By Daniel Gill, Linda Bedenik and Prashant Kumar
For the first time since World War II, the US presidency no longer appears to embody the leadership of the free world. Trump represents an America that is no longer willing to protect the liberal order. Angela Merkel emphasized that Europe and Germany will only cooperate with the US under the shared, liberal values of tolerance and free trade. Many now look to her as a potential leader of the free world.
William E Paterson, honorary professor of German and European Politics at Aston University in the UK, has argued that Germany is a reluctant hegemon. It is economically capable, but politically reticent about taking on leadership in Europe and the West. However, by the simple virtue of its domestic and regional self-interests, it has become, for the time being, the worlds accidental hegemon.
For as long as Germany’s economic and political self-interests are tied to the preservation of the liberal world order, Germany will continue to stumble into the limelight as the accidental leader of the free world.
A self-serving strategy
The irony is that Germany seems increasingly assertive on the world stage at the time when it is dealing with profound structural weaknesses at home and in Europe. In attempting to manage domestic and regional challenges, it is pursuing policies that, although inherently self-interested, seem to align with collective principles at a time of declining prospects of liberalism in the West. Liberal values of tolerance, free trade, and internationalism are seemingly under threat in Europe and the US. People are seeking a bastion of stability and continuity. However, the stability that Germany is capable of providing is based more on the weaknesses it is attempting to address at home, rather than on any economic or political strength to which people have been ascribing it.
Uncharitable altruism
The migrant crisis has been one of the first signs that Germany is taking on the mantle of the liberal worlds moral leader. Many European countries raised their borders, and refused to take responsibility for the crisis engulfing the continent. However, Germany has granted more asylum applications over the course of the migrant crisis than Sweden, Italy, France, the Netherlands, and the UK combined. This sent a clear message to uphold the values of tolerance despite the tremors of xenophobia around the world but Germanys moral leadership on this issue has just as much to do with domestic considerations, as it does with its wish to protect liberal values.
[su_pullquote]Germanys leadership was a necessity born out of its own economic and moral weaknesses, rather than its aspiration to become the world´s next hegemon.[/su_pullquote]
Germany is facing an immanent demographic crisis, in which an ageing population is likely to place an ever-growing burden on the state. It needs a young migrant workforce to fund the pensions of its citizens. Studies from the Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung revealed that Germany will need more than half a million immigrants per year until 2050 to balance its needs. Thus, it is far more concerned with addressing its own moral deficit, which it still carries by virtue of its history, than it is with leading the world in this regard. It was once Germany, under the guise of National Socialism, which pushed desperate migrants into the arms of others. It could not turn its back on migrants fleeing a brutal dictatorship in Syria. To do so would have invoked a historical legacy it no longer wishes to remember. Hence, Germanys leadership was a necessity born out of its own economic and moral weaknesses, rather than its aspiration to become the world´s next hegemon.
Merkels idealism trumps Trump
One group that seems to believe that Germany is at the heart of Western liberal civilization is the radical fundamentalists. They have increasingly targeted German cities. Chancellor Merkels calm and reasoned response to the attacks has contrasted with Donald Trumps alarmism and Frances militaristic rhetoric. Rather than declaring war on terror or stoking the fires of Islamophobia, Merkel and the German people have refused to be terrified or change their everyday lives. This picture of calm has reassured Germanys allies of its potential to carry the mantle of moderation given the increasing volatility on the continent and unpredictability of the White House. To many, Merkels nerves of steel and her conscientious approach to vexing issues only serve to reinforce her image as the Iron Chancellor. Yet, Merkels priority lies in holding together what is likely to become an unprecedentedly diverse Germany, with an economy heavily reliant on migrant labour. Indeed, she has recently shown a willingness to concede to those who argue Muslims must assimilate to Western culture, by talking about banning the hijab wherever legally possible. Preserving the social consensus has always been a key aspect of Germanys economic policy, which suggests that Merkels commitment to diversity is as much a pragmatic as it is an idealistic move.
Merkel has been building up ties with China while Trump has spoken of imposing enormous tariffs on Chinese goods | Photo Courtesy: International Business TimesAt the same time that Trump is proclaiming to not only raise physical borders but trade barriers through increased tariffs, Germany stands firm in its defense of free trade. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this issue is the divergent attitudes that Trump and Merkel have taken towards China. Trump has yet to take up residence in the White House, but has already spoken of imposing enormous tariffs on Chinese goods. He has also aggressively criticized Chinas actions in the South China Sea and broken decades of diplomatic protocol by talking to Taiwan. In contrast, Merkel has been gradually building up ties with China. In 2014, bilateral trade between China and Germany reached record levels of $169.3 billion, while China now ranks only behind the US in terms of non-EU trade with Germany. Trump has also celebrated the fact that the UK voted to leave the European Union, setting aside its long historical ties to free trade. Merkel, on the other hand, has taken a stern tone, making clear that the UK cannot abandon the common market without economic repercussions. While Americas commitment to free trade seems weaker than at any point since WWII, Germany continues to speak out in its defense. But the question remains – what is it actually defending?
The equivalence of Germany and China
First, it is no coincidence that Germany and China are the most opposed to trade barriers, being the worlds two largest exporters. Germanys export-led growth is already threatened by stagnant demand growth in the EU and the rising competitiveness of China and other East Asian economies capable of undercutting Germanys famously low unit labor costs. Thus, there is enough motivation for Merkel to continuously speak out against trade protection. In this way, it is as much a symptom of domestic economic weakness as it is a sign of unconditional German support for the liberal ideal of free trade.
Second, free trade has been one of the key pursuits of the European project. A soft response to Brexit would risk encouraging protectionist measures in other European member states. Germany has a history of protecting free trade in Europe from the interventionism of the European left. It now appears to be defending it from the protectionism of the European right. Hence, although from the outside this appears to be Germany speaking for liberal values, it is in actuality Germany speaking in the name of its economic self-interests. How far can a country, more interested in addressing its own weaknesses, succeed in providing sustainable leadership?
An unlikely German ascend
[su_pullquote align=”right”]Germanys interests lie in protecting a status quo that seems increasingly in decline. Thus, Germany is unlikely to lead the call to preserve liberal internationalism.[/su_pullquote]
First, Germany is only ever likely to be as strong as Europe. For example, for Germany to take on a more prominent role in global security, it will rely upon a common European commitment to increase military spending and political cooperation when it comes to common challenges. Second, Germanys commitment to the status quo is a sign of desperation, rather than a sign of hope. From its perspective, the preservation of the liberal order is a means to keeping its economy afloat in difficult times. This highlights the precariousness of the liberal international order and the poverty of the response to its potential to demise. Germanys interests lie in protecting a status quo that seems increasingly in decline. Thus, Germany is unlikely to lead the call to preserve liberal internationalism. For example, its imposition of austerity in Greece displayed a stubborn commitment to maintaining the status quo, rather than attempting to address the underlying causes of the crisis and its discontent.
If the world is merely looking for moral leadership, for the time being, Germany appears to be the best bet. Merkels unflappable demeanor in the face of crises at home and abroad, and her unwillingness to follow others, such as President Trump, in vacating the moral high ground, makes her an attractive symbol of liberals everywhere. However, if people are looking for a hegemon capable of providing not only moral but economic and political leadership, they are likely to be disappointed, as Germany lacks the capabilities and long-term commitment to protect the international liberal order. For the time being Chancellor Merkel will be the moral leader, but she is unlikely to ever exceed this cosmetic leadership. If profound change is necessary to protect liberal values, Germany may not be the power to rely on.