US Think Tank Slams Germany's NATO Role

[Chirios]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor ... edFrom=www

Germany may be Europe's driving force in the euro crisis, but a prominent US think tank has accused the country of shirking its defense duties. In a report released ahead of the NATO summit in Chicago, a group of experts criticizes Germany for threatening the future of the whole alliance through its weakness.


The Atlantic Council is considered one of Washington's leading foreign policy think tanks. The non-partisan institution was founded in 1961 and its honorary directors include former Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright and Condoleezza Rice.

The Council places high value on using a diplomatic tone. So when its members resort to strong rhetoric it causes a stir, especially so now, on the eve of the NATO summit on May 20-21 in Chicago. In a 12-page report titled "Anchoring the Alliance" the Council's experts dissect the future of the defense alliance -- and make Germany into the main scapegoat for NATO's problems.
"A stronger Germany would be the greatest boost to NATO's future," says the study. But the authors say that the exact opposite is actually true, namely there is less German involvement. Germany, which has taken a lead role in the euro crisis, behaves like a "lost nation" when it comes to political and military leadership.

Germany's helpless behaviour has consequences, says the study. "A weak Germany that lacks a capacity to act globally will inevitably weaken NATO," the authors write. "Europe cannot remain a major force within the NATO Alliance if a country of Germany's size, geography, and prosperity makes the kind of deep reductions in defense spending announced by Chancellor Angela Merkel's government in 2011."

Among other cuts, Germany wants to get rid of fighter jets such as the Eurofighter, Tiger attack helicopters and the NH90 transport helicopter. Such steps "undermine European defense projects and restrict Germany's future deployment options," according to experts at the Council.

'Two-Tier Alliance'

Such accusations against Germany are not new. At his farewell speech in June 2011 in Brussels, former US Defense Secretary Robert Gates left no doubt that he thinks that the budget burden is unfairly split among NATO countries.

In his sober analysis, he said that NATO has become a "two-tier alliance." He accused some members of cutting their own defense budgets and deliberately exploiting the US, which now shoulders 75 percent of NATO's costs. The Atlantic Council's current study also comes down hard on Britain, where Prime Minister David Cameron's austerity program includes a 7.5 percent cut in defense spending over the next five years. "The trend lines for the capabilities of the UK military are worrisome," argues the report.

The institution's disappointment regarding Germany is especially palpable. The study's authors share the opinion of Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski, quoting his now-famous November 2011 speech in Berlin, where he said: "I will probably be the first Polish foreign minister in history to say so, but here it is: I fear German power less than I am beginning to fear German inactivity."

That inactivity was on display when Germany debated whether or not to support the NATO operation against Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi, say the authors of "Anchoring the Alliance." They write: "Germany's decision to opt out of NATO's Libya operation and side with Russia and China in the United Nations Security Council against the United States, France, and the United Kingdom was a serious mistake."

Sobering Results

Even worse, say the study's authors, these mistakes are not only the fault of the hapless German foreign minister, Guido Westerwelle, who decided to keep Germany out of NATO's intervention in Libya. Merkel should have overruled Westerwelle, said Nicholas Burns, a former State Department undersecretary and one of the report's authors, at the study's launch.
The sobering result is that trans-Atlantic experts in Washington fear for Germany's relationship with America. That was also confirmed by a recent survey about the future of NATO that Foreign Policy magazine conducted among dozens of experts in Europe and the US.

When asked what will primarily define German foreign policy in 2020, only three experts cited "the trans-Atlantic relationship" with the US. By contrast, 14 experts said the most important influence would be "Berlin's preference for the status quo."

I remember a couple of months ago in the US military budget thread, a couple of the active service guys said something similar. Does anybody else agree with this?

[Thanas]

The think Tank must be smoking something pretty hard if it thinks Germany wants to abolish the Eurofighter or the Tiger attack helicopter.

All I hear is a lot of bitching about how Germany should have joined in the bombing of Libya (great exercise for FREEDOM that one was) and how Britain, facing one of the largest crisis in their history, DARES to cut back on military spending. Well, excuse me, but if you turn a defensive alliance into "who provides auxillary troops for the latest invasion" then you might also have to deal with the fact that some countries feel less than inclined to go along with that.

