In Defence of Germany

Among the many odd things about the Libyan “debate” is the argument that Germany’s decision to abstain during the Security Council vote is somehow disgraceful and proof that Germany still isn’t ready to play its part on the international stage. (Obviously some of these objections come from the kind of rightists who fear or dislike German influence in other, more peaceful, areas of international politics and business. But never mind.) But Germany’s vote seems qualitatively different from the BRIC-blog of abstentions.

Brazil, India, China and Russia each have reasons to be wary of this kind of resolution and, indeed, this kind of precedent. Deep down, I suspect some of them would have liked to vote against the resolution. Germany’s view seems like a much more honest abstention, founded upon an honest assessment of the situation. You might not agree with the German position but the idea that havibg doubts about a new war is “dsgraceful” is patently absurd.

No-one takes this to more ludicrous heights than Iain Dale who has produced a piece of tub-thumping, Kraut-bashing nonsense that might embarrass even the vilest of our tabloids:

But at some point, Germany needs to understand something. It can’t be a leading member of the international community if it abstains on the big questions. Its economic size and population give Germany international responsibilities which it ought to have the courage to meet. But on Thursday night it abstained on the UN resolution for a no fly zone over Libya, and at the earlier EU Summit it prevented the EU coming to a united position.

Germany is a member of the UN security council at the moment. To abstain on a motion like the one on Thursday ought to be seen as a national embarrassment. Instead, Angela Merkel will probably receive domestic plaudits. If the international community needed proof that Germany has become an intrinsically pacifist country, this provided it. Some may see that as a good thing. I don’t.

Britain has acted in its own national interest, but also provided international leadership. Germany has acted in cowardice and sent a message to the world that it doesn’t feel it has any international responsibilities.

A third of the German flag is taken up by the colour yellow. Perhaps that proportion should be expanded.

Actually, the embarrassing thing would be to be bullied into supporting a resolution that you’re not sure is actually wise or necessary. Having doubts is not shameful and I don’t see why we are supposed to think that Germany should have supported the resolution simply because Britain, France and other countries were doing so.

Perhaps I’m missing something, but if sovereignty means anything it must permit sovereign, friendly nations to disagree on matters of major international importance. (And if the Germans are bad europeans for preventing a common EU approach doesn’t that just mean theyre fulfilling the traditional British role? Which in turn means they must, from the eurosceptic position, be the Good Guys in this instance.)

As for this notion that the Germans are cowards – an inference which should properly shame Iain Dale – where does that leave civilians all across europe and the United States? Once the planes take to the sky the war’s approval ratings will doubtless soar but at present there does not seem to be majority support for these operations in either Britain or the United States. That doesn’t invalidate the case for war but, per Iain Dale, it must apparently make cowards out of all who aren’t super-enthusiastic about a war that has no obviously defined objective, nor anything even approaching an exit strategy.