"We will not send troops. Germany is not committed to Iraq - we will not commit ourselves with troops"
About this Quote
An unequivocal refusal delivered at the height of the Iraq crisis, these words draw a bright line between Germanys obligations and Washingtons expectations. Joschka Fischer, then foreign minister in the SPD-Green coalition, was articulating a policy formed by postwar restraint, legalism, and domestic politics. Germany had embraced the use of force only under strict conditions, as in Kosovo in 1999 and Afghanistan after 9/11, where NATO and a UN framework conferred legitimacy. Iraq, by contrast, lacked clear UN authorization, convincing evidence of imminent threat, or broad international consensus. Fischer had already captured that skepticism with his pointed rebuke to US arguments at the 2003 Munich Security Conference: Excuse me, I am not convinced.
The line about not being committed to Iraq carries a dual meaning. It rejects the notion of any treaty or alliance duty that would compel participation in a US-led invasion, and it distances Berlin from the coalition of the willing. At home, public opinion was overwhelmingly against the war, and Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder had campaigned in 2002 on staying out. For Fischer, a Green politician whose party carried a strong pacifist current, the stance also protected coalition unity and democratic legitimacy.
The decision did not signal isolationism. Germany continued to fulfill NATO obligations, allowed the use of US bases on its soil, and maintained a major deployment in Afghanistan. What it refused was the logic of preventive war without a robust multilateral mandate. The statement thus sits at the hinge of a broader transatlantic rift, amplified by talk of Old Europe and mass protests across European capitals.
By asserting no troops and no commitment, Fischer reaffirmed a strategic identity built on the primacy of international law, parliamentary control over deployments, and the lesson that military force must be a last resort under collective authority. It was a clear message that legitimacy, not loyalty alone, would determine German participation in war.
The line about not being committed to Iraq carries a dual meaning. It rejects the notion of any treaty or alliance duty that would compel participation in a US-led invasion, and it distances Berlin from the coalition of the willing. At home, public opinion was overwhelmingly against the war, and Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder had campaigned in 2002 on staying out. For Fischer, a Green politician whose party carried a strong pacifist current, the stance also protected coalition unity and democratic legitimacy.
The decision did not signal isolationism. Germany continued to fulfill NATO obligations, allowed the use of US bases on its soil, and maintained a major deployment in Afghanistan. What it refused was the logic of preventive war without a robust multilateral mandate. The statement thus sits at the hinge of a broader transatlantic rift, amplified by talk of Old Europe and mass protests across European capitals.
By asserting no troops and no commitment, Fischer reaffirmed a strategic identity built on the primacy of international law, parliamentary control over deployments, and the lesson that military force must be a last resort under collective authority. It was a clear message that legitimacy, not loyalty alone, would determine German participation in war.
Quote Details
| Topic | War |
|---|
More Quotes by Joschka
Add to List
