“The Afghanistan debacle is only the tip of the iceberg”

Michael Wolffsohn (74) is a German historian and journalist who taught modern history at the University of the Bundeswehr in Munich for around three decades.

The Afghanistan debacle is “only” the tip of Merkel’s foreign policy iceberg. That should be explained briefly, although a foreign policy balance sheet of the Merkel Chancellorship is difficult in a few words.

Angela Merkel was actually Chancellor and Foreign Minister at the same time. They determined the course more than their respective ministers. No matter whether Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Guido Westerwelle, Sigmar Gabriel or Heiko Maas. Although the latter bears the main responsibility for the current rescue chaos, it was determined by the guidelines of German Afghanistan policy.

When in 2008 parts of the SPD pleaded for a withdrawal to please the left, it was ready to break the grand coalition. The international ISAF “Security and Reconstruction Mission” in Afghanistan was and remained so important to her.

As traditionally with the CDU, the relationship with the USA was verbally, but not factually, the focus of its foreign policy. But it is broken. Not only because of Trump, because before and after him, Germany and Europe are less important to the USA than the Pacific region. However, we are still dependent on the USA for power politics.

Next lap dog of the USA?

Merkel recognized this and named it openly and aggressively after the G-7 summit in Taormina, Italy in 2017. Germany and Europe should become more independent, she said. Apart from a meaningless charm offensive with Canada and Mexico, next to nothing has happened, and especially with regard to Afghanistan, Germany remained the US’s lap dog.

An ambiguous policy – from Russia to China to the Middle East

The Russia policy is ambiguous. On the one hand, Germany under Merkel became dependent on Russia for energy policy. Keyword North Stream 1 and 2. On the other hand, sanctions want to bring this powerful Russia to a change of course because of the Crimean annexion and the war in Ukraine. It couldn’t be more contradicting.

Merkel’s China policy took precedence over the economy. At the same time, attempts were made to persuade Beijing to respect human rights. In view of the economic primacy, a pure facade, not to say “hypocrisy”. This became even clearer when Berlin presented itself as the nice western partner compared to America.

Merkel’s Middle East policy is also ambiguous. Verbally unlimited assistance to Israel. In fact – through the nuclear deal with Iran – the promotion of deadly dangers for the Jewish state. Conventionally through this agreement, through which Iran was able to encircle Israel and other Western partners. In terms of nuclear power, the deadly threat was postponed, not abolished. The international “building mission” in Iraq is similarly poorly thought out regionally. She couldn’t stop the flow of refugees. Neither is the German Syria policy. In 2012, the Merkel government thwarted the plan for an internationally secured protection zone in north-west Syria. The result: the waves of refugees in 2014/15 and the occupation of this region by Erdogan’s Turkey.

Why the Mali mission?

Like almost everyone else, Merkel saw the Arab Spring as a sign of hope. In 2011 she correctly recognized, like her FDP Foreign Minister Westerwelle, that the military elimination of dictator Gaddafi alone would not solve Libya’s problems.

But why the Mali mission, like the one in Afghanistan, should also promote our security without any strategy whatsoever remains Merkel’s secret. Ultimately, she also shares responsibility for this future debacle.