Traffic light struggles with strategy: it will definitely take longer


analysis

Status: 01/12/2023 08:07 a.m

The traffic light project for a cross-departmental foreign and security policy is faltering. But many want to have a say in the “national security strategy” – including the federal states. A meeting should now smooth the waves.

By Michael Stempfle, ARD Capital Studio

It should have been the big stage: the federal government wanted to present its project for a “national security strategy” at the Munich Security Conference in mid-February. In other words, where the elite of the international security community meet. The best possible place to discuss strategy. Actually. Because from coalition circles it is now said: One is “skeptical” whether this schedule can still be met.

There are several reasons for this: On the one hand, the traffic light parties have simply not yet been able to agree on all the details. On the other hand, the federal states complain that they were not even asked when the strategy was being drawn up. Yet it is the countries that are primarily concerned with questions of internal security.

For clarity: the SPD, Greens and FDP had committed themselves in the coalition agreement to formulating a “national security strategy” for the first time in the history of the federal government. The idea behind it: a foreign and security policy from a single source.

Not always on the same page: Ministers Baerbock and Lambrecht

Image: EPA

5000 helmets for Ukraine

The fact that Germany is still a long way from this was shown by the Russian attack on Ukraine. Chancellor Olaf Scholz spoke of a “turning point” after the war began at the end of February. The fact that Defense Minister Christine Lambrecht initially only wanted to deliver 5,000 helmets to support the Ukrainians contradicted the declarations of solidarity by Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock. The challenge of organizing the necessary ammunition in addition to arms deliveries could also have been met more successfully if there had been a joint effort by various departments – above all the Ministry of Defense and the Federal Foreign Office.

The current dispute over tank deliveries also shows that there is still a great need for coordination for the different positions within the traffic light and between ministries and the Chancellery, which could be clarified as quietly as possible in a new body.

Dissent also at the “National Security Council”

Under the leadership of Foreign Minister Baerbock, not only is a new strategy to be worked out, but a new body is also to be created, a kind of “National Security Council” – based on the “National Security Council” in the USA. But even with the question of what this body should be called, there are different ideas.

The federal government can already convene the Federal Security Council – a body in which the ministries responsible for security make decisions – especially on arms exports. But this body, which only meets irregularly and does not even have its own secretariat, is apparently not sufficient for the desired policy from a single source.

CDU foreign affairs expert Roderich Kiesewetter has been campaigning for a “National Security Council” for a long time. He regrets that the federal government has not yet reached an agreement. “Several politically uncomfortable decisions will have to be made in the future. That’s why we need a body that reviews the implementation of the national strategy independently of government constellations and opportunity costs,” says Kiesewetter.

As a new decision-making and coordinating body, a “National Security Council” must enable a strategically forward-looking security policy, serve to continuously evaluate a “national security strategy” and develop proposals for its adaptation, as well as contribute to the development of a strategic security policy culture and to the development of an overall threat analysis.

The question of power

Nils Schmid, the SPD’s foreign policy expert, warns against expectations that are too high. A new body does not automatically make everything better, according to Schmid. It is certainly possible to bundle the competencies of the responsible ministries in a new body. However, the decisive factor must then be that this new institution does not gain too much power, that the ministries retain their responsibilities and that the chancellor’s coordination function is strengthened.

If the SPD has its way, the new body must be located in the Chancellery. The Greens see it very differently: They fear that the chancellor could deprive the Federal Foreign Office of even more power on foreign policy issues. They therefore want to locate the new body at the Federal Foreign Office.

The states are angry

As if there weren’t already enough issues to be resolved at the federal level, the federal states are now also angry. Baerbock traveled through the country in the summer and collected ideas from citizens in town hall talks. Armin Schuster, Saxony’s interior minister, complains that the interior ministers, who are responsible for around 80 percent of all internal security issues, didn’t ask them. “The conference of interior ministers has been booted out,” says the CDU politician. At the same time, coordinated and not dictated action by the federal government and the federal states is essential, especially now, when it comes to central issues such as defending against cyber attacks or civil protection.

Crisis talks in the chancellery

The FDP, on the other hand, counters that the “national security strategy” was always intended to deal primarily with the country’s external security, replies its foreign policy spokesman, Alexander Graf Lambsdorff. The Liberals claim to have negotiated the “National Security Strategy” into the coalition agreement. In her view, it is more about issues that affect the Chancellery, the Foreign Office, the Defense Ministry and the Development Ministry, but not the Conference of Interior Ministers.

Compromises are now being negotiated behind the scenes. On Friday there will be a meeting between the heads of the state chancellery and the Federal Chancellery, in which the waves are to be smoothed over.

At the same time, the disputed details are being negotiated within the federal government. The officials have done their utmost, it is said behind the scenes. Now a political agreement is needed. That means: In the end, the ministers and the chancellor have to pull themselves together.

Internal and external security belong together

The chairman of the parliamentary control committee, Konstantin von Notz, warns: “The last few months have shown once again that issues of internal and external security are becoming increasingly intertwined. Digital has long been an integral part of modern security policy,” said the Greens -Politician. It is important and right to respond to old and new security policy challenges as quickly as possible with a “national security strategy” that considers all these areas together and ensures clear responsibilities.

The federal government only has a small window of opportunity to present its “national security strategy” at the Munich Security Conference. Should she have clarified all the disputed issues by early February, Parliament could deal with them during the February 6-10 session week. But that is far from settled.

source site