Out-of-area debate

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The out-of-area debate lasted from 1990 to 1994. The central question is where and how the Bundeswehr may be deployed. The debate is fundamental to understanding Germany's military role. It exemplifies the interlinking of domestic political processes in the reunified Federal Republic with international structures. The debate is under the impression of the National Socialist past in the context of the necessary foreign policy responsibility under globalization conditions .

Starting position

With the end of the Cold War and increasing distance from the Second World War , the geopolitical situation had changed. After Germany's disarmament in 1945, the Bundeswehr was founded in 1955 to support NATO .

Article 24 and Article 87a of the Basic Law, newly created in 1955, govern the deployment of the Bundeswehr . They regulate the establishment, according to Art. 87a, and use, according to Art. 24, of the German armed forces. It is essential to classify the Federal Republic in "(...) a system of mutual collective security (...) that will bring about and secure a peaceful and lasting order (...) between the peoples of the world." For this purpose, the federal government may transfer sovereign rights , i.e. state authority , i.e. the military , to intergovernmental institutions.

The UN plays a key role in this . Alongside NATO , it is meant in the Basic Law as a compliant system of collective security. In Chapter VII of its charter, the supranational institution regulates peace-building measures in the event of a threat to or breach of peace and acts of aggression at the state level. Chapter VIII of the UN Charter relates to the role of intergovernmental, organizational agreements between states for individual and collective self-defense. As a result, the newly created Art. 87a enabled the Bundeswehr to be deployed in UN peace missions, including "peace-making".

Until reunification Germany can be classified as a "Trading State" according to Roserance. As such, the state has above-average foreign trade links and is therefore dependent on a functioning global economy. Martial acts are far from trading states.

The wealth that comes from trading brings responsibility. As a result, Germany sent officers from the Federal Border Police to Namibia to monitor elections as part of the UNTAG mission in 1989 . This is the first known post-war deployment of German executive bodies. Five more small missions followed: in Western Sahara, Turkey and the Persian Gulf , Cambodia and Sarajevo. More about it here .

With the end of the East-West conflict and German reunification, the international structure changed. When Bosnia-Herzegovina collapsed, the European trouble spot confronted Germany with legal and party political problems.

Realpolitik problems

Yugoslavia

In July 1991, the accelerated federal government , the international law recognition of Croatia and Slovenia . Consequently, the intra-Yugoslav conflict is legally classified as an international one. Consequently, the UN would be responsible for the security of the new states. The basis of the power of the United Nations, however, is the commitment of its members.

  • In July 1992 the destroyer Hamburg monitored the arms embargo against Serbia and Montenegro in the Adriatic Sea as part of Operation Sharp Guard . In November, the UN expanded the mandate from surveillance to enforcement of the embargo. The international troops are also supposed to control ships. The is Hamburg excluded operations in another operation course for Stop & Search.
  • From October 1992 the UN Awacs air surveillance over Bosnia-Herzegovina. A third of the crews consist of German soldiers. The base in Geilenkirchen is central to the mission. There is a coalition dispute between the FDP and the Union on the issue of enforcing the flight ban. The implementation of air surveillance turned AWACS into fire control centers. The flight crew is international law to combatants .

The federal government decided to make three aircraft and the warship available without consulting parliament. Foreign Minister Kinkel invokes the “ executive's area of ​​responsibility ”. The SPD, represented by its spokesman Hans-Ulrich Klose , accused the government of disregarding parliament. The surveillance operation began on July 16, 1992 at 8 a.m., the meeting of the Defense and Foreign Affairs Committees at 11 a.m. Thereupon the SPD sued on August 18, 1992 against the German participation in the NATO and WEU operation. The sticking point is the bypassing of the Bundestag by the federal government.

Somalia

Due to the humanitarian emergency in Somalia, a country with civil war, the UN is planning a humanitarian mission in 1992. The German government is offering a reinforced logistics battalion of 1,700 men for humanitarian tasks in Somalia. The mission conveys two aspects: on the one hand, it is intended to demonstrate Germany's international solidarity and ability to act and, on the other hand, to compensate for the reluctance in the crumbling Yugoslavia. The mission is absolutely compliant with Chapter VII of the UN Charter.

