RSS

April 1, 2011

Peter Wunsch

Just imagine that Libya would be a country without oil and not important in migration-related issues... - would the discussion still remaining the same?

April 1, 2011

Member deleted

Germany's position seems to have deviated from many of its western allies, perhaps due to its pragmatic approach that puts moral ground and values a little too far behind pursuing German interests, thus did not see clearly the overall big picture in sight ?

On the other hand, Germany probably has a conviction that by being closer to BRIC plus others, such as OIC etc., German interests may be maximized among other things ? Albeit that remains to be seen.

Sincerely hope that Germany will clear the fog soon and show her leadership forward for EU and the world to have a better tomorrow, knowing it's a very very delicate situation.

Awaiting its manifestation.

April 1, 2011

Vera Gottlieb, Retired, (3)

I think Germany should stick to its guns: no more wars! Canada did not join the US in attacking Iraq and it survived. Enough of being bullied by the US. The West has absolutely no business in Libya or any other African nation. Were it not for the oil, no one would give a hoot about Gaddafi, or Hussein. It is all about stealing natural resources under any pretext. Africa was carved up once by the likes of Germany, France, the UK, Italy and now it is going to be carved up again by the likes of the US, the UK and France. This is good, old-fashioned colonialism under the guise of "bringing democracy".

April 1, 2011

Malc Dow

I entirely agree with Vera Gottlieb; Germany should stay away from anything that involves guns! I am sure the rest of the world will be quite understanding.
Apart from that the whole Libya affair is indeed "good, old-fashioned colonialism under the guise of "bringing democracy". "
Also the idea of Germany being encouraged in any role of 'leadership' is somewhat disconcerting.

April 1, 2011

Andrej Novak

Since Gaddafi has turned genocidal and thus transformed a peaceful movement for freedom into an armed opposition in self-defense, he has lost all legitimacy. What is more, he continues to directly threaten his civilian population with sniper, shelling, abductions, torture and incarceration.
Therefore, the international community, including NATO, the Arab League, the African Union and Germany have to act to protect civilians and I support military intervention. While the Libyan opposition can free their own country and no foreign or at least non-Muslim/non-African ground troops should be used, the international community also needs to life the arms embargo and arm Gaddafi's opposition. An arms embargo otherwise is structural support for Gaddafi's cruel rule, it usually always works in favour of genocidal states which attack their own population. This is exacerbated by the fact that until recently modern weapons were still being sold to Libya and are now being used against the people, while no arms can be delivered for self-defense of a population that was not prepared and not planning for war.
Sounds like Bosnia all over again...

Germany's failure to position itself firmly on the side of protecting civilians and act accordingly has also greatly damaged the strategic objecitve of a common foreign and security policy in the EU.

April 1, 2011

Robert Clifford Mann, German Army, (6)

Although I find the involvement in Libya problematic from a humanitarian law point of view, I find the argument "Germany should stay away from anything involving guns" very disturbing. (By the way: No, the world does NOT understand! The WWII argument does not impress anyone but Germans. )
Contrary to common belief in Germany (or so it seems) violence does not perish when Germans don't get involved. This exaggerated pacifistic mindset has seriously hampered success in Afghanistan, since German politics tried to play the "humanitarian development" tune to appease the voters, while the situation in Kunduz was rapidly deteriorating and soldiers were ill prepared for the fighting task.

Yet this is just a small example for not just a pacifist mindset, but also an isolational one. It seems that in all attempts to act internationally, not just militarily but also financially such as Greece and Ireland, the public reaction was always a very negative one and neither Merkel nor anyone else made the attempt to explain the importance.

This pacifistic/ isolationist mindset might explain why the public has no problem with Germany not starving for leadership. Many seem to ignore the imminent impact the country has economically, not just in Europe but in the world. They are oblivious to the fact that many counties look for German guidance because of the stable economy and high export rates. (Another reason Germany should think twice before "going solo")

Does this mean that I encourage German involvement? No. Since Iraq has already been mentioned, I believe it was correct from Germany to stay away from military action due to insufficient intelligence and proof. (NOT because guns are bad)
Same with Libya. I just question the reasons, (elections!!) and the way it went. There would have been a way to limit Bundeswehr involvement without joining Russia and China. Also that would have been a chance to shape the mission. But to obviously refusing any involvement at all seems more like a decision aimed at a domestic election success.

