RSS

Mon, Mar 29th 2010, 18:42

Olaf Theiler, Political Scientist, German Armed Forces, Platinum Contributor (173)

This is an article worth reading, especially for Germans. Normally I would not quote so extensively, but since only a short outline is available here, I think the following is worth reading:

Quote from FT:
"The new Germany has a narrower – some would say selfish – view of its interests. It is unburdened by the guilt that shaped a postwar generation. ...
The passive Berlin sits content under a US security umbrella, but wants to rid its soil of American nuclear weapons. It has bowed to pressure to send troops to Afghanistan, but under conditions calculated to demonstrate that the mission is an unrepeatable exception. Meanwhile, the other, assertive Germany insists that rules of the eurozone cannot elevate the common over the national interest.
All in all, solidarity with allies and neighbours now takes its place in the queue behind German public opinion. Some will say: and why not? Why should Germany play the part of the altruist? We cannot expect Germans to be forever paying reparations. No one would ask Mr Sarkozy, or for that matter Britain’s Gordon Brown, to elevate the European ahead of national interests.
We are merely witnessing an inevitable shift. The second half of the 20th century was the exception. Germany is now a “normal” country. If it chooses a future as Greater Switzerland, what has the rest of Europe to complain about?”

The Article is criticising this change of attitude of Germany. And rightfully so - at least partly. I would argue that the Article is wrong criticising Germany to become selfish suddenly and even more wrong on linking this to the “guilt that shaped a postwar generation”. Nevertheless, the Article is right on making a point against Germany becoming a “Greater Switzerland”, although it is not providing any kind of argument why it shouldn’t.
First, it seems to be a unfortunate fact of our time that nations are becoming more selfish than ever. This is not only the case with Germany but with most European nations. Just some examples: There was the Spanish blockage of EU enlargement in order to protect their own structure funds filled with EU taxpayers money – most of it German money since we still are the biggest net contributor in the EU. Some of the blockages on the way to the Lisbon Treaty were also caused by national egoism. The same is true for the lack of progress on the European Security and Defence Policy, namely on the question of capabilities. It shouldn’t be a problem of enlarging that list even further.
Is this an excuse for Germany? Maybe not, but neither is it for the others. And here we have to address the second issue, the notion that Germany was paying “reparations” whenever it accepted to put European interests ahead of its national interests. It is not the first time I read something like this. Some recent Greek statements suggested that Germany should not be allowed to criticise their budget policy as long Berlin did not pay “blood money” to the victims of the II World War. If this notion of reparations would be right, any single Euro spent by Germany for the European Union would be a mistake and Germany would be more than justified to become egoistic. But it is not right, it was never about reparations. Not to be misunderstood, the feeling of guilt played an important role in German European policies and might have also influenced some direct payments, but never in the way “reparations” would be meant. Germany policies towards Europe were instead driven by a kind of lessons learned from the past. There was a consensus in Germany that the world would be better of without nation states and the destructive nationalism that goes along with them. Therefore, the European Union would have been the solution for the German question as well as the much larger question of the power rivalries that led constantly to wars in Europe throughout its long history. And because of our special role in the youngest part of this history, Germany was willing to pay of national concerns against any kind of progress in EU’s integration process. That is why Helmut Kohl thought that the process of European Integration would still be a case of war or peace. Because he feared that if we fail now, war will be again the future for Europe as it has been its past.
The Article is right to state, that this willingness to invest into Europe has faded finally. The German unification started a process of “normalization” in Germany, that led to a renewed acceptance of the overall concept of nation states. The criticism of Germany’s overly heavy burdens in investing into Europe was ever growing since the early nineties. Germany has become “normal” in a way that its politicians can’t easily convince their voters that money invested in the EU is by nature worth the spending. But by linking that to the idea of “reparations”, the article is loosing the right to criticise this.
Instead, this new egoism should be criticised, in Germany as well as in all the other more and more egoistic nations. They are are risking to destroy the work of two Generations that tried to draw the right lessons of our history. Germany needs to be criticised for its renewed egoism even stronger for one single reason: We are to big to be allowed to act like a “Global Switzerland”. If Germany says NO, nothing will be possible in the EU, no progress on future integration, no progress on evolving to a global actor, no progress in becoming a partner “on equal footing” with the United States. And these issues are worth going for, worth investing into. I can understand if German voters are tired of paying of other nations reluctance to move forward. But this should not allow us to neglec the lessons learned, to not invest in the one and best option for a peaceful future. German politicans as well as other nations representatives should at least try to explain this rational to their public. It is not about our past, it is about our future.