What is left?
Understanding Germany’s role in Post Cold-War geopolitics.
In an interview with Gregor Gysi, former president of the European Left and a prominent member of the German party Die Linke (The Left), we discussed Russo-German relationships, the role of the Cold War in debates about today’s foreign policy, and the future of geopolitical security.
Note: The interview was conducted in German, all quotes have been translated directly by the author.
Mister Gysi, do we still need NATO? The historical foundations of NATO were set during the Cold War, Gysi explained. When Gorbachev demanded Germany’s withdrawal from NATO as a step towards a neutral reunited Germany and a new era of Foreign Policy his request was declined. Gorbachev’s reply to this was that the USA wanted Russia outside of NATO because it did not trust Russia, and Germany in NATO because it did not trust Germany. Indeed, Germany was the only piece of land that was in both East and West Europe simultaneously for 40 years. The Allied powers failed to recognize that the Cold War was over. According to Gysi, they missed a chance to create a neutral country that would help prevent and settle conflicts.
Following Gysi’s argument, the ignorant celebration of triumph boils down to ‘Western arrogance’, a conviction that Russia became somewhat irrelevant in international cooperation. Now that Russia was not threatening the world order anymore, Western political leaders seemingly forgot about their commitment to international law and peace. Their failure to account for a changing landscape of the international arena led to a lack of ability to think politically outside of the old friend-enemy dichotomy. As geopolitical realities changed, new economic ties bound and dependencies created, German politics failed to keep up.
According to Gysi, Germany is dependent on good relations with three countries in this world: the USA, China, and Russia. Germany currently has good relations with none of the three: with the USA, it is too subservient, China seems too foreign, and relationships with Russia are prejudiced. The problem: there is no mutual trust. Mutual trust doesn’t mean agreeing on everything, but it means honesty. Germany has lost the trust of all three of these countries. However, we need better relations with each of these countries to be able to constructively criticize them. He has high hopes for the next generation to leave this behind and build up a new relationship of trust. Trust is essential because it allows criticism and allows criticism to be taken seriously.
Prejudice against Russia might originate from conflicts long past, but considering recent developments, it is hard to ignore Russia’s increasingly aggressive foreign policy. The annexation of Crimea, cyber-attacks on the Bundestag, persecution of political opposition — not to mention the attempted, and at times successful, murder of political rivals. Gysi points out, however, that none of this has actually been proven; There were no thorough legal investigations and Putin is unlikely to admit something like this happening without his knowledge. These affairs, Gysi says, would at least be able to adequately be investigated if Germany had a solid relationship of trust to Russia. And only based on evidence, Germany should pass judgment and reconsider German-Russo relationships if necessary. When Germany openly rejected Putin’s proposal of closer economic and political relations in the German Bundestag in 2001, it was stuck in a Cold War mindset. Gysi accuses the German mainstream politics of a Cold War-era bias against Russia. However, are we not right to refuse to cooperate with countries openly violating international law?
Gysi is convinced that Germany should stop playing the know-it-all but instead cooperate with others to achieve a re-establishment of international law and protection of human rights. In the same way, NATO members are ignoring their own past, there seems to be no problem in German relationships with Saudi Arabia. Even after the brutal murder of Khashoggi in the Saudi embassy in Istanbul, there were no consequences. This dishonesty has to stop — Germany cannot sell weapons to one country and refuse to speak to another on grounds of human rights concerns. An equal scale must apply to all. Germany should be able to offer a choice: cooperate or not, but both will bring consequences.
Pointing towards instances such as the Kosovo crisis, Gysi argues that NATO members have not been respecting human rights, or only chose to do so selectively, while criticizing others for doing the same. Germany never admitted to its own wrongdoings in the Balkan wars, while expecting Russia to conform to its expectations on following international law. In a similarly Janus-faced manner, human rights concerns do not undermine the government’s, admittedly, unofficial support for sales of weapons to Saudi Arabia. This hypocrisy is an example of how international cooperation functions mainly in economic terms, just like the Biden administration is currently refraining from openly incriminating the Saudi Arabian prince because of the importance of US-Saudi economic relationships. Be it weapons or natural gas, international cooperation is increasingly thought of in terms of energy and military. This is reflected in military spending: Germany’s military spending will reach €53 billion in 2021. Taking a look at other NATO members, those countries are quite literally indefeasible front runners in terms of military capacities, with funding up to $1.040 billion in 2019. Countries like China, Russia, and India are radically scaling up their spending as a response. Is this new arms race for alleged national security the inevitable future of International Relations?
As Gysi points out, we never came up with a political solution. During the Cold War, international law could be enforced because two superpowers were facing off. International law was in everybody’s interest, but now that the Cold War is over and long past, it will be necessary to think in new terms. The need for solidarity fell away, as states don’t rely on each other anymore for survival. This is problematic in the face of bigger issues we face: climate change and problems in the global economy such as poverty and rising inequality. We have a global economy, but no functioning global politics, he says. This leads to the economy being stronger than politics, but Democracy only exists in Politics. To reach global democracy, we need a mediator in world politics.
In order to engage in International Cooperation, the Left demands for accusations to turn into investigations and for more honest dialogue amongst members of the international community. For this to be possible, Western democracies need to hold themselves to the same ethical standards they (inconsistently) impose on others. This does not allow for double standards because they are economically viable. Instead of exporting and investing in weapons, Berlin should invest in better diplomatic relations and take on more responsibility.
Sources to all my articles can be found under my author page, labelled article references.