April 1, 2011

Kwaku Gyening Owusu, Independent, (2)

I support Germany for abstaining itself in this Libya affair. The use of force has never been successful. It might look successful for a while but the remnants of force and war is always negative. I think the government of Germany took a brilliant decision not to intervene or follow the West as people might have thought. I believe in dialogue as the only positive way and also the last resort.

April 2, 2011

Gesine Palmer, Freelanced, (2)

What if Westerwelle is right?

The intervention in Libya is a very intuitive decision. Alas, the narrower
regulations of international law do not seem to justify a military
engagement. The sustainability of Arabellion might be depending on other
factors than immediate success enforced with the help of foreign troops.

I am not speaking as a legal expert here, and I do share the intuition that
the rebels in Libya should be supported. But can one really call it a
"genocide" or a "crime against humanity" what Ghaddafi's troops are doing?
Aren't they - legally speaking - only fighting a revolt? And if so, do we
really have to enter in every country and take party in an internal fight,
where we seem a just matter at stake? What does "international leadership"
mean? Imperial politics or a strive for the best solution in the spirit of
fair negotiation and peace and democracy according to the regulations of the
United Nations? Germany has learned a lesson - and takes care not to
interfere too quickly with military means. Today, the attitude toward the
allied forces in Liby is something between welcoming and ambivalent. It can
change quickly. And we still are not sure who those people are that we
support right now. Let us do everything to support the logistics of the
rebels, to support the building of democracy in these states. Let us hope
that the intervention will be limitable and not end up in another longterm
war on hot ground. And let us wait what history will have to say about
Westerwelle's decision. It might have been the most respectable in his
entire career. On Germany I'm not worried here. We will get over this not
too dramatic isolation. We came out pretty well from decisions that were
much more directed "against all others." Leadership can mean that we say
"no" where everybody else says "yes."

April 2, 2011

Member deleted

Council decides on EU military operation in support of humanitarian assistance operations in Libya.

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/EN/fo...

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/mailing/file101...

A very good thing.

April 2, 2011

John Hadjisky, Blogger, Platinum Contributor (324)

@Ting Shiang Lee

That EU Council announcement is certainly news to me. It could potentially mean something quite new and interesting.

Still, it is hard to know how to interpret qualifications such as "if requested by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)". I checked the news, there's been no coordinated announcement from OCHA; are we to interpret this as meaning that now a third UN resolution will be required before the EUFOR operation can take place?

Also we learn "The financial reference amount for the common costs of EUFOR Libya will be EUR 7,9 million." I hope that is just some formality (for accounting purposes). If that is the actual budget for 4 months worth of operations, then I would have very low expectations.

Still, I suppose it is newsworthy to have the Council to even make such a statement.

April 2, 2011

Moon

"How can Germany repair the damage to its international reputation and convince voters of the right course at the same time?"

First: Is there really damage? Some Atlanticist argue so but I do not see any damage. Governments with a majority of the people in this world did NOT endorse the UNSC resolution. Last time I looked Germany was over the world much more admired than the US, UK, and France.

Second If there is damage should Germany repair it? I'd say no. Germany does not need to be loved in Washington. It needs to be respected.

Third: It is not the task of the government to "convince voters". What weird understanding of democracy does the author of that question have? The voters do not think what some government decides they should thing then the the voters must change? So we can install such a weird "democracy" in Libya? What hypocrisy!

April 2, 2011

Joerg Wolf, Atlantic Community, Editor

@ "Moon"

Thank you for your comment. Please identify yourself, when you comment here. We believe that commenters are taken more seriously, if they reveal their real identity rather than use a nickname.

In fact, it would be best, if you would register for free and fill out the personal profile.

This would also enable you to network with our more than 55000 members. And it would also save you time commenting, since registered members (who are logged in) do not need to type those captchas. If you have already registered, but forgot your password, you can get a new one.
If you have any question, please do not hesitate to contact the atlantic-community.org staff.

