Germany's New Role

German Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen
Source: CDU/CSU-Bundestagsfraktion.

When former German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle was voted out of office in last year’s elections, his policy of military restraint left with him. The newly appointed Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen recently determined Germany’s new orientation. When asked about Germany’s new role in countries like the Central African Republic, she stated: “We can't look away when murder and rape are taking place daily.” And she is not alone. Westerwelle’s successor in the Foreign Office, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, explained Germany’s new role in Africa to the press: “Europe can't leave France on its own.” This weekend, Germany’s President Joachim Gauck held a speech at the Munich Security Conference, where he expressed his opinion that “Germany should make a more substantial contribution [to conflict prevention], and it should make it earlier and more decisively if it is to be a good partner.”

German’s allies have long been demanding from it to take responsibility, a political catchword that actually means a stronger military engagement in the world. US President Obama hinted at this request in his speech at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin last June when he said that we - the USA and Europe - have to “see ourselves as part of something bigger than our own experience” in order to meet global challenges like terrorism, extremism or poverty, and he continues: “Our alliance is the foundation of global security.”

In order to understand Germany’s reluctance when it comes to military interventions, one must know that unlike other countries where the president or government sends out troops, in Germany every military action needs the approval of the parliament. There is also the fact that these military actions are extremely unpopular among Germans, a legacy of its belligerent past. These two taken together explain why Germany usually prefers to pursue its checkbook-diplomacy.

The new coalition of conservatives and center-left Social Democrats holds around 80 percent of the seats in parliament, which opens entirely new possibilities for policymakers. A German government that has the power to outvote the opposition of socialists and the Green Party, both traditionally averse to military interventions, could effectively initiate a bolder foreign policy with an increased military engagement. Of course it has to be mentioned that a superiority of that sort has its downside as well.

The idea that Germany might send more soldiers into more countries provokes unrest among many people in the media, including the SPIEGEL magazine columnist Jakob Augstein (article in German). He argues that the Afghanistan mission, Germany’s largest military intervention since WWII, was a huge waste of lives, materiel and money and, moreover, completely futile since the country will be the same soon after the last German troops leave by the end of this year. Unfortunately, he might be right. But this does not allow to conclude that all military missions are equally useless. The Kosovo intervention, even though legally questionable, stopped an ongoing genocide, while France’s engagement in Mali caused militant jihadists to retreat. Furthermore, Augstein states that today’s cultural conflicts cannot be resolved with arms. This might be true, but not all of today’s conflicts are cultural. Many revolve around money, power or natural resources.

German soldiers in Mali. Source: Bundeswehr/Timo Wirtz

One important aspect that often remains unmentioned is that a stronger German engagement does not at all mean the sending of strike forces. It means support and it means peacekeeping. Augstein lists the number of fallen German troops in Afghanistan (54 soldiers and policemen) and asks if their deaths were not enough already? Well, if peacekeeping missions help to prevent civil wars and genocides, then the death of soldiers was not in vain. Soldiers know that they risk their lives for other people. To put it bluntly, death is part of their job. Of course it is painful for the family members and the society as a whole, but unfortunately peace sometimes only comes to a certain price.

In his book War, Guns, and Votes (New York 2009), Paul Collier explains how “expenditure on peacekeeping strongly and significantly reduces the risk that a post-conflict situation will revert to civil war” (p. 83), but he also describes the problem with peacekeeping: “It is expensive and unpopular.” (p. 85) The German society should not be too skeptical when it comes to military interventions. Von der Leyen is not wrong when she says: “Due to globalization, distant conflicts are now much closer to Europe, whether we like it or not.” Look closely at my two quotations of her. She justifies military intervention with ethical responsibility as well as with European security concerns. It is those reasons why Germany should not follow the policy of military restraint any longer but cooperate with its international partners in supporting struggling countries. The talk is done, now Germany must back its words with actions.