German Chancellor Angela Merkel governs politically based on line of sight – and it's a pretty narrow line. However, when fog obscures your vision and you are not an instinctive driver (as seems to be the case here), and you misplaced your glasses, you put not only yourself in danger, but others as well.
That scenario sums up German foreign policy towards Libya. The long-term damage to Germany and its international position is easy to see: Germany has never been more isolated. This country has lost its credibility in the UN and the Middle East, its claim to a permanent seat in the Security Council is forever in jeopardy; and the worst in Europe must be feared.
The resolution of the UN Security Council in 1973, which authorized the current mission for the protection of Libyans, had the explicit or tacit agreement of the five members of the Security Council with the right of veto. It also had the support of a majority in the Council, the support of the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference, and the open military participation of two Arab countries. So what more did Germany need to accept the intervention?
Of what use is vocal multiculturalism, of what use are the pompous speeches of German leaders about international law in the Security Council, if Germany refuses to accept a resolution to protect Libyan citizens from a brutal regime that uses all available means in the fight for survival? None. Empty talk. And that will not be forgotten in the region, in the UN, or among German friends.
All I can say is that I feel shame for this failure of the German government and - unfortunately - also for the leaders of the red and green opposition parties who were the first to welcome this scandalous mistake.
Foreign policy is not just about creating a good image on the international stage and focusing on the next domestic elections. It means agreeing to tough strategic choices even when they are unpopular at home.
And please spare me mentioning the abstention of Russia and China in the Security Council, which did not use the right of veto and therefore de facto accepted and opened the way for intervention. German abstention on the other hand was seen as a simple "no", as Germany does not have a veto and is also a key member of the EU and NATO.
It is not clear to me what German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle was thinking about. He rightly sided with the Arab liberation movements, then - when it was decided - traveled to Cairo's Tarir Square to applause, and then rightly called for Gaddafi to be ousted and brought before the International Criminal Court, only to back down when there was a vote in the Security Council. This logic has nothing to do with ethical foreign policy or with European and German interests.
We are told that the situation in Libya is too dangerous; the German government does not want to be caught on a slippery slope and end up being forced to send ground forces into a civil war. Well, if you are afraid of slippery surfaces then stay away from the government because your job is actually to balance on various types of slippery surfaces.
Of course, the mission in Libya is risky: it is not clear who the new local players will be and what the future of the country will look like. However, given the alternative - the bloodshed initiated by Gaddafi to re-establish control over Libya - this cannot be a serious alternative to action.
Libya is neither Afghanistan nor Iraq. Germany and other European countries went to Afghanistan in solidarity with NATO partners - our most important guarantor of security, the USA - after they were attacked on September 11, 2001. Solidarity within NATO - a term almost forgotten these days in official German circles - is mutual. : left to its own devices, Germany could one day emerge in a very awkward situation.
And Libya is certainly not Iraq, where the dominant Western power, the USA, started a war for ideological reasons and against the majority of the Security Council, a war that had to - and did - end disastrously.
Libya should probably be compared to Bosnia. It seems as if Merkel's government today adopted the position of the then German Greens. However, while the refusal of humanitarian military intervention in that case had an element of tragedy, Germany's behavior today is pure farce.
Like the Balkans, the distant shores of the Mediterranean are part of the direct European security zone. It is naive to assume that the most populous member of the EU could and should stay away from the crisis situation in the region, which is directly related to European and German security interests. The question arises as to what the German government thinks will be the consequences of Gaddafi staying in power, either in a humanitarian context or in terms of realpolitik.
The collateral damage for EU foreign policy is also significant. Of all countries, Germany - which can be considered the inventor of the European common foreign and security policy - has now dealt that policy the most infamous blow ever. From now on, the principle of "coalition of the willing" will also apply in the EU, further weakening Europe.
And if you look at Germany's behavior towards Libya and combine it with whining and hesitation about the consequences of the financial crisis for Europe, you have to start worrying about the future of both Europe and NATO. Germany seems to be falling into closed provincialism at a time when its potential and even its leadership are needed more than ever. Unfortunately, that cannot be forgotten.
Copyright: Project Syndicate 1995–2011
Bonus video:
