posted on the web on April 13 2003

Country Data

Full Name: Federal Republic of Germany Capital: Berlin Population: 83,251,851 (2002 est.) Location: Europe Total area: 357,021 sq km Language: German Ethnic groups: German 91.5%, Turkish 2.4% Religions: Roman Catholic 34%, Protestant 34%, Muslim 4% Currency: Euro IGO memberships: G-8, EU, NATO, UN, WHO, WTO Internet site: Ministry of Foreign Affairs Source: CIA World Factbook

This is it. It is wartime - once again, one is almost forced to say, but this time it seems to be different somehow. Never before have so many states and so many people agreed on a war being wrong or unjustified.

I do not want to support this opinion without reservations, but I openly admit that I am shocked and dismayed by the changes in the international arena that have occurred in the past days and weeks - the future of the United Nations seems to be as unsure as never before and its future role unpredictable. Was this not to be expected for quite some time?

The first sad truth is that in contrast to public opinion here in Germany, this war was not avoidable at all. On the one hand, because it would be an illusion to believe that Saddam Hussein would cooperate, and on the other hand, because this war was already decided on by the Bush administration long beforehand - how else could the reasons for the war have changed on an almost weekly basis? This is my main critique: The US government changed its agenda from "disarmament" to "change of regime" - a change which is very problematic, to say the least, in light of public international law.

In my view, coercing a reckless and criminal despot to disarm through the use of force, can be legitimate and under certain conditions indispensable. This insight is especially unpopular in Germany, reminding us too much of our own history - another sad truth.

To overthrow a regime because it does adhere to one's own values, even if in earlier times its values were good enough to allow it to fight one's wars, is not comprehensible and moreover not right. It may normatively be justifiable that in the future, one will not tolerate despots similar to Saddam Hussein and for that reason, will also be willing to use force to remove them from power. Yet the question: "Where do you want to go tomorrow, Mr. President?" should be permitted. As of now, no answer has been given.

What we are currently witnessing is less of a campaign to free a repressed people, but rather a restructuring of international relations, which possibly may have long been overdue. For more than one decade there has been only one "superpower" in the world and due to that, it was only a question of time before this would impact the reality of international relations. The turning point in this context was most definitely 9/11/2001, since this day brought about lasting changes in the perception of security in the USA. This in turn led to the choice to add the Iraq to the "to-do-list" once again.

The attempt to bind the US to the UN failed, mainly because too many other states chose a confrontational stance, rather than, after considering the real power distribution in today's world, continuing important dialogue. In this situation the UN was instrumentalized by both sides, which ultimately led to a defeat of diplomacy, completing the dilemma - a sad truth, is it not?

No, this war is not mainly about oil, which would be so gloriously easy, but about the restructuring of international relations. Whatever one's normative stand towards the Bush administrations policies is less important than the revelation that the actions of the US government were, and are, the only rational ones from its point of view. The war then would have been foreseeable, which was the only chance to avert the war.

This critique has to be accepted by both by France and Germany, who have hardly allowed a dialogue to take place. Chancellor Schröder used the general rejection towards a possible war in the past summer to win the federal elections, which was simply rational from his point of view. Should not he, of all people, understand President Bush's actions?

The significant difference is only that the German and French governments, in a moment of excessive overestimation of their own importance, started a confrontation in which there are no winners. Instead of communicating with the USA, they affronted the crucial actor. In addition, instead of supporting Tony Blair, the last foreign head of government who maybe still has influence over George W. Bush, they isolated him.

To bring it all together: Germany and France are not the triggers of this inevitable war. However, they did avert a possible delay by rejecting the British resolution and by moving to the leading position among those who wanted to try to keep the US at bay through the UN, an act which this organization is not capable of doing. The future of Saddam Hussein was only the second concern for China, Russia, France and many others.

From this follows the last sad truth of this article: Politics are not chosen according to morals, but to the greatest expected gain, whether this is winning an election, gaining influence on a more powerful actor, or securing new hegemonic power structures. Since this is, and probably will remain, static in the near future, one has to confront the most depressing fact of all: Even in the 21st century there is no guarantee that the side with the better arguments or the better legal position will win, but rather the side with the greatest military potential to back up its interests. Those who do not want this war should have accepted this earlier.

Florian Otto is a student at the University of Heidelberg, Germany.