April 2, 2011

Prof. Dr. Erich Röper, Bremen/Germany

It is absolutely necessary to support die movement against Gadafi. For much to long the world, especially Western Europe, has even supported this dictator who helped to keep African refugees from coming to Europe. Also he seemd to be a partner in global business. These mistakes cannot be rewinded; so it is stupid to use them as an argument for not helping the new government in Bengazi and the people of Libya. Since Germany has no troops to send them to Northern Africa, it may abstain from involving the country militarily. But it has the obligation to politically back the states fighting Gadafi - or will the federal government only weep and join the mourners after Gadafi has killled again many thousands? Srebenica, Ruanda should be reminders what happens, when politicans are unwillig to help.

April 2, 2011

Brian Walker Bush

[Editorial Team: Interesting comment, but unacceptable name-calling. Thus we deleted your comment. Moreover, please register with your real name.]

April 2, 2011

Daniel Antal

Voters want on benefits, they never demand duties. I takes political leadership to explain international alliances. I think that there are to separate issues her. What should Germany do with Libya? And what should Germany do with its allies in EU and NATO? While Germany can refrain from millitary engagement, it should also respect its alliances. Not impossible.

April 3, 2011

Karsten M. Jung, University of Bonn, Bronze Contributor (17)

Generally speaking, Germany can either support or not support the intervention - and I guess, you can find good reasons for either position. One thing Germany can no longer do, however, is to just "abstain" from world politics. Like it or not, twenty years past unification, ten years past Kosovo, a nation of Germany's political and economic stature can not just duck and cover when the times get tough. When campaigning for the security council seat last fall, Westerwelle talked about global responsibilities that germany was willing to take. While I would personally argue that such responsibilities include the prevention of another Srebrenica, I will concede that this is at least debatable. What such responsibilities definitely involve, however, is taking a stand. That, at the very least, I think we owe to the people who are risking their lives for taking a stand in Libya.

April 4, 2011

Aurelius von Krebs

[Editorial Team: We deleted your commend due to unacceptable name-calling and off-topic comments.]

April 4, 2011

Member deleted

NATO 4.0 for reference.

http://transpacificthinktanks.blogspot.com/2011/04/nato-30.html

April 4, 2011

Bernhard Lucke, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Platinum Contributor (503)

I think it was wrong that Germany abstained the vote to engage in Libya. And it appears a little pervert to me that seemingly domestic policies of France and Germany were decisive for Libya's fate. And even more strange, we withdraw ships from the Mediterranean but send more forces to Afghanistan - what a contrast.

It may sound strange that I support the engagement in Libya while I opposed the Iraq war and the endless engagement in Afghanistan. But there are important differences. If there is an example for the current fight in Libya, it is the Iraqi uprising against Saddam Hussein in 1991. If that had been supported by the U.S., it would have saved us of the last Gulf war and a generation of Iraqis had not lost their perspectives.

I think Germany in general has not yet found its new place in foreign politics. Certainly, it was easier before the reunification. But we also lack a strong statesman like e.g. Genscher who could outline a clear, respected new profile. Westerwelle has not much foreign experience and the government seems currently to swap his basic convictions daily: only the will to stay in power remains.

I'm also not sure if Germany really deserves the good reputation it enjoys in many countries. Regarding the Muslim world, I see a lot of misunderstanding and simply lack of interest with our leaders. That makes us so helpless regarding the move to more democracy in the Arab world: some seem to think that it is 'normal' for Muslim peoples to be ruled by despots and to support terrorism. We should develop more faith that the "others" are humans with good common sense, too. Nobody really enjoys being unfree and Islam is not preaching terror.

But certainly Germans learned a lesson during two world wars - and I think the winners of the world wars are usually far too easily willing to use force or impose their will on former colonies.

It is important to hinder Gaddafi to murder the democracy movement in his country, at least as much as we can, but we also must be careful that this does not develop into a war with Libya. Even using force, there are limits of what we can do. We can try to force Gaddafi to play according to the rules, i.e. no use of force against demonstrators, or at least to disable his air force and heavy weapons. But in a civil war, it is very dangerous to take sides. In the end, the Libyans must decide, and our main goal must be to enforce a return to negotiations and a peaceful political process.

