The term Staatsräson has resurfaced in German political discourse following recent geopolitical developments, particularly the Hamas attack on Israel on 7 October 2023. As Chancellor Olaf Scholz declared, “Israel’s security is German Staatsräson,” this foundational norm has drawn renewed attention, raising questions about its meaning, application, and implications in today’s volatile landscape.
What Is Staatsräson?
Historically, Staatsräson refers to the principle that a state’s survival and interests justify its actions, even if they conflict with ethical or legal norms. Originating from thinkers like Machiavelli, the concept underscores the prioritization of a nation’s existence above all else. In Germany, Staatsräson evolved to emphasize stability and self-preservation within a moral framework.
In modern Germany, Staatsräson has taken on a specific dimension: a historical and moral commitment to Israel. This commitment stems from Germany’s responsibility for the Holocaust and its aftermath. As Angela Merkel articulated during her 2008 Knesset speech, “This historical German responsibility is part of the Staatsräson of my country.” However, this notion has remained ambiguous, raising critical questions about its practical scope. For constitutional law expert Marietta Auer from the Max Planck Institute, the use of the term in relation to Israel is unusual because Staatsräson traditionally means prioritizing the survival of one’s own state above everything else—not the survival of another state.
Staatsräson and the German-Israeli Relationship
Germany’s commitment to Israel’s security as Staatsräson aligns historical guilt with moral responsibility. Scholz’s recent remarks and the coalition agreement of the “traffic light” government echo Merkel’s stance, yet the term remains undefined. Does it imply military support, financial aid, or diplomatic solidarity? This lack of clarity fuels public debate.
For example, after a suspected retaliatory strike by Iran in August 2024, CDU foreign policy expert Roderich Kiesewetter called for Bundeswehr (military) participation in Israel’s defence. However, no other German politician has yet gone as far as Kiesewetter. This disparity illustrates the different interpretations of the norm.
Why Staatsräson Is Critical Now
The invocation of Staatsräson amidst the ongoing Israel-Gaza conflict places Germany at a crossroads. On one hand, it underscores unwavering solidarity with Israel; on the other, it complicates Germany’s position on international law and human rights. Cases before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), such as South Africa v. Israel, alleging genocide against Palestinians, and Nicaragua v. Germany, accusing Germany of breaching obligations related to the Palestinian territories through its support for Israel, alongside the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) arrest warrant issued against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for alleged war crimes in Gaza, underscore the tension between Germany’s commitments to Israel and its obligations under international humanitarian law.
This challenge is highlighted by the logical implication of Staatsräson. Carlo Masala pointed out that, should Israel’s existence be at stake, Germany must be ready to defend it militarily.
This may explain why former President Joachim Gauck publicly distanced himself from Merkel’s Staatsräson statements in 2012, while Gauck’s successor Frank-Walter Steinmeier has doubted whether Merkel was fully aware of the implications of her statement. Even Helmut Schmidt labeled Merkel’s statement as an “emotionally comprehensible yet foolish view which could have serious consequences.” These critiques underscore the need for clarity in applying Staatsräson as geopolitical tensions escalate.
The Need for Clarity and Dialogue
For Staatsräson to serve as a meaningful norm, it requires definition and open public dialogue. Without clear instructions—whether military, economic, or diplomatic support—Staatsräson risks eroding trust and fostering polarization. Scholars emphasize that norms gain legitimacy through shared understanding and consistent application, conditions currently lacking in Germany’s approach.
Embedding Staatsräson in democratic discourse would mitigate polarization and ensure balanced policies that respect Israel’s security while adhering to international law. Constructive engagement can transform the norm into a robust framework for German foreign policy.
Conclusion
Staatsräson, as Germany’s commitment to Israel’s security, is a powerful yet ambiguous norm. Rooted in history and moral obligation, it reflects Germany’s attempt to reconcile its past with present challenges. However, operational vagueness threatens its credibility.
By clarifying its scope, addressing critiques, and fostering dialogue, Staatsräson can evolve into a framework that honors Germany’s historical responsibility while aligning with universal values in an increasingly complex global landscape.
References and Further-Reading:
“Staatsräson: Empty Signifier or Meaningful Norm?” (Verfassungsblog, Antje Wiener, 12.01.2024)
“Was bedeutet Staatsräson?” (Deutschlandfunk, 10.10.2024)
“Israel und Deutschlands Staatsräson: Was bedeutet das?” (DW, William Glucroft, 16.10.2023)
Comments