The US considered Germany an important partner, but is that still true? Foreign Minister Wadephul’s visit was expected to bring clarity. But did it really bring clarity?
There was little symbolism and demonstration of unity: journalists who arrived with the German Foreign Minister saw Johann Wadephul and his American host Marco Rubio in Washington only briefly together, during a handshake at the State Department.
For thirty seconds, Rubio and Wadephul smiled for the cameras, then stepped back to chat. There was no joint press conference after that. The official explanation: it was a working meeting. The top German diplomat wanted to test in Washington what the state of mutual relations between the two countries is and what else is possible.
RESCHEDULING THE MEETING WITH WADEPHUL
The day started out strangely. Rubio’s team moved the meeting from morning to afternoon, so Wadephul spent the morning at the German embassy and with World Bank President Ajay Bang.
Politicians in the Senate and House of Representatives initially had no time for discussions with Wadephul. It was planned differently – but it shows how much importance is attached to the current relationship between the superpower USA and Germany, the third largest exporting economy in the world.
Germany is not one of the central powers politically and militarily – especially not in the world of US President Donald Trump, in which the right of the strongest is increasingly important.
DOES THE USA STILL NEED GERMANY?
But the initially postponed meeting with Rubio ended up lasting longer than expected. That’s usually a good sign. “A very friendly, very intense conversation,” Wadephul said, emphasizing the common ground. “We Germans, we Europeans, need reliable partners in Washington, just as the United States needs partners like us,” he said. It’s an attempt to make it clear to Americans that “America first” does not mean “America alone.”
But in recent months, the impression has been growing that the US considers that it does not need Europe and Germany. At least not as before, as equal partners.
DID THE WADEPHUL-RUBIO MEETING HAVE ANY IMPACT?
This remains a secret. Rubio did not want to talk to reporters, while Wadephul gave a statement to the media in the park in front of the Capitol. The only one that gives an idea of the state of German-American relations. There seems to be an agreement between them to toughen the stance on Iran. “This regime clearly no longer has legitimacy,” says Wadephul. It is using means that “are not only unacceptable, but violate all the rules of humanity.” Wadephul talks about many people being killed, about torture, about shootings. “The international community must make it clear that it now stands in solidarity with the Iranian people.” In the EU, the federal government wants to push forward a regime of terrorist sanctions against the Iranian leadership.
But when it comes to a possible US military intervention in Iran, for example, and possible bombings, Wadephul avoided a clear answer. That is a US decision, he said, adding that he has no advice on that. And there are no expectations.
He was also unclear when asked in principle whether military means, air strikes or targeted bombings, are legitimate means for the German government. Germany is cautious here, restrained in its statements. But, realistically, what could Wadephul have said? The example of Venezuela has shown that the US does not coordinate with anyone before military operations, including Germany.
THE USA CONVERTS UNPREDICTABILITY
When it comes to Greenland, Wadephul also tried to emphasize common interests. “Our interests in the Arctic must be protected,” this is “a task for NATO.” Security in the North Atlantic can only be achieved jointly, and the Greenland issue can only be decided by Greenland and Denmark.
This seems like an attempt to encourage itself, tied to the hope of achieving something in Washington. But this American administration has made unpredictability its policy. It has long been playing a different game. “America First” in security policy means that America pursues what it sees as its interests – even if this conflicts with international law or rejects partners.
GERMANY WITHOUT MUCH INFLUENCE OPPORTUNITIES
Trump repeatedly emphasizes: “We need Greenland.” Whether it is bought or attacked and taken – anything seems possible. The emphasis on “commonality” in the Greenland issue is just a cautious attempt by Germany to reduce tensions. But without a strong impact. The success of such a policy is very doubtful.
When asked about possible U.S. military involvement in Greenland, Wadephul responded vaguely: “I have no indication here that it is being seriously considered.” What if it comes to that? Then the federal government probably doesn’t have an answer for that.
Expressing hope and optimism, emphasizing common interests – all of this is undoubtedly necessary so that, despite Trump, the US can continue to be perceived as a reliable partner in Europe and Germany. (DW)