Are Germany's New UN Obligations a Migraine Mandate?

The government of German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder could find itself juggling more than its fair share of political hot potatoes in the coming months. The first may come when Germany is welcomed onto the United Nations Security Council team as a non-permanent member from Jan. 1, 2003.

Every two years, five assembly members are invited to join the five permanent countries on the Security Council. It will be Germany's fifth turn on the Council with the current subject at the top of the agenda being Iraq, a theme that must be regularly waking the German chancellor in a cold sweat these days.

As a member of the Security Council, Germany will be called into the front line of decision-making that will dictate what action takes place should Iraq fail to adhere to Resolution 1441 surrounding its alleged weapons of mass destruction programs. It could result in the ultimate test of Germany's foreign policy resolve with the United States and Britain again pushing for military action and France, Russia and China likely to throw spanners in the works once more.

Support pre-emptive action or incur America's wrath?

It could be the Chancellor's hardest choice. Siding with the pre-emptive strike lobby would sit awkwardly with his election declaration that America's apparent desire for war with Saddam Hussein would lead to a "reckless adventure." A German show of council support for such action would erase the last remnants of credibility the government has on its increasingly shaky anti-involvement policy. Presumably, Schröder could claim UN obligations as reason enough for his reversal.

Sticking to its non-firing guns and opposing a military campaign to disarm the Iraqi dictator would set the Germans against the Americans at a time when recent wounds in the relationship are beginning to slowly heal. The political effects of a decision which would thwart U.S. plans would last years, even though they would be taken in a United Nations context.

Conflict between the two nations may also erupt over the International Criminal Court, which the United States vehemently opposes and the Germans unconditionally support, and the current impasse in negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. Germany will also have to contend with conflicting interests over the face-offs in Kashmir and in various areas of Africa.

Sanctions Committee provides further policy dilemmas

Another situation where German delegates might face tough decisions that clash with their own foreign policy will be the UN's Sanctions Committee on Iraq. Germany takes over from Norway as the head of the body which was set up in 1991 around UN Resolution 661, which came into being after the Gulf War. The committee oversees the so-called Oil for Food program that governs the sale of medical and infrastructure supplies to Iraq while restricting any goods that may be used for military purposes.

Germany is a supporter of the sanctions against Iraq as a way of controlling the development of weapons of mass destruction. Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer has spoken in the past of adapting the current measures on a humanitarian basis rather than tightening the strangle hold the sanctions have on the people of Iraq. This is in direct opposition to the American and British opinion that threats of force and tougher sanctions will bring Saddam's regime into line.

Delicate decisions at a time of inner divisions over Iraq

The German position is a delicate one. A strong stance at home against military involvement aided the narrow re-election of Schröder's Social Democrat Party (SPD), but subsequent arguments within the SPD and with coalition partners the Green Party have made the divisions over Iraq embarrassingly public. Taking the arguments onto the international stage could be severely damaging to the administration.

However, while Chancellor Schröder has reneged on many of his election promises, the main aim remains to keep Germany out of any direct conflict in Iraq. But in recent weeks, the strong position has wavered with the definite borders of involvement set by the Germans becoming increasingly blurred.

AWACS and navy deployment may not be 'passive'

Allowing the possible use of German air personnel as crews on AWACS surveillance aircraft in a NATO capacity could be seen as going beyond passive military support. The United States has requested that 17 aircraft stationed in Geilenkirchen, Germany, part of 66 strong NATO fleet of reconnaissance planes, be used in support of any American action against Iraq. The planes are manned by a multinational crew from 11 countries, nearly one-third of which is German. In the event of a war against Iraq the AWACS are likely to be used to monitor Turkish airspace.

The Chancellor has defended his about-turn with statements of NATO allegiance. "Germany will fulfill its obligations towards the alliance...and that naturally also means protecting alliance territory," he said on German television last Wednesday.

Another persuasive call from Washington for further possible help came over the weekend when it was suggested that German naval vessels and personnel could be enlisted under their NATO obligations to escort U.S. ships into the Persian Gulf. Defense Minister Peter Struck, visiting German navy sailors on patrol off the Horn of Africa as part of Operation Enduring Freedom, insisted the deployment of the German Navy would not extend beyond its current anti-terrorist activities.

With increasingly high profile United Nations positions on the horizon, the test of German resolve will have a larger audience and more extensive implications.