In Favour of An Assertive Germany

In 1999 Germany deployed troops abroad for the first time since World War 2 in order to join the NATO’s Kosovo Force (KFOR).  The seriousness of the threat of ethnic cleansing was enough for the German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder to support a break from German Foreign Policy’s traditional pacifism.  With the prospect of German forces helping to prevent  genocide, one could almost sense a certain genocide waging dictator turning in their grave.

Upon Germany crossing the interventionist Rubicon, many in the country and without wondered what was next for the war haunted country.  What came next over the start of the 21^st century can be described  for the most part as careful pragmatism.  While keeping a constant dialogue active with the United States (US) via their mutual membership of NATO, Germany also became heavily involved in the construction of European Union (EU) Foreign Policy.  Now aware of its capacity to project military power abroad for good causes, Germany picked further intervention opportunities carefully.  Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder wholeheartedly gave his support to the US in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, recognising the US’s right to retaliate in order to defend itself in accordance with the NATO charter.  To this end the German Government committed one of the largest contingents of troops to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan.  Recognising the importance of protecting international shipping routes Germany also contributed military forces to the NATO anti-piracy task force off the coast of Somalia.  However the German Government was one of the loudest opposing voices to the 2003 Iraq War.  In the case of the Libyan Civil War the German Government abstained on voting on a UN Security Council Resolution authorising a No Fly Zone.  While they did not contribute to the NATO mission in Libya they spoke out against Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi’s

But events may hasten the creation of a more assertive German Foreign Policy.  The rise of IS (Islamic State) in Iraq recently pushed Germany to send arms to the Kurdish militia the Peshmerga, a highly rare and interventionist move. At the same time Russia's call to protect the rights of Russian minority groups in the east of Europe presents a potential powder keg on Germany's doorstep.  Chancellor Angela Merkel has taken a firm diplomatic line against alleged Russian interference in the ongoing civil war in the Ukraine.  These events have run alongside open calls by members of the German Government including President Joachim Gauck and Defence Minister Ursuala Von Der Leyen for a bolder Foreign Policy.  German diplomatic deterrence does not seem to have proved enough to deter Russian adventurism, this begs the question of whether military deterrence may follow.

If Germany does become more interventionist it will have to do so cautiously, due to public opinion being wary of being involved in foreign conflicts.  To this end the objectives of a new foreign policy doctrine will have to be clearly stated.  This author for one is strongly in favour of a more assertive German Foreign Policy.  Cuts in defence budgets throughout Europe has created a power gap.  This has been exacerbated by the US's turning it's security focus to the Asian Pacific region.  Long before this the US has been calling for European countries to take up more of the security burden for the region. 

A decision may have to be made about the future of German Foreign Policy soon, since the Ukraine Crisis has brought instability back to the region.  Germany's eastern allies are calling for NATO support against possible Russian interference.  Poland the most prominent of these voices is calling for 10,000 US troops to help deter possible Russian incursions.  If these do not materialise they may settle for a NATO ally like Germany.  If Germany answers the call to help, perhaps the Polish will greet the arrival of German soldiers with a smile in contrast to 75 years this September.

Why NATO Should and Must Endure

Military alliances struggle in terms of popularity in the wake of the troubles that effect the world.  The rise of the Islamic State (IS) has brought back bitter memories in the United Kingdom, and throughout the West, of the Iraq War and it’s cautionary tale of military intervention.  The British Government’s wavering over an ongoing anti-IS strategy at the same time of the NATO summit in Newport Wales, has stirred fears of leaders and military chiefs using it as a chance to scheme for stirring more wars.  The Stop The War Coalition, the standard-barer of the far left, who are out in force protesting in Newport support this view.

It is ironic that the left would be at the forefront of anti-NATO protests.  The Foreign Secretary in the first postwar government Ernest Bevin was as a socialist and a former Bristol dock worker and union leader.  Before his cabinet posting he was vocally against appeasement of the Fascist powers as well as critical of Britain adopting a similar stance towards the Soviet Union, clashing with the Communist elements within his own party.  With the vanquishing of the fascist powers Bevin realised that Britain and Western Europe faced a security threat, which was the Soviet Union now undeterred by Fascist powers.  Realising that Britain with it’s empire rapidly falling apart could not risk standing alone, Bevin came to the realisation that collective security within Western Europe was the answer.  To make up for the power imbalance between the socialist bloc and Western Europe this meant calling on American support to back up European deterrence.  After a
succession of treaties between Britain and Western European powers including the Brussels Pact, Bevin became one of the founding fathers of the NATO military alliance in 1949.

This idea of collective security was enshrined in Article 5 of the NATO charter which declares an attack on one member state as an attack upon all.  For this author this article alone stands as a principle reason for why NATO has to endure.  The idea of collective security is a forward thinking one that has helped discredit the tradition of bilateral alliances.  On this year the centenary of the start of World War One we can see plainly the problems of haphazard interlocking alliance systems.  In the case of World War One a system that was meant to deter war did the very opposite.  Open military cooperation between states accompanied by open dialogue between them is a sure silver bullet for paranoia and arms races.  Why anyone would protest against such a guarantor for peace escapes this author.  This guarantor is still needed.

