships of Iran and Germany _ I ca nt believe that Iran would never be the enemy of Germany.To much many Iran involved and to much joint technology and hidden ideology the have in common
I disagree with the criticism of Germany. President Trump said on Sunday that he knew he would be demeaned for using the term “mission accomplished”. On that at least he proved to be right. But what was the mission? Firstly, to prove at low cost that when Mr. Trump draws a redline, unlike his predecessor, he enforces it; he is a strong leader. Secondly, to distract attention from his endless internal political problems. President Obama’s failure to enforce his redline continues to draw lots of criticism. However, it was his choice to give diplomacy an opportunity which soon led to the elimination of Syria’s chemical weapons under OPCW supervision enabling the world to breathe a sigh of relief. Had that mission not been accomplished, target selection for the latest missile attacks would have been mission impossible. Because, under customary international humanitarian law, when a choice is possible between several military objectives for obtaining a similar military advantage, the objective to be selected must be the one expected to cause the least danger to civilian lives and to civilian objects. Since Syria’s chemical weapons were destroyed, the latest missile attacks were undertaken in the knowledge that they would under no circumstances cause a huge chemical weapons disaster. As for the second part of the mission, though the missile attacks may remain in the headlines for a few more days, it clear that they would not change America’s political agenda. At the UN Security Council debate, American, British and French Ambassadors, in underlining the noble principles which inspire their countries, frequently referred to respect for international law. The first two countries, however, had undertaken the invasion of Iraq under false premises. And, all three had engaged in military operations in Libya in ways which went far beyond the parameters established by the UN Security Council Resolution 1973 (2011). Little wonder, therefore, that following the latest attack some have drawn attention to similarities between Iraq and Syria. At the time President Chirac was an opponent of the invasion. When Resolution 1973 was voted on, Germany then a non-permanent member of the Security Council, abstained. Berlin has also condemned what happened in Douma but has again remained reserved. Regardless of what they say, not even one of the countries involved in the Syrian conflict is able to claim the moral high ground because through their eight-year involvement in Syria’s proxy wars they have all violated international law. External interventions have done great damage to America’s global standing. President Obama understood this, but he was somehow lured in by President Sarkozy and PM Cameron to joining the misguided Libya intervention. If not President Trump, policy makers in Washington should make sure that the same mistake is not repeated. Since President Putin has always been a strong critic of U.S. interventions in Iraq and Libya for having led to chaos and devastation, he now wishes to display Russia’s peacemaking capacity. Washington also needs to prove that. The key to peace in Syria remains Russia-U.S. cooperation. If President Trump can meet “Rocket Man”, he should also be able to meet President Putin. But the first step to progress is to make sure that the OPCW is allowed to fully investigate what happened in Douma. Presidents Assad and Putin owe that much to the world.
According to “La Liberation” citing the official military French sources: “ douze missiles ont été tirés, neuf par des Rafale et trois par une frégate multimissions (Fremm), présente en Méditerranée.” - a total of twelve. According to Pentagon sources the RAF fired a total of eight missiles, grand total of twenty. Would it make a significant difference Germany firing some, in retaliation to what the author describes as an “allegedly” bombing, even after Macron has clearly stated that he has proof? It is clear that the EU NATO members need to increase their capabilities and when participating carry a heavier burden. We already know that from Afghanistan. Germany, France, UK, Italy all had elections. The construct “liberal democracy” is widely used, yet a cursory analysis of these elections shows that public discussions relegate any real debate on foreign policy and war to the periphery. Obama’s good-bye speech in Germany was a perfect example: instead of mobilizing the audience for increased involvement in military activity and especially increased budgets, he talked about the best times to be alive (while asking the US taxpayer to pay billions for his ERI). During the US electoral campaign neither candidate insisted on increasing the US military expenses in Europe, aligned with the Obama policy; quite the opposite for Trump, who later expended political capital to increase the ERI cost. The latest US defense documents, including the NPR, show clearly the complexities of the geopolitical situation, and, volens nolens, the EU NATO members will align with it, including the aforementioned heavyweights. Ideally, the EU, wealthiest, largest construct in Western history should have developed an independent foreign and military policy; the history of internecine warfare which has plagued the European history has showed that peace is always better. Unfortunately, in the world we live, without a sizeable strategic nuclear triad this is not possible (at least according to India and China). Then author asks for more military involvement of Germany in Syria (and that should apply to France and the UK also) but let’s not forget that what we see there today is also a consequence of their involvement there for centuries. In terms of cyberwarfare, which according to the NPR could become nuclear, it is imperious to realize that the last thing the Silicon Valley advertisers had in mind is security; after all Cambridge Analytica stole data which Facebook was supposed to monetize.