April 4, 2011

Joerg Wolf, Atlantic Community, Editor

Two atlantic-community.org members wrote the following articles as contributions to this discussion:

Stephan Vormann:
Goodbye "Normalization"? Germany and its non-intervention in the Libya

Two weeks ago the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1973 which paved the way for the coalition air strikes against Gaddafi’s forces. For the first time in its history, Germany abandoned both its most important allies, the US and France. Is this the end of an era in German Foreign Policy?
http://www.atlantic-community.org/index/articles/view/Goodbye_%22No...

Felix F. Seidler:
Active engagement, not upraised forefinger!

Germany has to leave its abstention approach. Commenting with upraised forefinger causes only further damages on relations its partners. Now Berlin has to engage actively for NATO´s success in Libya. Concrete engagement is the only way to heal alliance solidarity´s wounds.
http://www.atlantic-community.org/index/articles/view/Active_engage...

April 4, 2011

Darrell Calvin Brown, City College of San Francisco/TTC, Gold Contributor (102)

It's sad to say, but "sometimes it's the only way." You Americans understand.

April 5, 2011

Martin Muenster

when or if Gaddafi is finished, Libya needs UN support!
This support cannot be provided by nations which participated before in the "war" against Gaddafi. Even if some might say: This was only the effort to make the dictator respect Resolution 1973 (which paved the way for the coalition air strikes against Gaddafi’s forces).
So, who is left to do the work?
GERMANY
Mrs. Merkel will be forced by US, France and GB to do that!
And they will not accept an "no" from Angela and the Bundeswehr!!!
Think about . . .

April 7, 2011

Rebecca Steglich, Lund University, Bronze Contributor (13)

Supporting democratic change in the Muslim world is indeed a challenge. I agree that the German abstention has damaged its international reputation, especially among its allies. Abstention, in this case, could be interpreted as a lack of a foreign policy vision. Germany could have taken a stand and a stronger role in world politics.There are certainly good reasons for not intervening.

First of all, the legitimacy of the UN intervention is highly questionable. As someone else mentioned before, it is very dangerous to take sides in a civil war. Alongside the rebels there are plenty of Libyan's who disapprove the uprisings. Second, supporting democratic change through military intervention creates false expectations among other countries suffering from authoritarian regimes. Supporting democratic change through military intervention is an approach that runs the risk of being inconsistent, "good, old-fashioned colonialism" or even failing. In the long run, this would not necessarily contribute to a 'better' international reputation.

April 8, 2011

Teresa Pauditz, Aston University, (5)

Why do France, the UK and the US think that it is a good idea to combat violence with more violence? Do they actually know who these rebels are? Who are we supporting, and what? Are we supporting Islamistic hardliners? Maybe that should have been clear before stepping in! Do Lybians want Western support, seeing that the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia we achieved by the people and that is what gave them momentum. I simply fear a repetition of Iraq or Afghanistan and believe Germany is looking stronger than ever, not blindly following US will.

April 11, 2011

Michael Schutte

The West has failed in two instances to establish democratic governments respecting human right: Afghanistan and Iraq. The U.S. wanted to turn these two Muslim countries into models for the rest of the Muslim world. Looking at the Muslim world it seems that there is a strong prererence for tyranny, violance and corruption. It seems pointless to me to sacrifice valuable lives of so called infidels to convince the Muslim world that Western values are superior to those of the Umma.

April 11, 2011

André Budick, Bernhard Kaster, MdB, Silver Contributor (53)

Abstention:
I have to admit I was somewhat taken aback when news of this decidedly German 'non-vote' in the Security Council reached me. Also, the justification given by Foreign Minister Westerwelle then didn't ring quite as true as I hoped it really was, given the domestic political context inside Germany ahead of three crucial state elections the following two Sundays.

Yet, in light of what has happened on the ground in Libya since then, I am beginning to wonder whether this "German uber-caution" wasn't so baseless, after all. As far as I can tell, the critics of the German government's skeptical approach towards a quick-fix bombing solution 3 1/2 weeks ago sound more and more clueless about what to do next.

