Shortly before officially handing over her office to Olaf Scholz, former German chancellor Angela Merkel approved an arms deal that caused much criticism. Since the start of the year and by November 29, 2021, Germany had exported weapons and armaments worth €0.18 billion. With the approval of the arms deal shortly before the government change, the value of arms exports rose to €9.04 billion which means that Germany broke its 2019 record of €8.015 billion worth of arms exports.

Furthermore, Germany exported 65.8 percent of its arms and armaments to third countries (non-EU states) in 2021. Last year, the percentage of arms exports to third countries was 50.1; €1.6 billion worth of arms exports were reported to have been exported to EU countries, and €1.5 billion to NATO members and states on an equal level with the alliance. While €4 billion worth of weapons were exported, €5 billion worth of military equipment was exported.

The export of military equipment worth €4.34 billion to Egypt was approved. This means that almost half of the approved arms deals were destined for Egypt, making it by far the largest destination for German arms exports. It was announced that the export of three warships and 16 air defense systems to Egypt was approved on December 7, 2021.

Criticism from the left spectrum

The approved arms deals were criticized by the German Left Party and the Greens. Statistics on German arms exports from 2021 were published by the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action upon the request of Left Party politician Sevim Dağdelen. Dağdelen criticized Chancellor Scholz and the SPD (Social Democratic Party of Germany) based on the statistics records.

The German government is preparing to set certain criteria for approving and rejecting arms export deals.

The SPD was in government with the CDU (Christian Democratic Union of Germany) for the last two legislative terms (2013-2021). Dağdelen criticized the fact that despite the arms exports to dictatorships, the SPD did not have to face any consequences and even won the election, and called Scholz a “crook” (Gaunerstück).

The Greens are now in government and are mainly responsible for arms exports. They, too, criticized Merkel’s approved arms deals. In response, Minister of Foreign Affairs Annalena Baerbock announced that the German government wants to control arms exports better in the future. To this end, the German government is preparing to set certain criteria for approving and rejecting arms export deals.

“Traffic light coalition” must maintain its credibility

After the arms deal was announced, the current German government is under pressure. It is expected that especially the SPD and the Greens will not view the decision of German arms exports the same way. The SPD sees Germany as a trading state and wants to continue with arms exports without any restrictions, as it is one of the country’s most important sources of revenue. The Greens, on the other hand, want to review arms export deals in light of human rights issues. It is a matter of question now whether realpolitik or value-based politics will win.

In May 2021, the current minister of economic affairs and climate action and Green politician Robert Habeck said that the German government should supply weapons to Ukraine.

Interestingly, statements by the Greens and their actual position do not match in some cases. In May 2021, the current minister of economic affairs and climate action and Green politician Robert Habeck said that the German government should supply weapons to Ukraine. Habeck’s statement contradicted those of Baerbock, who is against arms deliveries to Ukraine.

The Greens are under pressure mainly because, as a party, they are a pacifist one; however, their credibility was lost after the Kosovo War in 1999. At that time, the Greens were in government and were responsible for Germany becoming actively involved in a war for the first time since World War II. Then, realpolitik had prevailed over value-based politics.

Double standards?

Germany’s approved arms deals to third countries where human rights are violated shows a lack of credibility. While Germany and France outwardly pioneer defending human rights, they cause further human rights violations by allowing arms exports to dictatorships. Morality and political ethics are only of discursive value, with no essential value – and perhaps even a weapon to use against “others.”

Statements by CDU politician Kiesenwetter about the competition with China and Russia summarize this paradox quite well, showing that moral values are only important in domestic politics, but in international affairs, Germany acts no differently than authoritarian regimes like the aforementioned two countries.

The silence of the SPD and Olaf Scholz illustrate that the German federal government wants to continue this policy. The Greens will appear to oppose it in their statements; however, their lack of credibility and effectiveness will impede them from having any  real say on the issue. In the end, it seems highly likely that Germany will continue its current unchecked policy of arms exports.

Tareq Alaows is one of the initiators of the Seebrücke (1) Initiative and a member of Flüchtlingsrat (2) Berlin. In February 2021, he launched his candidacy for the Green Party to represent Oberhausen in North Rhine-Westphalia. Although there was a public interest in his candidacy, he decided to withdraw due to threat calls that he received against him, and people close to him. Politics Today interviewed Tareq Alaows about his experience as a Syrian refugee in Germany and the political participation and representation of refugees in Germany.