In 1991 something unexpected happened, the Soviet Union fell, leaving NATO without the main adversary it was meant to counter.  Or so it is alleged.  This set off an identity crisis within the military alliance.  Parties within NATO's member states justifiably started asking what was NATO's purpose.  Many began to openly call for NATO dissolve as peacefully and efficiently as the Soviet Union.  However the unstable nature of the so called 'New World Order' became evident with ethnic strife that followed the Bosnian War in 1994 and the war in Kosovo in 1997.  In both instances NATO responded with renewed purpose as a humanitarian intervention force.  Russia an ally of the belligerent promoter of genocide Serbia aired it's concerns but largely stayed out of the affair.  Similar humanitarian concerns lead to the NATO air intervention campaign in Libya 2011 which eventually resulted in the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi.  The rise of IS has raised the possibility of NATO involvement in intervening against the newly formed terrorist state.

 

One particular state has had a rocky relationship with NATO, that state is the Russian Federation.  During the 1990s an informal agreement was made between NATO and Russia that the former socialist bloc states would not become members of the alliance.  The problem was this strange and off the cuff agreement was made in a way harking back to the times of when great powers mapped spheres of influence.  The possibility wasn't counted on, at least not openly that these newly independent (either from the Soviet Union or communism) may want to decide their destiny for themselves.  NATO after all and forever has been an alliance where member can formally apply freely if they wish.  Towards the end of the 20th century and the start of the 21st these states gradually started to come into the NATO fold.  At this Russia aired fears of encirclement.

 Russia's concerns about encirclement were taken seriously by NATO.  NATO sought to set up diplomatic links with Russia, even establishing a special NATO-Russia Council in 2002.  In 2009 the Foreign Minister for NATO member state Poland even openly called for Russia to apply to join the alliance.  Russia's envoy to NATO however politely turned the offer down.  To this author after making these overtures being made by NATO accusing it of being a menacing and encircling group does not stand up to scrutiny.

And then we come to the Ukrainian Crisis.  Russian President Vladimir Putin has routinely stressed that Russian forces are not involved in supporting the rebels, while NATO and Ukrainian intelligence says differently.  NATO satellite pictures offered as proof for Russian involvement have been implausibly dismissed as being years out of date by official Russian spokesmen.  Despite the mounting evidence of Russian duplicity Putin even more implausibly chaired a meeting in Belarus between the warring parties, claiming with a straight face that Russia was not a belligerent and therefore an impartial chair.

 The question remains from these recent events is what to do now.  What NATO should not even consider at this point is reopening the NATO-Russian diplomatic channels that were cut off after the annexation of the Crimea.  If this Russian brokered ceasefire holds at least for the short term some of the wavering powers within the alliance may call for the easing of sanctions.  Doing this is in this authors opinion would be like rewarding an arsonist for putting out a fire that they had started.  NATO must not allow this ceasefire, any future ones or a general peace agreement be largely dictated by Russia.  Such an outcome would reduce Ukraine to a vassal status to Russia.  The NATO alliance should provide any support to Eastern European member who have called for troop reinforcements from the alliance as is their right.  Poland has already requested 10,000 permanent troops to be stationed within it's borders.  While other commentators would argue that such moves would act as a provocation to Russia, this author would counter that you can't counter a warring party that is already committed.

 

The post Cold War strife and the continuing Ukraine Crisis proves to this author that NATO remains an essential alliance.  Far from being devoid of one purpose, NATO has many.  The principle of collective security is still it's primary function and will remain an important one.  However this principle could soon be tested in the face of Russian aggression.  While the Ukrainian Crisis may prove to be NATO's biggest challenge yet, it's member states must keep their resolve.  The future direction of NATO including who joins it in the future should not be dictated by Russia or anyone else but it's members. 

The Tragedy of the Scottish Referendum for Independence

The internet is hardly ever a good place for a calm and rational political debate.  Usually saying something very general and distinctively similar to a previous post on a Facebook thread will allow the slavish ‘likes’ to flow your way.  Sometimes you get some credit for an insightful post, often if it is well researched and doesn’t antagonise people in the discussion.  Doing the latter tends to bring out the most immature of people.  “You brainwashed tit” was the most memorable reply I got from a highbrow intellectual on one such debate after I pointed out the flaws in their argument.  But ever so now and then in the political discussion groups a cause reaches a fever pitch of support.  That cause at the moment is the ‘Yes’ campaign for Scottish independence.

