Germany’s abstention in the UN Security Council was a big mistake – By Joschka Fischer

The German chancellor has a tendency to depart from her own political road map, sometimes at very short notice. That can lead to situations where she misses the turnoff and ends up in the wrong policy lane – which is extremely dangerous, not just for her but for many others too.

That scenario sums up Germany’s foreign policy on Libya. The ensuing damage for Germany and its international standing is plain to see: never has the Federal Republic been more isolated. The country has lost its credibility with the United Nations and in the Middle East; its claim to a permanent seat on the Security Council has been trashed for good; and one really must fear the worst for Europe.

UN Security Council Resolution 1973, which authorized the current mission to protect Libyans, had the explicit or tacit agreement of the Security Council’s five veto-wielding powers. It also had the backing of a majority of the Council, the support of the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference, and the open military participation of two Arab states. So what more did the German government need to endorse the intervention?

The rationale behind Germany’s cautious foreign policy

In a recent newspaper article, General Klaus Naumann admitted he is ashamed of his country. The former head of the Bundeswehr, who was also a senior NATO commander, said he was horrified that Germany had abstained from the UN Security Council vote on a resolution establishing a no-fly zone over Libya. Former army chief of staff General Helmut Willmann is also furious: “The German position is simply undignified,” the general complained in an interview with Der Spiegel magazine.

Military officers aren’t the only ones outraged by the German government’s noncommittal policy on Libya. Journalists, politicians and even some religious figures have criticized Berlin’s decisions to stand on the sidelines. A solid democracy cannot stand idly by while a ruthless dictator like Muammar Gaddafi orders his army and foreign mercenaries to murder innocent civilians, runs their argument. 

Even after Fukushima, nuclear power is indispensable – By Frank Drieschner

After Fukushima, is it still possible to be in favor of nuclear power? Of course it is, people in India, China and South Africa would answer. Anyone who finds that hard to understand should briefly try to look at it from the perspective of a slum dweller ruining her health while cooking over an open fire every day.

For her it would be crazy to think about nuclear power risks. For billions of people, electricity means health – regardless of where it comes from. So while countries like India and China may now rethink their nuclear programs, they certainly won’t abandon them.

Nuclear power does not forgive mistakes – By Manfred Kriener

Can the nuclear age survive Fukushima? Right now it seems inconceivable. The spectral silhouettes of the shattered reactors, the horror of the daily dispatches invading our living rooms make it blatantly obvious that we live in one and the same world.

The Soviet Union was able to hide Chernobyl behind the Iron Curtain. Today the world watches the catastrophe in Japan in slow motion. We cannot evade its power, we share their anxiety, we think of the helpless helpers and we follow the weather forecast with bated breath.

How Germany can cover its energy needs within 40 years – without oil, coal or nuclear – By Hannes Koch

Suddenly, anything seems possible. Suddenly, researchers such as Jürgen Schmid of the Fraunhofer Institute for Wind Energy and Energy System Technology (IWES) are setting the framework for discussion. “We can completely phase out nuclear power by 2020 without any problem,” Schmid says. “We do not need to take the nuclear risk,” he adds. “If we do it right, we have viable alternatives.”

Beyond just parting company with nuclear power, a complete energy paradigm shift, phasing out the entire nuclear and fossil-fuel complex by 2050, appears within grasp in Germany. Schmid says he always believed it was possible, but nobody besides a few hundred scientists at Germany’s most innovative research institutes was willing to listen – until now.

After losing two key regional elections, the German government pledges to listen more closely – By Peter H. Koepf

Humility was in the air. As the results came in for the state elections in Baden-Württemberg and Rhineland-Palatinate, the losers – there were many – were doing their best to demonstrate their meekness. The day’s biggest loser, Foreign Minister and FDP leader Guido Westerwelle, summed up the lesson learned in three words: “We have understood.”

The two regional elections were in effect a national referendum against nuclear power. Despite outstanding economic data, the CDU – the “nuclear power party” – was kicked out of government in Baden-Württemberg for the first time in 57 years. The pro-market (and pro-nuclear) FDP was catapulted out of the state legislature in Rhineland-Palatinate and almost suffered the same fate in Baden-Württemberg. And because Germans trust the Greens most on the nuclear issue, the Social Democrats also lost votes to the environmentalists.

As labor market liberalization approaches, Germany and Poland have mixed expectations – By Agnieszka Hreczuk

The telephone hasn’t stopped ringing. Iwona Petryczko, manager of an international placement agency in Warsaw, automatically rattles through the greeting. A young doctor from Silesia, a specialist in neonatology, is inquiring about his chances. “We have several openings,” she answers, “why don’t you just stop by.”

For the past 11 years Petryczko and her colleagues have been successfully placing Polish personnel and specialists in Germany and Switzerland. “But we’ve been receiving dozens of requests daily over the past few weeks, more than ever before,” Petryczko says. “You notice that the first of May is approaching.”