Article 87, Paragraph 2 of the Basic Law only provided for an operation "below the threshold". So only operations in pacified areas, without the execution of coercive measures as a purely humanitarian action.

The soldiers deployed were to support an Indian brigade of 4,000 men. The Bundestag mandate only allowed the transport of humanitarian goods, ammunition only for self-protection. Specific problems would have arisen if the Indians had been involved in fighting without sufficient ammunition. Furthermore, on May 12, 1993, the Bundeswehr dispatched an advance command to Somalia. From the perspective of the SPD, this endangered the life and limb of the soldiers. Consequently, on May 14th, 1993, the SPD parliamentary group in the BT requested the Federal Constitutional Court to recall the precondition from the civil war country. The Constitutional Court ruled that the Bundestag has to decide on every use of the troops.

The Indians were deployed elsewhere. The Germans are secured by Italians and Americans on their transport trips. The Bundeswehr drills wells and provides the population with medical care. The press could distribute pictures of uniformed development workers.

Pacified areas could not be guaranteed in the failed state. The security situation continued to deteriorate until July 1993. The Bundeswehr left Somalia at the end of March 1994. The Americans also withdrew after the failed Operation Irene .

Somalia is still a failed state and is considered to be more unstable than the civil war Syria.

Positions

Public mood

The Allensbach Institute carried out surveys on the consent of the German population to UN missions. This increases in the old federal states from 36% in December 1988 to 54% in January ´93. In the new federal states, approval increased from 26% in March 1992 to 42% in January 1993 and then fell again to 29% in April 1995.

CDU

Representative for the perspective of the CDU can be seen Karl Lamer's interview "von deutscher Shückebergerei" in the mirror on 1992. He states that the FRG's strong self-restraint can only be justified in a partially sovereign state. Greater commitment is necessary for the ability of foreign policy to act, as well as to fulfill the role in the alliance with the other members of NATO, as well as for further European integration . He calls for the assumption of more international responsibility. Also to ensure German influence and a say in international systems, because whoever is not responsible does not have to decide.

SPD

In the SPD, deployments abroad were discussed extremely controversially. The majority of the party wanted to use the Bundeswehr only for national and alliance defense, ie below the "threshold" in Article 87a, Paragraph 2 of the Basic Law and for humanitarian aid abroad. Peacekeeping operations are not compliant with the constitution. It was important for the SPD to differentiate between peaceful, humanitarian aid missions and violent peacemaking missions. The armament of the soldiers, their specific mission and status within the UN operation were seen as decisive for the approval of operations.

The pacifists in the party spoke out against any participation of the Bundeswehr in operations of the United Nations. Non-aligned countries should get involved. They feared a remilitarization of Germany via the detour of international security.

The realpolitical wing around Schmidt , Bahr , Gerster and Brandt probably looked at Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which provides for "peace-making" measures and advocated an amendment to the Basic Law . With a view to the ability of the SPD to govern, the Basic Law should be changed to the effect that combat operations under the command of the UN should be permitted. In this context, it is interesting to see the reform of the UN necessary to create a supranational monopoly of force .

PDS

The party that has been represented in the Bundestag since 1990 took the most radical view. She called for the Bundeswehr to be abolished. Of course, the army should never be deployed abroad.

foreign countries

United States

The USA expected the Federal Republic of Germany to fulfill its new role in the world. Japan changed its constitution in 1992 with this in mind. The US Senate passed a resolution introduced by the Republican William Cohen calling for a constitution in Germany that was more affinity for operations. The main annoyance of the US military was the question of the German participation in the AWACS association. American politicians sensed a NATO crisis here. In February 1993, German liaison officers were unloaded from a US Rangers and Foreign Legion exercise.

France

German participation was desirable for France. On the one hand, the French armed forces regularly contributed to UN missions, on the other hand, France hoped to develop a common European security and defense policy. The use of the Eurocorps in Rwanda and Bosnia was considered.

