+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

Why Germany abstained from the UN vote on Palestine

After a diplomatic disaster following the 2011 Security Council vote on Libya, and with popular opinion in Germany against him, Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle realized he could not isolate Germany again.

By Anselm Kiersch

German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle (photo: flickr / Liberale CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

“… and, what a surprise, Germany!” So said Moussa Ibrahim, Muammar Gaddafis spokesman, when he listed the countries that had abstained from the vote for Resolution 1973, which legitimized the 2011 NATO intervention in Libya. Even South Africa voted for the resolution, though it bitterly regretted doing so when it saw how the operation was unfolding. In abstaining, however, Germany broke out of the Western alliance and appeared alongside countries with doubtful democratic reputation, including Russia and China. The responsibility for that disastrous decision belonged to Germany’s Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle, who made the decision against the outspoken advice of his senior consultants.

Westerwelle was so heavily criticized at home that even his predecessor accused him publicly of working against fundamental German interests. His popularity declined rapidly in the wake of the vote. He lost his post as a chairman of the Liberal Party and was nearly toppled as minister. Only chancellor Angela Merkel held on to her foreign minister.

Popular support for the Palestinian cause is as high in Germany as it is in France. However, all German governments have traditionally been strongly supportive of Israel. Consequently, both Merkel and Westerwelle have declared Israel’s security as a “reason of state” for Germany. Thus, Germany has always voted in accordance with Israel and the United States on decisions concerning Israel in the UN.

Faithful to that tradition, Germany was against the resolution in favor of upgrading Palestine to a non-member observer state. Israel and the United States made an effort to get a visible number of countries to agree to vote against the bid. They concentrated on Central European countries like the Baltics, who had sympathy for the Palestinians, because they had lived under occupation themselves. These countries are small in size and large in number. Because each state (regardless of size and influence) has one vote in the General Assembly, they could easily have constituted a visible counterbalance to the expected outcome passage of the resolution.

However, in the end, too many countries in Europe were fed up with Israel’s stubborn settlement policy. It became clear in the days ahead of the vote that all of the Mediterranean and Scandinavian countries would vote to upgrade the Palestinian status. Confronted with this clear trend, none of the Central and Eastern European states, with the exception of the Czech Republic, wanted to be in open opposition to the Mediterranean and Scandinavian countries. They decided therefore to abstain as a compromise. Germany, in a last-ditch effort, tried to get at least a clear majority of European states to vote for abstention, but it failed in the end.

Isolated in the EU, and with popular opinion in Germany against him, Westerwelle would have risked repeating the failure of the Libya vote had he rejected the resolution. The German opposition, widely in support of the Palestinian bid, would have accused him of again isolating Germany in Europe and voting against vital German interests, especially regarding the long-term goal of a united European foreign policy and permanent membership in the Security Council. In abstaining, Germany was joined by Great Britain and some Central and East European countries. The decision was acceptable to the German public and essential for the foreign minister’s political career.

The vote came as a surprise to many political observers in both Germany and Israel. The public had taken a German rejection of the bid for granted due to the tradition of unconditional support for Israel in the international arena. But Westerwelle had learned from his mistakes in Libya, and would not dare to isolate Germany again.

Anselm Kiersch is a German child and adolescent psychiatrist living in Norway. He is a member of the Norwegian Palestinakomiteen, which is part of the International Solidarity Movement for Palestine.

European fickleness ahead of UN vote as immature as Israeli response
UN votes yes on Palestinian statehood: Not ‘just’ a symbol 
PHOTOS: Palestinians celebrate UN victory

Before you go...

A lot of work goes into creating articles like the one you just read. And while we don’t do this for the money, even our model of non-profit, independent journalism has bills to pay.

+972 Magazine is owned by our bloggers and journalists, who are driven by passion and dedication to the causes we cover. But we still need to pay for editing, photography, translation, web design and servers, legal services, and more.

As an independent journalism outlet we aren’t beholden to any outside interests. In order to safeguard that independence voice, we are proud to count you, our readers, as our most important supporters. If each of our readers becomes a supporter of our work, +972 Magazine will remain a strong, independent, and sustainable force helping drive the discourse on Israel/Palestine in the right direction.

Support independent journalism in Israel/Palestine Donate to +972 Magazine today
View article: AAA
Share article
Print article

    * Required


    1. TobyR

      Considering the clusterf**k the Libyan intervention ended up as, I’m not so sure if he should still be faulted for his decision…

      And I don’t know if the current vote is “acceptable” to the German public. In fact I’m quite certain, and polls bear this out, that if it were left to the German people to decide, Germany would have voted “Yes” and affirmed Palestinians’ right to a state. The mood has definitely swung against Israel recently.

      Reply to Comment
    2. I hope that TobyR is correct that “f it were left to the German people to decide, Germany would have voted “Yes” and affirmed Palestinians’ right to a state.”

      What’s interesting is the author’s claim that [1] German governments “have declared Israel’s security as a “reason of state” for Germany” and [2] that this charming concern for Israel’s “security” has resulted in Germany’s voting AGAINST international law (as to settlements, the wall), the Goldstone Report.

      What can anyone find to connect settlements and war-crimes with Israel’s security? Do these things not, rather, echo events from German’s 1930s-1940s [I am not referring to the Holocaust] which Germany would prefer not to celebrate by aiding in their repitition?

      Reply to Comment
      • The Trespasser

        Probably because settlements and wall are not war-crimes?

        Reply to Comment
    3. J. Gräf

      While Gudio is a chicken shit, and Merkel sells weapons to all!

      Reply to Comment
    4. carlos

      Guido needs to start condemning the murders of Palestinian civilians instead of justifying israels use of excessive force. Guido once defended israel for murdering a Palestinian family who had gone to a Gaza beach to swim. Mother Father and several children were killed. What about the truth Guido? Doesnt the truth matter?

      Reply to Comment

The stories that matter.
The missing context.
All in one weekly email.

Subscribe to +972's newsletter