Germany Abroad: 'Mealy-Mouthed' Foreign Policy Angers Allies

[sysop]

German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle is intent on keeping his country out of military operations in Mali. But his insistence on playing the role of peacemaker is increasingly frustrating Berlin's allies. Many in Berlin are likewise unimpressed.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...-a-878717.html

[ballymichael2]

Originally Posted by sysop

German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle is intent on keeping his country out of military operations in Mali. But his insistence on playing the role of peacemaker is increasingly frustrating Berlin's allies. Many in Berlin are likewise unimpressed.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...-a-878717.html

He's annoying, alright. I wouldn't call it "mealy-mouthed", precisely. "holier-than-thou" fits better to the Westerwelle mix of preachiness, arrogance and inactivity.

I think in the matter itself, he's right, though. The islamist threat in Mali happened, because the intervention in Libya happened.

And that intervention was described, correctly, by Westerwelle as an "Adventure" - which has negative connotations in german, though not in english.

[jessuper]

On one hand I can understand the foreign minister's position because staying out of trouble is sometimes the best policy, whilst playing the hero might actually get you hurt. The nobility might not even help hurt wounds ( and I am talking about possible dead or injured soldiers, financial losses and possibly retaliation of the jihadists on German citizens in Mali and/or Algeria). Oh, there is the matter of a possible disapproval from the German public and all.

On the other hand, having the resources that Germany has, it is almost arrogant and slightly cowardly to just stop and gawk without lending a hand and I certainly have sympathy for the harsh criticisms coming from Paris.

What I do not have sympathy for is the criticism from the Brits. They are not sending any combatants either. From what I know and I have read, they have sent some special forces and people from MI6 in a non-combatant capacity. They are in Mali to help Malian soldiers, providing them with reconnaissance aircrafts and maybe use UK satellites to assist with whatever satellites do in conflict scenarios. The UK is maybe considering lending the Malians a drone or two to scope battlefields and what not.

David Cameron has made it clear that the UK's help is limited to intelligence and logistics. Isn't Germany sort of doing the same thing? I do not know how much logistical help Germany is providing but criticising Germany for not sending in combatants is a tad unfair.

I have always been for a military intervention in Mali because the looming invasion of the still free South was and still is a scary thought. But ECOWAS has a binding agreement with its members with regards to military intervention and they should be given the opportunity to adress this regional conflict on their own. France's involvement is not surprising due to the colonial history but guilty-talking other countries into joining the military manoeuvre is not diplomatic at all, especially coming from Britain.

[Jim Sherman]

This situation is a bit like being the frequent guest at the dinner table who never offers to cook. Germany benefits from the collective action by the West (U.S, UK, France) to support global peace and security, while putting itself rarely in harms way. This is no way to demonstrate leadership. The position on Libya was most regrettable (shocking actually), and this recent recalcitrance to stepping up to the plate (even with transport aid) when needed in Mali makes one wonder whether Germany needs a Foreign Minister. If the Minister wishes to avoid foreign entanglements, then he best take a job as Interior Minister.

[stevej8]

In a world in which Germany has no real say in what goes on, in terms of the UN for example, where it has no more status or power than tiny island nations of a few thousand people, and is subject to a constant barrage of abuse over the period of the 'World Wars', often on the basis of ignorance and falsehood (such as that Germany started WW1 when it most certainly did not), but also in light of the actual legacy of that time, Germany is quite right to be very restrained in its involvement in foreign military action, and highly suspicious of attempts to embroil it in such situations merely to take some the the load off others who have commenced those actions and determined their scope and purpose. Merely trying to ingratiate itself with allies who do not reciprocate the necessary factors (such as according Germany an equal say on the world level and support truth in history regarding their own very substantial roles in the calamities of the 20th century) is a naive mistake unlikely to result in anything more than German troops and money being used to support and enforce agendas determined by others for their own perceived interests primarily, in practical reality if not rhetoric, with Germany being subject to even more abuse for 'revived militarism', especially when anything goes wrong as it always does in these situations.

Westerwelle is quite right in this matter, if not for identical reasons.

[stevej8]

In a world in which Germany has no real say in what goes on, in terms of the UN for example, where it has no more official status or power than tiny island nations of a few thousand people, and is subject to a constant barrage of abuse over the period of the 'World Wars', often on the basis of ignorance and falsehood (such as that Germany started WW1 when it certainly did not), but also in light of the actual legacy of that time, Germany is quite right to be very restrained in its involvement in foreign military action, and highly suspicious of attempts to embroil it in such situations merely to take some the the load off others who have commenced those actions and determined their scope and purpose. Merely trying to ingratiate itself with allies who do not reciprocate the necessary factors (such as according Germany an equal say on the world level with respect for a different approach where appropriate and support truth regarding their own very substantial roles in the calamities of history) is a naive mistake unlikely to result in anything more than German troops and money being used to support and enforce agendas determined by others for their own perceived interests primarily, in practical reality if not rhetoric, with Germany being subject to even more abuse for 'revived militarism', especially when anything goes wrong as it always does in these situations.

Westerwelle is quite right in this matter, if not for identical reasons. A 'mealy-mouthed foreign policy' is quite right for Germany, where it is just another term for a cautious and prudent one, however this may irk certain nations (or more properly certain individuals thereof) used to throwing their weight around on the world stage, a luxury Germany clearly does not any more possess.

[moerschen]

From reading the comments on this thread, I see the same pattern as we have here in the U.S. and that is "those who call for military action immediately, are usually the ones who have never been in Military service". Believe me, when I reiterate "WAR IS HELL" If Germany responded to every crisis, that these war mongoring people would have them do, in just a few years, Germany would have the same loss of Military people in wars, that solve nothing, as we do here in the U.S. There is a NATO, and Germany is a member of NATO. If ALL of the NATO countries agree to send troops to fight in a war, or assist in any other way, then Germany should join in as well. Since France has been following the growing problem in Mali for months, and had the opportunity to discuss with NATO, what action to take in Mali and when, and to request NATO support which they did not do. Then it becomes France's problem, and only France. The western military are getting tired of supporting and dying for, political wars.