A minority rejected a realignment of German security policy. They feared a German hegemonic position in Europe and saw the emphasis on French military potential as an answer to Germany's economic strength.

Further

The British Foreign Office told journalists that it was inappropriate to interfere in domestic German problems. An admiral declared that it would be desirable for NATO to function properly, hence the smooth deployment of AWACS and stop & search missions.

In 1994 Boris Yeltsin spoke out in favor of Germany's participation in peacekeeping measures. Operations in the Balkans and on the territory of the former Soviet Union are possible.

Israel wanted Germany to participate in world politics. So the Bundeswehr is gladly seen on the Golan Heights to monitor the peace between Israel and Syria.

United Nations

Secretary General Boutros-Ghali repeatedly emphasized the key role of the state resulting from the size and importance of Germany. He thanked for funding and logistics.

"But (...) we need more: we need full participation of the Federal Republic in peacekeeping, peace-building and peace enforcement measures."

Because of its operations, the United Nations are at the limit of their capabilities. Almost all 179 members considered the participation of the German military in further operations to be desirable.

Constitutional clarification

In June 1992, the SPD parliamentary group introduced a draft law with detailed reasons for the constitutional clarification of the use of German armed forces authorized by the United Nations. The PDS / Linke Liste group presented its draft for the "amendment to the Basic Law" with the aim of using the Bundeswehr exclusively to defend German territory. The parliamentary groups of the CDU / CSU and FDP wanted a law to "clarify the amendment to the Basic Law". Alliance 90 / The Greens called for Art. 24 and Art. 87a of the Basic Law to be revised. The drafts were referred to the committees for discussion.

The constitutional court ruled that German armed forces may be deployed on the basis of laws passed by the Bundestag. Furthermore, the Constitutional Court states that traditional blue helmet operations cannot be clearly distinguished from those with peacekeeping measures. When using the Bundeswehr within the framework of collective security systems, the Bundeswehr works within the framework and according to the rules of this system. The concept of self-defense is defined congruently with Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations as defense against measures which prevent peacekeeping forces from fulfilling their missions.

The use of armed forces is subject to parliamentary approval. "Parliamentary Army" is the imprecise term coined by the BVerfG in this context. As a result, the practical deployment of the Bundeswehr developed in parliamentary practice. It was not until March 18, 2005 that the Bundestag passed the Parliamentary Participation Act, which regulated the exact parliamentary modalities for missions abroad.

analysis

Responsible foreign policy requires the implementation of one's own position. At the time of the conflict in Bosnia, the phrase "Germany is not afraid to shed French blood" made the rounds. On the one hand, the FRG wants the United Nations to guarantee the security of the Balkan states, but on the other hand is reluctant to use its own troops.

With a view to Germany's permanent seat on the UN Security Council, it was also a demand from the USA that Germany should participate more in international peacekeeping.

It is interesting that both major parties have German independence in mind. The SPD considers a potential abuse of the UN for operations like the 2nd Gulf War and the associated enforcement of particular interests to be possible. The CDU wants to evade the influence of China and Russia on the Security Council and also withhold their particular interests.

With regard to NATO, it can be said that the fall of the Eastern Bloc has given rise to new problems and tasks. The collapse of Bosnia-Herzegovina can be traced back to the weakening of the Russian position, and the conflict in the Gulf is also due to the changed geopolitical situation.