[CJvR]

I though we had two great arguments in the last century that resulted in an almost universal decision that the German army was to stay home. Permanently.

[Mr Bean]

Not to mention the German army can make the excellent case that there is literally nothing on their boarders they need their military to defend from. The Soviets are gone as are the Mongols. The French are still there but the same argument can be made for them that there is only so much military a European country needs unless it wants to go on costly foreign entanglements which considering Germany has been without her colonies for a number of years now consists of a whole lot of "not our business" style overseas engagements.

[Aaron MkII]

NATO is basically obsolete in its original purpose anyways. Let people piss and moan all they want, we're not America's sepoys.

[Spoonist]

That is some stupid shit right there.

Where in the NATO charter does it require its members to spend X% of GDP?
Nowhere.
When has Germany stated that it wanted to take a smaller role in NATO?
Never.
Must Germany agree with aggressive military campains as dictated by USA or NATO or EU?
Of course not.
Do Germany want to get rid of fighter jets such as the Eurofighter, Tiger attack helicopters and the NH90 transport helicopter?
Nope.

if that non-think-tank thought that this spiel would earn them anything outside of the US then they are delusional. So its gotta be domestic politcs at play.

[Haruko]

I cannot help but be reminded when the late comedian George Carlin talked about the 'Bigger Dick Theory of War.' The report alluded to above sounds like someone questioning the size of Germany's you-know-what.

[Thanas]

if that non-think-tank thought that this spiel would earn them anything outside of the US then they are delusional. So its gotta be domestic politcs at play.

I don't know man. If that conglomeration of idiots somehow came to the conclusion that Germany wanted to abolish Eurofighter, they might just be so stupid as to think that what they say is true. I mean, apparently such simple fact checking as visiting the German defence department's website must be beyond their power.

[Tribun]

if that non-think-tank thought that this spiel would earn them anything outside of the US then they are delusional. So its gotta be domestic politcs at play.

I don't know man. If that conglomeration of idiots somehow came to the conclusion that Germany wanted to abolish Eurofighter, they might just be so stupid as to think that what they say is true. I mean, apparently such simple fact checking as visiting the German defence department's website must be beyond their power.

I think its more scary that people like that are actually influencing American politics.

[Aaron MkII]

Its pretty standard stuff though, America complaining that the rest of NATO doesn't pull its wait happens every couple of years. Members of the board engage in it regularly. Somehow the thought that we all have different defence priorities rarely sinks in.

[Tribun]

I think part of it stems from just taking a shallow look and drawing the completely wrong conclusions. We just recently (2 years ago) abolished conscription and therefore the army is still full in its transformation into a smaller and more flexible form. Of course they look at the smaller numbers and concluded we have gone the way of the rainbow.

[K. A. Pital]

Germany is not a warmongering nation. US unhappy. Germany should 'act globally'? What do they mean by that, fight wars in East Asia? Middle East? Somewhere deep inside Africa, like France did (and got so much blood on their hands it's still there)?

[Simon_Jester]

Its pretty standard stuff though, America complaining that the rest of NATO doesn't pull its wait happens every couple of years. Members of the board engage in it regularly. Somehow the thought that we all have different defence priorities rarely sinks in.

For myself, I accept the different-priorities argument when it comes from anyone who accepts the consequence of those priorities like an adult.

The simplest consequence is that there will be times and places when your country would like to say "stop doing that" to some obnoxious minor dictatorship. The dictator says "or you'll do what?" And the answer will be "um, nothing much."

I can totally accept that as a viable foreign policy; it works for much of the world. Anyone who thinks their country should do that, fine, OK by me, lower military spending to 1% of GDP with my blessing.

[Vaporous]

Germany is not a warmongering nation. US unhappy. Germany should 'act globally'? What do they mean by that, fight wars in East Asia? Middle East? Somewhere deep inside Africa, like France did (and got so much blood on their hands it's still there)?

"Germany should have more soldiers so that we can borrow some to invade nation X" is what i read out of it. "Act globally" is a great euphemism. It makes war mongering sound like a responsibility.