Q. Could you please briefly introduce yourself and tell us about your journey as a Syrian refugee to Germany?

I left Syria in July 2015. After traveling to Lesbos, Greece through Turkey, I took the Balkan route. I took most of the way to Germany from Athens on foot, and I finally arrived in the German city of Dortmund in September 2015. I had studied law back in Syria, and for more than five years now, I work as a jurist, who is engaged in providing legal aid for refugees during their asylum and residency processes in Germany. I am a political activist too and one of the initiators of the political movement called the Seebrücke. I am still a part of the coordination circle and serve as the press secretary.

Q. When and how have you become politically active in Germany?

Well, I haven’t become politically active ever since I arrived in Germany. I furthered my work in the humanitarian field, which I had started much earlier in Syria and continued here in Germany. But the central issue of my work was no longer human rights in Syria, but human rights in Germany. I took the cause for people, who came here as refugees.

I had no other choice than to become politically active. When I arrived here, I saw that our legal rights as refugees were not being properly applied in practice. I was detected in a military center in the middle of nowhere. When I wanted to buy something, I was supposed to walk five kilometers to the nearest supermarket. There were no buses or trains or any other means of transportation. After two months, I was transferred to Bochum. There, I was supposed to live in a basketball hall at a school with sixty other people. Families, men, women, children, all of us, were in one room, and we were not allowed to do anything that we wanted.

I lived in this situation, where we could not even enjoy our basic human rights for six months and I could not stand it anymore. I had to react to this situation and started an action. I organized the people in our accommodation and set a protest camp in front of the City Hall.

Q. Quite naturally, you demanded to live in dignity. How did German authorities react to this? What was your experience with the first protest?

We managed to make our demands heard thanks to our protest in front of the City Hall. Thereafter, we were organized under Refugee Strike Bochum and continued to be active in the negotiations. We observed the implementation process of our demands in regard to the asylum policy in Bochum in the following years. We started to have regular meetings with the City Hall. There, we did only talk about our problems, but also provided solutions. The administration in the city hall was responsible and saw that we, as refugees, were a part of the solution. In the end, we learned a lot from each other.

Q. To protect your basic rights and demands, you have democratically organized and taken a political role at the local level. But what has motivated you to take an active part at the federal level?

During my political activism at the local level, I recognized that everything I said reached the German politicians in my city better than what the German activists or the political parties in the opposition were saying. Because I was talking about my life and the very conditions that I was living in. I think they could not argue against it.

And I see that I am not an exception. I know thousands of refugees from different countries, as well as people from Germany, who are doing a great job here in uplifting the refugee voices and working to maintain the human rights for refugees.

I just have been lucky to have the media attention, which helped shed light on and bring solutions to the issues we -as refugees- encountered. But the question eventually transformed into how could we represent these persons, who have arrived in this society?

I was eventually transformed from being a normal person running for candidacy to a target of racism and hate speech. People who target me are not targeting me as Tareq Alaows but target a person of color with a refugee background, a person who showed the courage to claim his rights to be represented in the German parliament.

I just run for the elections, and this is a democratic right. At the end of the day, it will be German voters’ decision to elect or not to elect me. But the right-wing party viewed it differently. They were afraid of me being elected in a democratic way and they did everything to stop me.

Q. What did exactly happen, and you decided to withdraw your candidacy?

I was receiving hundreds of comments and messages on the internet, that said that they knew where I am living, where I am walking, and where I am eating, and I had to be careful. And I saw that most of the messages were written in the “we” form, and not in the “I” form. It was like groups in the background and not like single persons. There were two people in my team, who were deleting those racist comments and messages on social media and documenting things that are relevant for my safety for the police.

I just run for the elections, and this is a democratic right. It’s the German voters’ decision to elect or not to elect me. But the right-wing party viewed it differently.

Most of the messages were anonymous and we could not tell by whom they were sent, or which persons or groups were doing it, so, there was nothing we could do. For me, it was a very dangerous situation, and nobody could calculate consequences. I had to protect my family and people working with me. I had no guarantee for my safety. So, I had to withdraw my candidacy in the elections. But as a jurist and political activist, I still defend the basic human rights of refugees.

Q. What was the reaction of the Green Party, or of other political parties, to this incident?

Both the Green Party and other democratic parties learned something from this experience. The Green Party, of which I was a candidate, accepted my withdrawal from candidacy and drafted a document in order to avoid a possible future incident as such and to establish a mechanism to counsel and support victims of such racisms. I think every political party in Germany must start debates about racism in politics and work for developing awareness.

Q. Your experience, then, highlights that there are serious obstacles concerning the participation and representation of minorities in political life in Germany. How do you think it could be overcome?

This could be overcome only by empowering those people in politics, who are victims of racism and encouraging them to get involved in democratic processes. Because the only way to fight against racism in politics is to have more people with a refugee or a minority background in politics. We can talk about democracy if every group in our society, including the minorities and the newcomers, are represented. Otherwise, it is nothing but a mock debate. We need to have more democratic environments and dialogue between members of the host society and the newcomers.

We also need to work to create awareness among the youth via programs for young persons, immigrants, or non-immigrants and let them be involved in these political debates. Above all, we need to put it in a context; when we talk about refugees we talk about humans.

Importantly, all these debates and dialogues need to be translated to a legal basis. We need more clear and strict laws against racism and extremism both on online platforms and in real life. Racism is not an opinion, it is a criminal act, and we have to name it and fight against it.

Although I decided to cancel my candidacy for the German federal elections of 2021 and continue my work in the humanitarian field, I am optimistic that political parties in Germany have learned something from that experience.

German foreign policy during the Merkel era was characterized by pragmatism and balance. Merkel’s focus in foreign policy was clearly on the stability of the EU and maintaining relations with important third countries. The future German government, probably consisting of a traffic light coalition, may experience several conflicts in foreign policy decision-making. Accordingly, these conflicts may lead to Germany increasingly losing influence in international politics.

Merkel’s foreign policy

When Merkel took over the chancellorship in 2005, the first item on the agenda was to repair the damaged transatlantic relationship with the U.S. The Schröder-Fischer government had opposed the Iraq war in 2003, which caused the U.S. to put its relations with Germany on hold. Merkel’s election led to Germany acting again in a pro-transatlantic manner and adopting a more distanced stance towards Russia. However, the EU no longer acted as independently as it had during Schröder’s time, but had increasingly come under the influence of the United States.

The ongoing euro crisis since 2009, the Ukraine crisis in 2014, the ‘refugee crisis’ in 2015, and Brexit in 2016 were to endanger Europe’s stability and put Germany to the test. The fact that Trump was elected in 2016 was to make the situation much more difficult for Germany and Europe. Merkel was left on her own to find new approaches for her foreign policy strategy. She had increasingly distanced herself from her initial strategy of looking to Western partners for foreign policy, and instead shifted to a foreign policy strategy characterized by pragmatism and balance, with German state interests at the forefront.

However, the pragmatic approach was also necessary for Germany to remain relevant in international politics. The EU was threatening to break apart more and more, especially due to the influx of refugees. By opening EU borders, Merkel accepted to endanger the stability of her own national borders. By virtue of its Eurosceptic stance, the far-right party AFD (Alternative for Germany) had already gained fundamental support from a certain section of the population anyway. The ‘refugee crisis’ and the approach of the ostensibly conservative CDU (Christian Democratic Union) further strengthened the right-wing extremists.

The fact that there has been so little focus on foreign policy so far could have to do with the fact that no real foreign policy strategy has yet been formulated by the future German government.

Experts have little hope

CDU chancellor candidate Armin Laschet has already criticized the fact that in the coalition negotiations there was little talk of foreign and security policy issues. This is very worrying, he said, as Germany plays an important role in international politics and should also assume this role in order not to lose its influence as an important player. The fact that there has been so little focus on foreign policy so far could have to do with the fact that no real foreign policy strategy has yet been formulated by the future German government. Most experts are critical of the absence of hardly any overlapping points in  foreign policy strategy.

Political scientist Johannes Varwick has commented that apart from general commitments to NATO and the EU, which he describes as “usual foreign policy platitudes,” no concrete points have been formulated. Expert Gustav C. Gressel of the European Council on Foreign Relations also denounces the little attention that has been paid to foreign policy issues and emphasizes that the points of overlap between the coalition parties are very few.

The fundamental difference with the Merkel era is that the German federal foreign office will most likely be run by the Greens. The Greens are known for their transatlantic foreign policy, so, on the one hand, the focus will be on the stability of relations with the U.S., and, on the other hand, a tougher stance on Russia and China are expected.

It should also be underlined that in German foreign policy the dominant role is usually played by the chancellor. Therefore, it can be expected that Olaf Scholz and the SPD will try and probably succeed to a large extent in realizing their foreign policy ideas. This, in turn, will inevitably lead to tensions within the coalition, as the Greens and the FDP will not always want to subordinate themselves to the SPD.

If the SPD has a different idea than its coalition partners on fundamental issues such as the Russia and China policy, which is also quite possible, and if it always gets its way on these important points, the other parties in government will clash with the SPD as a result of not being able to implement their promises and act according to their political stances.

That is why experts justifiably fear that Germany will continue to play a reactive rather than an active role in the international arena. A German foreign policy strategy based on consensus cannot exist at all if there are hardly any overlaps. The result will be that the German government will act far too cautiously in international politics and, as before, will find answers to emerging crises too late. In a nutshell, one should not put too much hope in the future federal government being an influential player in international politics.

