Guttenberg: Germany a "pygmy" on the world stage

Readers of this blog know that I've never been a big fan of Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg.  I earned my doctorate the old-fashioned way - I didn't plagiarize, and I have nothing but contempt for those that have done so. 

But that doesn't mean Guttenberg is not a shrewd observer of geopolitics. 

In a New York Times op/ed piece, Guttenberg weighs in on Berlin's response thus far to the crisis in Syria.  He makes reference to the residual damage from Germany's refusal to join with NATO in the intervention in Libya:

Berlin’s controversial decision to side with Russia and China rather than back its traditional NATO allies was viewed by international observers at the time as evidence that Germany, despite being an economic powerhouse, is still a pygmy in foreign and security affairs.

And, according to zu Guttenberg, Germany is mistaken if it believes its economic power compensates for consistently sitting out the major geopolitical conflicts:

Unfortunately, prominent German political leaders across party lines continue to believe that the country’s economic weight creates enough leverage to compensate for Germany’s failure to realize its full potential as a capable and responsible member of the Atlantic alliance and the international community.

At a time when Europe’s global reach, influence and credibility are threatened by rapid decline, “checkbook diplomacy” by the biggest European Union member is not a viable substitute for contributing military assets to the joint defense of our common values and interests. Neither is “offset diplomacy,” like Berlin’s offer to boost its military commitment in Afghanistan during the Libya crisis. That option, in any case, is no longer available.

Guttenberg points to a "culture of reluctance" in Germany, which will permit it to avoid participating in any meaningful way in an international intervention in Syra.  But at the same time, Germany will never betaken seriously as a global player:

While the reasons for Germany’s approach seem understandable, both in terms of the country’s past and the natural desire of political leaders to win, following such an approach in the high-stakes realm of foreign and security policy carries a potentially steep cost in international influence.

Comments

[Zyme]

Now I always was a big fan of Guttenberg - but cant agree with him here.

I cannot see why we should have interfered in Libya and neither in Syria. What is to be gained?

Especially in Syria the regime does not oppose our partnership and keeps religious influence out of the government. What better government can you dream of in this particular region?

I also favor using the military in foreign and security politics. Not in this way though. Why don't we train our army in counterinsurgency and make them fit for failing EURO countries in case these end up in public turmoil?

[David]

I don't know, Zyme. Germany tried occupying Greece 70 years ago, and the outcome was not good for either country...

[zyme]

I'm not living in the past David. What I am suggesting is to prepare for the future.

Unrest in Southern Europe is a future more likely to influence Germany than civil war in Syria, don't you agree?

Either austerity or Keynesian economics may work for them - but both at the same time surely will not.
German governments will most likely not abandon the current currency politics as anything else would be political suicide.
Southern Europeans however will not sustain the pressure until the measurements start to work.

What I am suggesting is merely to prepare for a likely outcome. The military is no means to a better world.
When you know your way is right but cannot persuade others with words, this is where the military has its rightful place.

[j_333]

Hitler also thought his 'way was right'... the use of the military invariably involves the use of high tech weaponry that places civilians at risk and threatens world peace. There is no justification whatever for American "policing" and the increasing use of American power in the interests of imperialism - Syria being a case in point.

[David]

Please explain how punishing the Syrian regime for gassing 400 children is "Imperialism."

Are you saying that all treaties - such as the ban on chemical weapons - are meaningless? Putin is laughing his head off at the West.

[j_333]

Of course the ban on chemical weapons is legitimate. By the way it applies not just to the use of them, but also to creation and stockpiling. So by that measure Israel is in breach of international codes.

The larger point is that nobody appointed the United States as global police force let alone elected it to `punish` nations. If we are talking the use of "heinous weapons" (Kerry's term), the United States is the world's number one outlaw state in terms of the targeting of civilian populations and the exercise of terror. Likewise when it comes to contempt for international law.

The use of naplam and agent orange in Vietnam, the carpet bombing of Laos, the so-called illegal 'shock and awe' assault on Iraq are just some of the outrages committed by the US military in the course of its maverick overseas adventures. More recently we have seen the criminal use of white phosphorus and depleted uranium in Iraq and Afghanistan. The legacy of horror continues in Iraq with large numbers of birth defects and the rising prevalence of cancer in afflicted areas.

As to the current conflict in Syria - the U.S. has been secretly arming the rebels for well over a year while claiming it was only providing non-lethal assistance. The CIA has been helping to run night flights out of Turkey - well documented in this NYT article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/25/world/middleeast/arms-airlift-to-syrian-rebels-expands-with-cia-aid.html?hp&_r=3&

The Syrian conflict is very much a part of American (read imperialist) designs in the region - in large part because the conflict ties directly to Iran. The US has been seeking a casus belli for some time.

The regime victory at Al Qusayr and the subsequent turning of the war in Assad's favor saw the unraveling of American covert designs. The chemical incident was seized upon as justification in the name of the 'red line' but military action stalled when the Brits defected and other allies were less than convicted.

As for the incident itself. No definitive evidence has been presented to prove that Assad did it. Claims based on circumstantial findings aren't good enough. As we know from recent history, Colin Powell's claims about Iraqi WMD based upon 'ìrrefutable' intelligence, satellite imagery etc turned out to be utterly fraudulent. One wonders why the Americans aren`t more forthcoming with the evidence they claim to hold.

[David]

Your support of Assad and his slaughter of his own citizens is touching indeed. There is a preponderance of evidence that Syrian government forces were behind the chemical gas attacks (the denials remind me of the Holocaust deniers and those that claim Hitler was unaware of it - no written orders signed by der Fuehrer were ever found).

By threatening military action, President Obama was able to force a diplomatic solution. Russia is now engaged a process that will rid Syria of chemical weapons, which Putin denied even existed two weeks ago. All without the US firing one missile. But this doesn't fit your narrative of the war-mongering imperialist US.

[j_333]

No supporter of Assad at all, but definitive proof linking Assad directly to this incident hasn't been forthcoming.

Washington's assertions that the rebels lack the goods and capability is complete nonsense. A UN team on the ground implicated the rebels in previous siren use. An al-Nusra Front cell in Turkey was busted and the authorities confiscated chemicals and bomb making equipment.

The Russians have an entirely different version on the incident. If the Americans can tie it directly to Assad with hard evidence, let's see it.