This conflict is caused by reluctance of the German leadership to unconditionally fulfill recommendations and instructions elaborated by Washington with respect to operations in Afghanistan, as well as by independent policy of the German Government regarding expansion of NATO eastwards, relations with Russia, European energy security, etc. that differs from “the general guideline”.
Recently the most acute controversies occurred around the problem of direct engagement of the German troops stationed in Afghanistan in combat operations of the NATO forces against Taliban combatants in the southern provinces of the country. It is known that the German contingent in Afghanistan is the third in strength (3,200) after the US (27,000) and GB (7,800) contingents.
The Administration of George Bush and supreme administration of NATO insist on participation of German troops in combat operations of the NATO-led International Force in the southern provinces of Afghanistan. Berlin treats these requests without enthusiasm. In her recent address to the Bundeswehr top brass German Federal Chancellor Angele Merkel once again denied the requests of NATO leadership, USA, Canada and Great Britain to join their operations in the turbulent south of Afghanistan.
In turn, the German Chancellor urged NATO “to more effectively combine military and civil efforts in Afghanistan”. Ms Merkel believes that German troops should not rush about different regions of Afghanistan but remain stationed in the north of the country and near Kabul where they have been implementing several long-term humanitarian programmes since 2001. The German Government is sure that construction of schools, wells and restoration of civil infrastructure will be more beneficial for Afghanistan than the stake of the US on the military force that promotes escalation of the conflict and inflow of volunteers to the Taliban.
Subsequently NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer once again toughly urged Germany to change its stand and to send its Bundeswehr soldiers stationed in Afghanistan to combat. The NATO Secretary General claimed that there should not be division of duries within the framework of the Alliance “when certain countries are engaged in combat activities while other countries are involved in post-conflict settlement”.
The negative response of Berlin to the NATO “battle-cry” caused expressed irritation of Washington. In this January US Defense Secretary Robert Gates addressing the US Congress blamed on Germany and several other European states for their attempts to transform NATO into “a double-layer alliance”, in which “certain allies are ready to fight and die defending security of the people while others are not”.
The American mass media expressly claim that Germany “hides behind the back of America” in Afghanistan, and its ruling elite is “infected with isolationism and pacifism”. Besides, Germany gives “bad example” to other NATO member-states. For example, France, Spain and Italy also do not want to immediately fulfill recommendations of Washington and Brussels to send their troops to the zone of combat operation in southern Afghanistan.
Washington does not hide its deep disappointment with the fact that Germany failed to meet expectations of the USA for radical reinforcement of its international military role within NATO in conformance with German economic potential. Berlin failed to make expected military contribution into the American “wars on terror” both in Iraq and in Afghanistan. It seems that the current American Administration considers Germany not sufficiently “militarized”. Indeed, Germany spends only 1.5 per cent of its GDP on the defense while Great Britain spends 2.4 per cent, France – 2.6 per cent and USA itself – 4.1 per cent.
Pursuant to the routine Washington practice, a real information war has been unleashed against Germany. For example, American military experts claim in press that due to “insufficient funding” the Bundeswehr allegedly becomes “a second-rate army” poorly equipped with sophisticated weapon systems and military hardware, and therefore unable to effectively fulfill its tasks in Afghanistan. The USA blame on Germany for “actual failure” of projects implemented by this country in Afghanistan, and even claim that Germans actually failed a new Afghan police training project, and Americans had to assume responsibility for its implementation now, etc.
The current German leadership is also accused of “populism” basing on allegations that Angele Merkel and her colleagues are afraid to lose support of the German population, which mostly strongly opposes involvement of German troops in combat operations outside Germany. According to recent public polls, 86 per cent of the Germans are against involvement of the Bundeswehr in overseas combat operations, 61 per cent of people believe that all German troops including those engaged in humanitarian programmes only should be brought home.
Nevertheless Washington and Brussels are absolutely sure that “the true liberal democracy” should ignore public opinion provided such opinion is in conflict with the principles of “the North Atlantic solidarity”. All arguments that the German Government cannot behave like this are regarded as expression of “weakness”, “fear” and “European decadence” by Berlin.
It should be noted that participation of the Bundeswehr in combat operations outside Germany remains an extremely sensitive and disputable problem in the German society itself. Except UN peacekeeping operations, German militaries were involved after WWII in combat operations in the Balkans in the early 90s of the XX century. In 1999, German troops were engaged in the USA and NATO campaign against Yugoslavia, which was highly ambiguous in terms of the morality and international law. In 2001, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder supported by the Bundestag made a decision to send German troops to Afghanistan.
Of course, a part of the German political establishment and Bundeswehr top brass speaks in favor of a larger German military presence in the crisis regions of the world under slogan “Germany defends its security in the Hindu Kush mountains”. However, such stand is not supported by the German society due to generally failed military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan and associated increasing human casualties and financial losses. Besides, the general public in Germany reasonably concerns over a risk of militarist tradition revival that several times put Germany on the edge of national disaster in the past. The actual German leadership cannot ignore these factors first of all due to internal political considerations.
In the light of the aforesaid, it may be expected that on the eve on the Bucharest NATO Summit the American pressure on Germany will increase. As the matter of fact after the election of pro-American President Nicolas Sarkozy in France that was so long-awaited by Washington, it is Germany that became a de-facto new leader of that “old Europe” , which still tries to defend its own national interests and pursue an autonomous international policy that is relatively independent from the US guideline.
In any case, the attempts of Germany and certain other NATO countries to withstand the American dictate in the Alliance confirm that NATO faces a serious system-based crisis, and acute controversies maturing inside it on certain key international problems become more and more visible to the world.
