Politico has reported that high-level discussions are under way in Berlin about sending a warship through the Taiwan Strait, following similar US and French excursions that challenged China’s claim to the waterway.
It shows that the German establishment is worried about the US perception of Germany as a less than reliable ally and about France’s transparent ambition to be the EU’s leading military power.
At the same time, the Taiwan plan is clear evidence that Germany does not want to take any risks or invest too much in tackling these issues.
Germany is under constant pressure from the US administration to spend more on defense, but that is a political impossibility while the Social Democrats are part of the governing coalition: They do not recognize NATO’s 2 percent spending pledge as reasonable.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats are more pro-NATO and pro-US — although it would like someone other than US President Donald Trump to be in charge — but their ability to back up those loyalties with action are limited.
One reason is that German voters are consistently opposed to their country’s participation in any overseas conflicts; about three-quarters were against interfering in Syria, for example.
The German concept of a “parliamentary army” — one that only intervenes abroad with the parliament’s permission — makes acting against such formidable majorities problematic. If German troops do go overseas, it is usually on training and support missions. Even in Afghanistan, the only country out of a dozen with German deployments where Germany serves as a lead nation, training Afghan soldiers is the focus of the mission.
Another reason is that the German armed forces face combat readiness problems. Although the Bundeswehr’s inspector general in March reported to parliament that the situation was improving, he admitted that only about 70 percent of the military’s weapons systems were immediately usable and that difficulties remained with submarines and combat aircraft.
Exact numbers of how much of every specific type of military equipment is battle-ready are not being released anymore, which is somewhat suspicious given alarming reports from previous years.
The German navy, too, is not in the best shape. The story of its lead F125 frigate, the Baden-Wuerttemberg, is a good illustration. The warship was first delivered to the navy in 2016, but sent back to the shipyard for numerous fixes. It was delivered anew in late April and should be commissioned this month.
Meanwhile, existing ships suffer from frequent spare-part shortages and long repair times. The navy, like the rest of the Bundeswehr, is short on personnel and it is not heavily engaged in international operations.
The Taiwan Strait looks like an ideal setting in which Germany could show that France, which has been investing heavily in its naval power, is not the only European country with a large, functional military.
In April, a French warship, the frigate Vendemiaire, sailed through the Strait. It was tailed and told to leave by the Chinese navy, but it completed the mission, adding the French voice to that of the US, which has repeatedly sent ships to the area over the past year.
Germany could also demonstrate its loyalty to NATO and US interests; for Germany, the South China Sea is not a strategic priority, so if it shows its flag there, it would be out of solidarity with allies.
At the same time, Germany would not be taking on much risk. Although China always voices strong objections when Western ships pass through the Taiwan Strait, which, along with Taiwan itself, it regards as its own, the probability that a NATO ship would be attacked with deadly force there is low. China has enough on its hands fighting a trade war with the US without adding a military conflict to it. It does not need simultaneous trouble with the EU, either.
Germany has much more of an interest in the safety and sovereignty of Ukraine, a country that aspires to EU membership, than in what happens in the South China Sea. It has an ongoing, though recently neglected, role in mediating Ukraine’s conflict with Russia.
However, Germany would not try to send its warships into the Sea of Azov to help free up Ukrainian ports, which are under pressure from the Russian navy. There, the possibility of a deadly clash would be much higher than in the Taiwan Strait.
Still, even symbolic gestures matter. If a German ship does sail to the Taiwan Strait, Germany’s NATO partners should not dismiss the move as meaningless. Rather, they should see it as a promise that Germany will remain true to its alliances.
Just don’t demand too much of it now.
Leonid Bershidsky is Bloomberg Opinion’s Europe columnist. He was the founding editor of the Russian business daily Vedomosti and founded the opinion Web site Slon.ru. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS