FAZ power question: war and peace at the traffic lights

It is the privilege of the underdog to be allowed to rant uncontestedly.

At this point, however, we have to counter the CDU chancellor candidate Armin Laschet with something.

He recently said in an interview with the FAZ: “Nobody in this traffic light alliance seems to be interested in foreign policy.”

And further: "Especially in connection with climate policy, we need a strong foreign policy that also addresses this issue strategically around the world."

Mona Jaeger

Deputy Editor in Charge of News and Politics Online.

• Follow I follow

Yes, one would indeed have liked to have heard more about that in the election campaign. But why didn't Laschet do it himself? Part of the answer will be: Foreign policy cannot win federal elections. Is it [called. Exceptions, such as the question about German participation in the Iraq war in 2002, are only apparent exceptions. Because actually something more internal politics was being negotiated. And the majority of voters are probably more interested in the challenges of integrating refugees in their neighborhood than in combating the causes of flight.

The election campaign is now over, now the politics for reality follow. And that means: Foreign policy should emerge now at the latest, Laschet is right. It is not just a new departure for Germany that is required, but in a certain way the whole world is on the move. And there are enough occasions: the threatening gestures of the Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the blackmail attempts of the Belarusian dictator Lukashenko, Putin's gas geopolitics, the attempts in EU countries to undermine democratic mechanisms.

There is still no coalition agreement between the traffic light partners SPD, Greens and FDP. It will be exciting to see what role foreign policy will play in it - if the parties come to an agreement. And that is why the exploratory paper, the only written definition of the parties so far, should not be put on the gold scales. But you should take a look, because it contains the first indications of a future foreign policy. There are also some interesting comments from negotiators that make you sit up and take notice.

“Germany is facing up to its global responsibility,” it says on foreign policy, the last chapter in the exploratory paper. The coalition agreement of 2017, when the Union and the SPD formed a coalition, put Europe ahead: first chapter, headline: “A new departure for Europe”. In the current exploratory paper there are a few sentences that sound meaningful: "We will make our foreign, security and development policy more value-based and more European." Which values ​​these are is not explained further.

Elsewhere the paper is even contradicting itself: A “restrictive arms policy” is promised, but then an EU arms export regulation is also promised. In the EU, however, there are very different arms policy interests. France, for example, is much more relaxed than Germany. How one should agree on a uniform line - questionable.

The Bundeswehr should be better equipped. The Afghanistan mission should be carefully examined in order to learn from it. It is expressly spoken of "future German missions abroad". NATO's two percent target, according to which German defense spending would have to increase significantly by 2024, is not mentioned by the SPD, Greens and FDP. Because you don't support it? Because you haven't agreed yet? Obviously, there are gaps between the parties not only when it comes to money. In many places the paper reads more like an inventory than an agenda of what is to come.

And there is an argument. For example with Nord Stream II. The SPD wants to put the pipeline into operation, the Greens are against it, the FDP doesn't know exactly. Annalena Baerbock, the green candidate for chancellor and promising candidate for the office of foreign minister, recently pointed out again: According to European energy law, ownership and operation of the pipeline must be decoupled. The reference to the applicable law can also be found in the exploratory paper. Of course, a political decision has not yet been made. The SPD chairman Norbert Walter-Borjans recently said again that Nord Stream II should go into operation. The dispute is therefore carried out at the highest level.

A possible next controversial topic: Germany's nuclear participation. In the exploratory paper, the topic is circumnavigated quite extensively, there is talk of disarmament. The issue came up with force because the peace-moving SPD parliamentary group leader Rolf Mützenich accused the incumbent defense minister of the CDU, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, of having uttered “irresponsible” mind games on the use of nuclear weapons in a conflict with Russia. Kramp-Karrenbauer had said that NATO had to "make it very clear" to Russia that it was also prepared to use nuclear weapons if the worst came to the worst. That is the point of the deterrent doctrine.

An escalation? Kramp-Karrenbauer actually only said familiar things. After all, deterrence only works if the potential enemy knows that the other side is ready to use the weapons. This is not in contrast to arms control and disarmament, as the traffic light partners are also calling for.

In the end, will it depend on what has been recorded in writing - or will foreign policy be done in the Chancellery anyway, as it was at least temporarily under Angela Merkel?

That will also depend on who becomes foreign minister.

Heiko Maas is perceived everywhere as a diplomatic, but not very assertive foreign minister.

So far, he has not made it clear that he would be particularly keen to continue holding the office.

So it will also be exciting to see which man or woman will be involved in the Federal Foreign Office in the next few days.