Don't count me wrong: This is NO "I told you so."

Still, the facts are disheartening:
Ghadafi is clinging to power, no matter what. The rebels seem unable to push forward, despite NATO air cover. Meanwhile, negotiators (today the African Union) come and go, wringing their hands. People suffer. People die. The rebel stronghold of Benghazi might not be in immediate danger, but only time will whether this rebellion can be sustained without massive military aid from outside.

We are thus confronted, or so it seems, with all the ingredients of a messy stalemate in the desert. So what to do? More bombing - more 'collateral damage? More sanctions - including civilians held effectively hostage by the Ghadafi clan in and around Tripoli? Covert action? Ground troops?

Maybe we'll soon be lucky and Ghadafi prefers to settle for a comfortable retirement. But the Principle of Hope alone doesn't craft a coherent policy. Which makes me wonder: Did anybody think this through before voting 'Yes' in the Security Council?

The German Abstention: Indeed, it didn't look 'good' or 'strong' or 'decisive', initially.
Might it though have been just the most honest thing to (not) do, for the time being?

April 12, 2011

Cody William Punter, Kings College London/ Trinity College Dublin, Silver Contributor (31)

@Moon has stated that the government does not bear the responsibility of "convincing voters" of the merits of intervention. While it may not be their responsibility to change the minds of votes, the government certainly has the responsibility to disclose what is at stake in Libya. In the case of Libya, it is widely acknowledged Ghadafi's intentions were to wage open war against his own people. This is not a case of repressing demonstrators or unlawfully imprisoning them, but rather of mass murder on a horrific scale. It is this that sets Libya apart from other Arab and African nations in establishing that intervention was warranted. It was therefore on humanitarian grounds that NATO has intervened with the support of the UNSC.

As such it is the duty of Western government to make clear what their goals and mandates of for intervention in Libya. Firstly, the no-fly zone has been implemented to protect civilians and to save lives. While this means that there will aerial to attacks lead on Ghadafi's forces leading to the death of some of his forces, this need not be seen as a contradiction, as they have been identified as aggressors who have turned against their own people.

Secondly, while many commentators have pointed out that regime change must be the goal of intervention in Libya, the UNSC resolution makes no provision for it. Therefore, and this is extremely relevant, there cannot be a direct influence by outside countries in effecting regime change in Libya. This is something of which Western governments are all conscious and have stated clearly in public. The reason that this is so important, is that, while regime change is undoubtedly the desired end of the current conflict in Libya, anything beyond civilian protection has not been provided for under the UNSC resolution. That the UNSC would approve of an intervention on humanitarian grounds in the wake of Afghanistan and Iraq would have been inconceivable a few months ago. The current situation is as Rory Stewart has put it, "a gift", in that it has shown that the international community, led by NATO can play a meaningful role in saving lives. Not only does the current intervention offer the opportunity to save lives, it is also a chance to shore up the legitimacy of the UNSC and NATO on the international stage. It is therefore important that, the distinction is drawn between 'intervention' in Libya and the 'invasion' of Iraq.

As such, it should be pointed out by German, US, UK and French governments alike that the goal of the intervention is not to in the words of @Moon, "install such a weird 'democracy' in Libya" but to protect the lives of the innocent people against an authoritarian dictator bent on murdering his own people; so that they might be able to determine their own government. This is by no means any easy resolution to maintain, and it will be very tempting to go beyond implementing a no-fly zone, to controlling the political make-up a future Libyan nation. But it is precisely because there is so much at risk for the Libyan people, the right to self-definition in the Arab world, and the legitimacy of future humanitarian interventions, that we must make our aims clear and explain them to the public. Germany's decision to abstain may have been justified on the grounds that there was not enough popular support for the intervention, however, based on the justifications for intervention, it could be argued that the government did not do enough to explain to the people what was truly at stake in Libya.

May 6, 2011

Karl Hartnack

Germany is right not to become involved in a civil war in Lybia. Unfortunately the German position was not presented well by Mr. Westerwelle whjo simply stated that it was "his position" not to becme involved. He should have stated the reasons, of which there are many.