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Parliamentary Council: Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany . Bonn 1949, p. has it too .
  2. ^ Richard N. Rosecrance: The Rise of the Trading State . Basic Books, 1987, ISBN 0-465-07036-1 , pp. 224 .
  3. ↑ a b Ulf von Krause: The Bundeswehr as an instrument of German foreign policy . Springer VS, Wiesbaden 2013, p. 193-199 .
  4. ↑ Ulf von Krause: The Bundeswehr as an instrument of German foreign policy . Springer VS, Wiesbaden 2013, ISBN 978-3-658-00184-1 , p. 183-193 .
  5. ↑ Global Data | Fragile States Index. Retrieved January 3, 2020 .
  6. ^ Nina Philippi: Bundeswehr foreign deployments as a foreign and security policy problem of the unified Germany . Peter Lang, Frankfurt (Main) 1997, ISBN 3-631-31049-8 , pp. 166 .
  7. ^ Karl Lamers:: From German shirking . In: Spiegel Online . tape March 12 , 1992 ( spiegel.de [accessed January 1, 2020]).
  8. ↑ Gerster, Florian: "without us" is no politics. Germany must learn the lessons from the Gulf War. Ed .: Die Zeit. May 3, 1991.
  9. ^ Michael J. Inacker: Contempt in the alliance for German officers . In: The world . March 7, 1993.
  10. ↑ A new opportunity for Europe. Balladur suggests deployment of the Eurocorps in Bosnia. FAZ, November 28, 1995.
  11. ↑ Gerd Kröncke: "Do we have an opinion at all?" no pressure on the neighbors. London views the debate about German blue helmet soldiers with serenity. Süddeutsche Zeitung, January 15, 1993.
  12. ↑ Yeltsin: "German soldiers in the Balkans" . Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung, April 24, 1994.
  13. ↑ Claus Gennrich: Will Israel ask Germany for a military contribution? To monitor a peace with Syria / Russia and the Council of Europe . FAZ, January 25, 1996.
  14. ↑ Boutros-Ghali: "Freedom and responsibility belong together" Part III "Use of the Bundeswehr in peace missions" . Ed .: Press and Information Office of the Federal Government, Department Foreign and Security Policy. 6 f. Bonn April 1993.
  15. ↑ 228 members of the Bundestag of the SPD: BTDrucks. 12/2895: Draft law amending the Basic Law Art. 24 and 87a . Ed .: German Bundestag. No. 12/2895 . Bonn June 23, 1992 ( bundestag.de [PDF]).
  16. ↑ parliamentary group of the SPD: Drucksache 12/4534: Justification for the draft law amending the Basic Law Art. 24 and 87a . Ed .: German Bundestag. Bonn March 10, 1993 ( bundestag.de [PDF; accessed January 3, 2020]).
  17. ↑ BTDrucks. 12/3055 Dr. Gregor Gysi, Andrea Lederer and the rest of the parliamentary group: Draft of a law to amend the Basic Law Art. 24 and Art. 87a . Ed .: German Bundestag. Bonn July 21, 1992 ( archive.org ).
  18. ↑ CDU / CSU and FDP parliamentary groups in the Bundestag: Draft law to clarify the Basic Law . BT-Drucksache, Bonn January 13, 1993 ( bundestag.de [PDF; accessed January 3, 2020]).
  19. ↑ CDU / CSU and FDP Bundestag document. 12/4135: Draft of a law to clarify the amendment to the Basic Law . Ed .: BT-Drucksache. Bonn January 15, 1993 ( bundestag.de [PDF; accessed January 3, 2020]).
  20. ↑ Group Bündnis90: BTDrucks. 12/3014 . Ed .: German Bundestag. Bonn.
  21. ↑ Prof. Dr. Axel Tschentscher: BVerfGE 90, 286 - Out-of-area missions . ( unibe.ch [accessed on January 3, 2020]).
  22. ↑ DFR - BVerfGE 90, 286 - Out-of-area missions. Retrieved January 7, 2020 .
  23. ↑ Federal Constitutional Court: Judgment of the Second Senate of July 12, 1994 on the basis of the hearing on April 19 and 20, 1994 - 2 BvE 3/92, 5/93, 7/93, 8/93 - . 343 ( servat.unibe.ch [accessed February 7, 2020]).
  24. ↑ ParlBG - law on parliamentary participation in the decision on the use of armed forces abroad. Retrieved January 8, 2020 .
  25. ^ Johannes Varwick: Nato. from the defense alliance to the world police . CH Beck, Munich 2008, ISBN 978-3-406-56809-1 , p. 140 .