Try as I might I cannot get excited at either the ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ campaigns.  The prospect of a new country, which is technically an old one entering the world stage is to a certain extent an exciting one.  How will this country stand our culturally?  What will it’s economy be like?  What will it’s foreign policy be like?  All of these are interesting questions which may soon be answered.  Certainly the Yes campaign has the positive element on its side.  But in order to quieten justified anxieties about the transition to independence truckloads more hope is thrown in by the Yes campaign.  I fear the Yes campaign may fall into what I call the Barack Obama trap; if you keep up raising peoples hopes you only make it more difficult when it is time to cash in, to turn dreams into reality.

The No campaign is a disappointment for other reasons.  Quite simply all it has to offer is a glorified version of the past, it can’t and won’t promise a bright and bold future.  The promise that things were good before and they will be again is a hard sell and not a very convincing one.  One of the points from the Yes campaign that seem to resonate with a lot of people is genuine dissatisfaction if not outright hatred with Westminster, or more specifically the House of Commons.  In a stunning display of obliviousness laced by vanity, the leaders of the three main UK parties have travelled to Scotland in a last ditch effort to prevent the breakup of the union.  This has led to charges being made at them that they simply “don’t get it.”  I am not certain that they ever did, or will for that matter.

So what is “it”?.  As far as I can tell “it” is a general feeling that we don’t have much more to look forward to in this allegedly glorious union.  If you follow this line of thinking to its ultimate conclusion you come to the idea of a clean break, a clean break to salvage at least a part of the union from a presumably unhappy future.  I am not going to lie, this is bleak thinking to say the least.  But for all the Yes campaign’s denouncement of the “Project Fear” tactics of their opposite numbers, they are seizing on this bleak trail of thought to scare people into ignoring the glossed over details in their argument.  In short, both campaigns are as bad as each other as treating their audience like they are morons. 

The idea of displaying the prospect of independence as cure for many (if not all) problems is not a new one.  The people of the newly founded United States of America were promised a government for the people and by the people in very idealistic terms, in stark contrast to the aristocratic ‘old world’.  Today’s reality is a seemingly insurmountable divisions between the rich and the poor and the governed and the governors.  Not to mention record numbers of firearm deaths, regressive social conservatism,  racial tensions and medical bankruptcies.  Ireland had to endure a civil war shortly after independence before it embraced its period of peace and relative prosperity.  The point is not that all independence causes are destined to fail because they aren’t.  The point is that the devils are in the details and independence in itself won’t cure all of the ills of Western countries.  For many years people in new and old countries have tried to make
their countries more equal societies.  Few can be said to have made any measure of progress towards this.

I am not a particularly nationalistic person.  I am constantly cynical and deriding when I talk about nationalism generally.  It is partly down to me not being in favour of promoting artificial concepts that divide people.  At the same time I am aware that nationalism be a useful rallying call and not always an unethical one.  I am not massively proud to be English, I see the English national flag as an unimaginative eyesore.  That said, I cannot help but feel wounded when I hear the Yes campaign talking about what or rather who the Scottish may be leaving behind.  The picture they paint of England is a place destined for continual apocalyptic regression almost to the point where Victorian era workhouses will reappear.  Then stark divisions will appear in society leading to social tensions, which will lead to societal conflict.  Then open war will follow leading to the fall of society.  After that we will end up in a post apocalyptic wasteland with appearances by anti semitic heroes fighting off raider gangs in some 1980s vision of the future world.  Then there will be random cameo appearances by Tina Turner.  Perhaps the SNP didn't go this far, but it would have been interesting if they did.

The point is there is an ugly undercurrent of ethno-nationalism with a hint of ethnic superiority underneath.  To be Celtic is to be more naturally inclined to equality.  To be English is to be doomed to ripping people off and perpetual arrogance. But the tragedy is some of the most progressive parties in the UK (which does not include any of the main three parties) have fallen for this rhetoric.  Campaigners who have previously called against policies that have divided people have promoted one of the biggest schisms of all.  When it is all said and done this is all a big distraction from the bigger questions.  I for one am not prepared to give up fighting for my country with or without Scotland.

We progressives should not be content to just lop Scotland off the supposedly doomed carcass of the union and work on it as a salvation project.  I refuse to believe that my home is doomed and I resent Alex Salmond for implying that is.  I know many people who share a political outlook similar to myself know that there is an uphill struggle in reforming England especially never mind the entire union, but that is no reason to quit.  The real tragedy of the Scottish referendum is that it is not answering long held questions about the future of our union, only humouring them.  With regards to the No campaign and it's discredited front men, if we don't like their uninspired vision of the union we must tell them and point out an alternative.  The House of Lords, the Electoral System, the division between rich and poor, local democracy and the Monarchy are all questions we must face sooner or later.  That is with or without Scotland.

So in answer to the question "how will you feel if Scotland goes independent?" I can honestly say I don't mind either way.  Besides I will be flying off on holiday on referendum day to a country that is at peace with its own destiny.  I do wonder when we will be at peace with ours.