the problem of such analysis regarding the role of Iran in the region is that it's reproducing the meta-narrative of an aggressive Iran who is following his power projection and they are victims like Israel who has the right of self-defense. It is somehow one-sided look and missed a lot of realities on the ground. What is behind of Iran's strategic presence in a region full of chaos and instabilities? For me, it is a response for survival and self-help in an environment surrounded by conventional and emerging threats and enemies. Instead of inviting Germany to play a military role under these circumstances, it's better to give chance to have a regional dialogue not against Iran but including Iran and about coming regional security structure in interest of all players. In this regard Germany as a credible mediator for both parts of this dialogue which shares a lot of interests by many in the region, can play a constructive role. let us find the commonalities of strategic logic behind European and Iranian presence in the Middle East not investing our thoughts in paving the way for a zero-life Middle East.
I must disagree with the author in this case. Truly, nonintervention is the only way for most powers to stay clean in the current mess in Syria. Look at the United States, for example. It has effectively three options: continue its current occasional bombardment approach, support local groups such as the Syrian Democratic Forces to a greater extent, or commit its own forces directly to the conflict. As we have seen this month, the first of those options results in nothing but flag waving and leaves Assad's government capable of waging war. The second option was also tried, and it provoked massive Russian intervention, something anyone can agree is not desirable. The third option has thankfully not been tried, for though it could topple Assad, direct intervention would pressure Putin into an escalation with the potential to start the first general power war since 1945. Almost any action in Syria is more trouble than it is worth for the West. The only option I can see for the nations already involved is to continue to support aligned groups in Syria and eventually come to the table with Assad and Putin, though both are notably untrustworthy. I must say I envy any state not already engaged somehow in the conflict; it is a no-win scenario that the Germans have every right to avoid
I think the criticism of Germany in this situation is valid. There is no question that even within the US military there are reservations about the missile strikes in terms of effectiveness. This is especially the case since President Trump has repeatedly raised the issue of withdrawal of US forces form Syria. But ultimately the German decision not to participate in the attack was not driven by strategic considerations, but rather by a disabling fear of the use of military action in a situation where Russians could potentially be killed and conflict with Russia could take place. This attack was just expensive punishment for bad behavior on the part of the Syrians and the Russians who actually maintain the Syrian air force. It sent a message, but little more.
@ US army retired The german non-participation also had very large legal and especially domestic components. Simply put the german constitution does not give any politician the authority to "declare war" or use military force in support of foreign policy. If the government wants to deploy the Bundeswehr it has to get a mandate from the Bundestag and that one can only be based on a clear mandate given by a "system of common or collective security". Currently only the UN has the unquestioned authority to mandate a departure from the general rule of non-violence but in this case, given the russian veto in the UNSC, no such mandate would be forthcoming. This ties in with domestic currents: For starters neither NATO nor the EU, despite government statements to the contrary, have a clear authority to sanction use of military force according to a number of legal studies conducted in the aftermath of the Kosovo war back in 1999. Had the german government decided to ask the Bundestag for a mandate the opposition would have put the issue to the Court of Constitution and the outcome of this would have been very uncertain (with far-reaching consequences for NATO and EU from a german legal POV). Secondly the governing coalition is very weak and highly fractured, especially the SPD has no love for "militarized foreign policy" so that would have been a second domestic current that acted as a disincentive to the government to even consider participation. And thirdly a clear majority of germans did not support the strike and were supportive of non-participation by Germany. So, basically, we neither have the constitutional, legal and "cultural" base that would have made participation a realistic possibility. Other states only look at our economic potential but given that a large slice of the german society continues to reject the concept of seeing military force as a "normal" tool for conducting foreign policy (and all the frictions and stress this puts on political life here) we're simply the wrong kind of country and the wrong kind of people for this type of "cruise missile diplomacy".
Comment Policy
Comments that include profanity, personal attacks, or other inappropriate material will be removed. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, steps will be taken to block users who violate any of the posting standards, terms of use, privacy policies, or any other policies governing this site. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.