Home / Europe / The 50th Munich Security Conference and the Shift in German Foreign Policy
Kathrin Möbius via Wikimedia Commons

The 50th Munich Security Conference and the Shift in German Foreign Policy

Germany‘s partners, as Gauck emphasised, should not trouble over her newfound strength. The opposite is true: A Germany that is more open to the world will be an even better friend and ally. And this Germany, “the best we ever had”, will also take more military responsibility. Gauck’s confidence in the stability of Germany’s current social and political system seems unshakeable. This stability should create confidence outside of Germany as it represents a mandate towards more international commitment. What gives even more hope is the fact that Gauck is not alone in his intervention. His thrust was flanked by Germany’s current foreign and defence ministers.

Frank-Walter Steinmeier drew a particularly accurate picture in his speech at the MSC: Germany is too large to stand at the sideline and act as a mere commentator of international politics. This role that Germany accommodated to in recent years certainly did not go down well with her partners. They still remember the infamous abstention from the Security Council vote on the intervention in Libya. Back then, in March 2011, former foreign minister Guido Westerwelle had elevated the culture of restraint to a dogma that he considered absolute, but which in fact isolated Germany among its most important allies.

Steinmeier is right when he says that this was – and still is – interpreted as a morally inflated philosophy of inaction. And this inaction was even more irritating since Germany has the strongest economy in Europe and claims the final say in the European financial policy. The grand coalition that was elected in September last year knows that much is expected of Germany – politically, economically and not least militarily – when it comes to solving conflicts, containing crises or preventing genocide.

The new defence minister, Ursula von der Leyen, took up this argument. In her first speech at the MSC she promised on behalf of the grand coalition to take more international responsibility when it comes to conflicts and crises near and far. “Indifference is not an option for Germany.” Towards Germany’s partners, especially the Americans, she announced a greater share of burden. “If we have the means and capabilities, we also have the duty and the responsibility to act.” The international audience rejoiced in these new tunes. It is only a question of time, however, until these partners will ask her to put her money where her mouth is.

The New World Order

The shift in German policy comes just at the right time. The US-guaranteed liberal world order has come under quite some pressure in recent years. The world’s leading superpower has become tired and is no longer willing to invest her entire political capital in the solution of the many regional conflicts around the globe. Now Germany’s president and some leading members of government have realised that Germany needs to step in to ensure the continuity of both the international order and Germany’s traditional foreign- and security policy that is founded on the two principles of antimilitarism and multilateralism.

Under former chancellor Helmut Schmidt Berechenbarkeit (accountability) in crises was the guiding principle of German foreign policy and later on chancellor Helmut Kohl remarked that Bündnisfähigkeit (multilateralism) was part of Germany’s Staatsräson (reason of state). This had been true during the Cold War and continued to be true after the fall of the Iron Curtain.

What happened back then, however, was a historical misunderstanding that Francis Fukuyama called ‘The End of History’. With the overhasty proclamation of the triumph of democracy and liberalism, the world should be put on autopilot. After the victory in the Persian Gulf, US president George Bush Snr. announced a new world order, based on democracy and liberalism that was supposed to bring joy and happiness to all people around the globe. Governments all over the world started downsizing their armies and curbing military expenditures in an attempt to benefit from the so called peace dividend. Even the United States briefly thought they could withdraw from the world stage. Everyone saw a bright future ahead and only a few grasped the dangerous potential of all the changes that happened: New risks and dangers from failed and failing states, from globally operating networks of terrorists or organised crime, from dictatorial regimes that harbour them, from climate- and environmental catastrophes, from mass migration, from scarcity of natural resources, from global epidemics, or from cyber criminality and -terrorism.

About David Innerhuber

David Innerhuber is a PhD-Candidate at the Department of War Studies, King’s College London. He holds a BA in social sciences from the University of Graz (Austria) and an MA (with distinction) in history and international relations from Brunel University London. From 2005 to 2006 he served in the Austrian Army and, during that time, participated in the NATO-led peace-keeping mission to Kosovo (KFOR).