[Tribun]

Germany is not a warmongering nation. US unhappy. Germany should 'act globally'? What do they mean by that, fight wars in East Asia? Middle East? Somewhere deep inside Africa, like France did (and got so much blood on their hands it's still there)?

"Germany should have more soldiers so that we can borrow some to invade nation X" is what i read out of it. "Act globally" is a great euphemism. It makes war mongering sound like a responsibility.

You mean "Do our dirty work for us"?

[Mr Bean]

You mean "Do our dirty work for us"?

We want you to handle the occupation, the very expensive very not prestigious part of our war efforts here in the glorious American Empire.

[Aaron MkII]

Its kinda funny, didn't Germany and NATO help hold the fort in Afghanistan while the US dicked about in Iraq?

How's the German military fared in that? We damn near broke the Canadian Army after ten years there.

[Spoonist]

I just watched the BBC interview with Anders Fogh Rasmussen in preperation of the chicago meet.
That reporter was dancing to the same tune and got very little for it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... anisation/
For "UK" only...

[Thanas]

Its kinda funny, didn't Germany and NATO help hold the fort in Afghanistan while the US dicked about in Iraq?

How's the German military fared in that? We damn near broke the Canadian Army after ten years there.

Well, so far we have 56 dead soldiers and police officers in total (ranking us in 5th place), with another 246 wounded. We did not break the army due to us being in the calmer north, but we had our losses.

Bad thing is about the number of PTSD cases, we had a discussion about that not long ago here.

[HMS Conqueror]

Germany is not a warmongering nation.

Not anymore anyway. The problem I think is Germany still doesn't fundamentally share the values of the liberal West, but no longer has the strength to act out. Like Japan it has retreated into a shell of isolationism. The only thing that might prompt a change is an aggressive Russia, which could pose a direct-ish threat.

[darthdavid]

Germany is not a warmongering nation.

Not anymore anyway. The problem I think is Germany still doesn't fundamentally share the values of the liberal West, but no longer has the strength to act out. Like Japan it has retreated into a shell of isolationism. The only thing that might prompt a change is an aggressive Russia, which could pose a direct-ish threat.

Please tell me I just missed the subtle signs indicating that this is meant as a joke...

[Aaron MkII]

What values would those be?

[Broomstick]

Germany is not a warmongering nation.

People who remember the last time Germany was a warmongering nation are pretty happy about that, acutally.

US unhappy.

Because Americans don't know history at all well and too many of them don't remember the last time Germany was war-mongering.

Germany should 'act globally'? What do they mean by that, fight wars in East Asia? Middle East? Somewhere deep inside Africa, like France did (and got so much blood on their hands it's still there)?

More like "Germany needs to contribute more to the pot that funds our adventures" rather than actively participating with people and materials. Treasure, if not blood.

[Irbis]

Not anymore anyway. The problem I think is Germany still doesn't fundamentally share the values of the liberal West, but no longer has the strength to act out. Like Japan it has retreated into a shell of isolationism. The only thing that might prompt a change is an aggressive Russia, which could pose a direct-ish threat.

What?

What change for good would this 'aggressive Russia' help to bring about? Care to enlighten us?

All I hear is a lot of bitching about how Germany should have joined in the bombing of Libya (great exercise for FREEDOM that one was) and how Britain, facing one of the largest crisis in their history, DARES to cut back on military spending.

Um, care to explain what you think was wrong with Libya exactly? Have you preferred Syria/Bahrain scenario, or am I not getting something here?

You know, I just don't get people protesting process of replacing someplace's Honecker with (potential) Kohl, especially coming from country that did just that 22 years ago.

[Zaune]

Not anymore anyway. The problem I think is Germany still doesn't fundamentally share the values of the liberal West, but no longer has the strength to act out. Like Japan it has retreated into a shell of isolationism. The only thing that might prompt a change is an aggressive Russia, which could pose a direct-ish threat.

I'm sure I'm going to wish I hadn't asked this, but wouuld you care to elaborate upon exactly what "values of the liberal West" you think Germany doesn't share?