The New York Times saw fit to give the title of “Leader of the Free World” to Angela Merkel after Donald Trump’s election in 2017. It is questionable if Merkel, who after 16 years of governing Germany will voluntarily leave her office following the federal elections of September 26, deserves this title. At the moment, the world consists of a West and an EU that have lost their internal unity, and are suffering from an erosion of moral and value superiority. Therefore, when evaluating Merkel’s legacy, it is essential to analyze the developments around the world in the last 30 years.

Breeze of freedom

When Merkel was first elected chancellor in 2005, it was 15 years after the West announced its victory over communism. The two Germanies had merged, and a breeze of freedom was blowing through the world. Moreover, the process of the formation of the European Union had accelerated, and no direct threat remained against the West after the removal of the risk factor coming from Eastern European countries, all of which had begun to join NATO and the EU.

Perhaps most importantly, China was a Third World country which acted as a workshop for the West, far from the challenging model and economic power that it is today. In light of the political atmosphere described above, famous American political scientist Francis Fukuyama had declared the “End of History” hailing the ascension of a Western liberal order and the West’s final victory. However, what is the state of the world and Europe today, 16 years later, as Merkel, the “Leader of the Free World,” prepares to leave office?

Europe and the world are much more unstable and chaotic now than when Merkel first took office, while Europe and the U.S. received a nasty blow in terms of moral superiority. On the other hand, China is now a world power which aims to use its economic power to create an order in line with those of the U.S. and Europe. Meanwhile, Russia threatens Europe’s security just as it did in the Soviet era, and Europe struggles to be the center of weight and appeal with Britain leaving the EU, numerous economic crises, and the rise of the far right. The question is what was Merkel’s role in creating today’s unstable, contemporary world.

It is important to underline that Merkel takes responsibility when it is necessary. For example, even though she wanted to leave politics along with the office of chancellor in 2017, she changed her mind after the election of Donald Trump.

First, it is important to underline that Merkel takes responsibility when it is necessary. For example, even though she wanted to leave politics along with the office of chancellor in 2017, she changed her mind after the election of Donald Trump. The anecdotes of Ben Rhodes, who was an advisor to Barack Obama when he was U.S. president, have offered us some details on the subject.

According to Rhodes, on November 8, 2016, eight days after Trump’s election, Obama privately visited Merkel in Berlin. Obama asked Merkel whether she’ll run again for chancellor during their dinner at the Adlon Hotel. Merkel told him that she feels a responsibility to run again to ensure the continuity of the liberal order after Trump’s election. Indeed, one week after this meeting, Merkel publicly announced that she would run again for office. This is undoubtedly evidence that Merkel has a character that does not shy away from taking on responsibility when it is called for.

Results of a passive attitude

Looking at the material results of Merkel’s policies, one can claim that her patient style did not pay off. Her attitude, patient according to some, “passive” according to others, separated Russia from the West and turned it into a threat for the West once more. The fact is that as the leader of perhaps the most important country in Europe, Merkel didn’t interfere with the EU’s signing of a free trade agreement with Ukraine despite all the opposition from Russia, which resulted in 13,000 deaths in Ukraine, the annexation of Crimea by Russia, and the de facto division of Ukraine in two. In the end, the relationship between Europe and Russia was structurally damaged to the point that they were on the brink of an actual war. Merkel’s pre-crisis passive attitude and post-crisis weak management have dragged the E.U.-Russia relations into a long-term uncertainty.

What happened with Turkey during Merkel’s time in office is similar to what happened with Russia. Following its EU candidacy at the 1999 EU summit in Copenhagen, Turkey started a serious reform and entered a serious economic lunge by triplicating its GNP in a short time. However, after Merkel became chancellor, together with Sarkozy, president of France at the time, they virtually blocked Turkey’s EU accession.

Even though this might be understandable considering her party’s values, it has led to a crisis in both Turkey-EU and Turkey-Germany relations. What is more, Merkel’s exclusionary policies have led to Turkey expanding its foreign policy, first and foremost with Russia, and have interrupted Turkey’s reform dynamic by alienating it from the EU. Even though Merkel started to realize Turkey’s importance after the Syrian refugee crisis, it seems to be quite difficult for Turkey and the EU to build a relationship based on trust following this course of events.

Shortsightedness

In the end, we can say that the state of the world affairs is seriously different today than it was 16 years ago when Chancellor Merkel first took office. Then, the West and Europe enjoyed more stability and power than they do now. However, as Germany’s longest standing leader, Merkel perhaps could have intervened in some way to prevent events from taking the course that they did.