Afghanistan is one of the central themes in current German political debate. But for many, the subject seems abstract. Jaap de Hoop Scheffer helped to bring the debate alive for those in attendance at the Atlantic Happy Hour, with the help of Cherno Jobatey of the ZDF-Morning News, who moderated the event. Scheffer said that there was a need for a significant military presence in the country for at least “the foreseeable future.” In the lively discussion that followed, the Secretary General observed that he is fighting for hearts and minds on two fronts: domestically within NATO’s member states, and in Afghanistan itself.

The five Bundestag members taking part in the debate provided their political perspectives on German priorities in Afghanistan. Ruprecht Polenz made it clear that the objective was not to turn Afghanistan into a country fully in line with Western standards, but to ensure that it would not export threats to international security as happened before 9/11. Gert Weisskirchen of the Social Democratic Party declared that his party would “plead and debate” in order to overcome some of its members’ objections to extending the German NATO commitment on ISAF in October. With the notable exception of Dr. Norman Paech of “Die Linke,” all representatives agreed that Germany must remain in Afghanistan.

Key points made by each member of the panel follow below:

NATO Secretary General Jakob Gijsbert “Jaap” de Hoop Scheffer

• NATO’s presence in Afghanistan serves its member states’ immediate security interests. NATO is defending the very same values in the Hindu Kush today as it did during the Cold War.
• NATO is a political and military security organization. It should not be overburdened with reconstruction tasks.
• OEF is involved in the hunt for al-Qaeda and other terrorists. ISAF’s objectives and rules of engagement are quite different.
• While security remains essential for some time to come, long-term success in Afghanistan is not a military issue, but one of reconstruction and development.
• Reconstruction and nation-building in Afghanistan will take at least one generation: NATO will not remain this long, but patience now is necessary.

Ruprecht Polenz, Christian Democratic Union, Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman in the Bundestag

• The new comprehensive approach means that NATO will leave Afghanistan as soon as the state can provide security for itself.
• Germany must continue as a reliable partner to both to its allies and to the Afghan people, many of whose lives depend upon ISAF remaining.
• A significant part of Germany’s foreign aid budget for Afghanistan should be invested into strengthening the local police and creating a national police force resembling the Gendarmerie or Carabinieri

Prof. Gert Weisskirchen, Foreign Affairs Spokesperson for the Social Democratic Party Parliamentary Group

• There is hope for a reduced Western military presence when the “Afghan Compact” is realized in 2010.
• Ending OEF now would mean expanding ISAF to cover OEF’s mission, which is undesirable.
• The Russian war in Afghanistan or the US operations in Iraq are not comparable to NATO’s role in Afghanistan.

Dr. Werner Hoyer, Foreign Affairs Spokesperson for the Free Democratic Party Parliamentary Group

• All three German mandates should continue: OEF, ISAF, and the ISAF air reconnaissance mission.
• NATO must become more political, a forum for debate and coordination of non-military issues as well as military ones.
• The drug problem in Afghanistan needs urgent attention. Otherwise, the fight for a stable and peaceful Afghanistan cannot be won.

Prof. Dr. Norman Paech, Foreign Affairs Spokesperson for The Left (Die Linke) Parliamentary Group

• OEF does not conform to international law. Six years of self-defense are absurd.
• The interconnectedness of OEF and ISAF undermines ISAFs legitimacy.
• The situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated over the last six years.

Kerstin Müller, Foreign Affairs Spokesperson, for the Green Party (Bündnis 90/Die Grünen) Parliamentary Group

• Civilian casualties make current OEF operations counter-productive. Success of ISAF requires ending OEF, and ISAF must take over OEF’s missions.
• If NATO left Afghanistan now, all civil successes would be in vain, and the country would again fall to the Taliban.
• NATO provides security, but Afghans themselves must rebuild their country. More support for civil reconstruction is needed, not more troops on the ground.

See a video report on the Atlantic Happy Hour here.


The Atlantic Happy Hour is an event which is organized and sponsored by the Atlantic Initiative, with support from the German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP) and the NATO Public Diplomacy Division. The Atlantic Community is published by the Atlantic Initiative.


Related Materials From the Atlantic Community:

• Markus Kaim on Expanding ISAF, Ending OEF in Afghanistan
• David Haglund thinks Afghanistan Is Testing German-Canadian Ties
• Egon Bahr Asks Europe to Say No to Globalizing NATO
• Thomas Speckmann on Why America Wants to Iraqize Afghanistan

Prepared by Andreas Beckmann and Casey Butterfield