Updates

Back to News

A Duty to Help

France is Germany’s closest ally. Not to stand by it would undermine the foundations of the European Union.

By Matthias Nass

Happy are those people who have a quick and easy answer for everything. Who know, for example, that the “Islamic State” can only be overcome by war. Or those who are adamant that Germany can never wage war, not even against a monstrous group that beheads men and sells women into sex slavery, and who are, by the way, bringing their war to Europe.

The truth is: whether or not war is the way to fight the Islamic State is a difficult question. The federal government of Germany already answered it for themselves over a year ago when they joined the Anti-IS coalition. Since then, under the leadership of the US, the coalition has carried out attacks on the Islamic State’s strongholds in Iraq and Syria. But Germany has only taken part in this war by supplying weapons to the Peshmerga. It has not yet intervened with its own soldiers.

Then came the attacks on Paris. As I sent a French friend my condolences, he wrote back, “This is a war, but we’re going to win it.” The same was said by Francois Hollande: “France is at war.”

And the Germans? Chancellor Angela Merkel immediately promised Hollande all possible support, an obvious statement made quickly to a close ally. To France, however, it was quite serious. France requested assistance under Article 42.7 of the EU Constitution. According to that article, “in the case of an armed attack on the sovereign territory of a member nation, the other member nations must provide it all of their standing assistance and support.”

How can Germany not help?

The wording of the article is so clear, that even the most determined pacifist would have to consider whether or not they place on France’s closest friend, neighbor, and ally–that is, Germany–the duty to provide military assistance.

France went further: it called on the UN Security Council. The Council unanimously resolved that all of the member states of the United Nations that “have the capacity” were called upon “to take all necessary measures”…to destroy “the safe havens” established by the terrorists of the Islamic State in wide swaths of Iraq and Syria.

Admittedly, this resolution is not a mandate under Chapter 7 of the UN-Charter, which allows military action to “restore international peace and security.” Nonetheless, France is invoking the right to self-defense, which holds equal rank according to international law.

Every German politician who has any sense when it comes to foreign and security policy knows that we have to stand by France. That is why the Cabinet decided on a military mission in Syria “in light of the collective right to self-defense according to Article 51 of the UN Charter.”

Of course no one should forget the misguided and unfortunate outcomes of Western intervention during the conflicts of the Middle East. It is necessary, then, to act thoughtfully and carefully in our duties to stand by our ally. When the German federal government deploys six Tornado IDS jets and a frigate and when, at the same time, 650 soldiers are sent to northern Mali, where until now an overwhelmingly French force fought Islamic extremism, then the government is meeting the minimum of France’s expectations.

There is no arguing that there is little detailed planning or strategic oversight to be found in these operations. But that comes as no surprise. Germany has had good reason to hesitate until now. It is still true that getting involved in Syria, with its dozens of confused fronts, means walking into a dangerous inferno.

But to keep standing by without action? To not, as the Security Council demands, destroy the “safe havens” from which nearly 30,000 IS fighters are carrying out their barbaric campaign?

It will not be Merkel’s war

That can only be the answer of those that have decided that in the case of a comparable terrorist attack on Germany, we will refuse to call on our friends for help and solidarity.

Everyone else will be troubled by the question: how much of that which is necessary, is also responsible and right? They will also be struck by the truly conscience-troubling question of whether one wants to work with the Syrian army–only after Assad’s fall, of course, when a transitional government is in power–or let them know that they will also be going the way of the dictator. That was what America did with Saddam Hussein’s soldiers: today they are the military backbone of the “Islamic State”.

This will not be Merkel’s war. The chancellor is not one of those fortunate people who have a quick and easy answer for everything. She has obviously thought painfully over these matters. In the end, she and her cabinet have made the right decision, and made the only choice possible where our closest allies are concerned, namely, that solidarity must be more than a word of consolation.

 

This article is part of a regular series of contributions from Matthias Nass for the Bucerius network. Matthias Nass began his career with ZEIT in 1983, and from 1998 to 2010 served as Deputy Editor-in-Chief. Since 2011, he has served as Chief International Correspondent for the newspaper. His area of expertise is foreign and security policy. This article was originally published in ZEIT Online.