Taurus missiles: Scholz repeats Russian propaganda instead of explaining United Nations Charter to German citizens
Fear of "becoming a party to the war" with Russia has no basis in international law.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz brings a mayor’s mentality and approach to the challenge of leading a major power in the struggle against Russian aggression in Ukraine. He is thinking of how he and the SPD can best perform in the next federal elections in Germany. He is not thinking about leading Germany and Europe to victory over Russia in the latter’s war of aggression against Ukraine.
Tragically, instead or articulating the modern principles of international law related to the illegal use of force and the rights of individual and collective self-defense enshrined in Article 2(4) and Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, he persists in using obsolete international law concepts from before 1945 and the adoption of the U.N. Charter.
In proceeding in this manner, he builds Vladimir Putin’s case while diminishing his own. This is one and a very important aspect of German self-deterrence.
Instead of explaining how any German actions, even involving German soldiers on Ukrainian soil, would be justified as actions taken in collective self-defense, and under international law would not make Germany “a party to the war”, he persists in using obsolete legal concepts which have no validity.
Excerpts from James Rowles, “The crazy chessboard Biden has set up forcing Ukraine to fight with one hand tied behind its back,” October 1, 2023:
Christoph Schlitz of Die Welt provides an excellent overview of Ukraine’s need for Germany’s Taurus missiles, how they would have a big impact in Ukraine’s prosecution of the war, and particularly how they could affect the course of the war in the Crimea and in the South.1
…
He also mentions in passing how the capabilities of weapon systems furnished to Ukraine have been deliberately limited to absolutely prevent Ukraine from using them to attack targets in Russia. This includes even bases from which missile strikes are being launched against Ukrainian cities and infrastructure . Ukraine has every right to attack these bases and supply lines in lawful exercise of the right of self-defense under international law and Article 51 of the U.N. Charter.
The article led me to think, once again, about the extraordinary degree President Joe Biden (and also German Chancellor Olaf Scholz) have dithered and delayed in reaching decisions to supply Ukraine with weapons it desperately needs. Eventually, the transfers may be authorized, but the weapons always seem to arrive late and with limitations on their capabilities that greatly reduce Ukraine’s ability to use them to decisively defeat Russian forces on the battlefield.
It is quite extraordinary, actually, how the U.S. and NATO countries have invested huge sums of money in supplying weapons to Ukraine, but have done so in a matter which almost seems deliberately designed not only to help Ukraine avoid defeat but also to prevent dramatic and decisive advances on the battlefield. Notwithstanding the benevolence of Ukraine’s arms suppliers, particularly the United States, the U.S. is in no position to publicly and loudly criticize military supporters for the their constant indecisiveness and delays, and especially for the limitations they impose on the capabilities of the weapons they supply.
These delays and excuses are at times nearly unbelievable. Chancellor Olaf Scholz, Schlitz reports, is now raising as an excuse for inaction what he calls Constitutional questions–-to wit, whether the Bundestag (parliament) must authorize the transfer of the Taurus missiles because, Scholz seems to argue, German soldiers would be used to input precise targeting coordinates, and that participation could be interpreted as Germany participating in a war against Russia.2
The argument is absurd on several grounds.
First, Schlitz cites independent military experts as saying Ukrainian soldiers are quite capable of inputting the targeting coordinates themselves. What is apparently involved is Scholz’s desire to control the inputting of targeting data in order to ensure that the Ukrainians don’t attack targets in Russia. For Scholz, the fact that the Ukrainians have always honored the promises exacted from them not to attack targets in Russia with arms supplied tom hem by NATO countries is insufficient. Germany must actually control the inputting of targeting information.
This is not dissimilar to the action taken by President Biden when he finally authorized the transfer of HIMARS artillery units to Ukraine. mHe agreed to do so only after the HIMARS units had been modified so that they could not fire the ATACMS artillery rockets with a range of 180 miles or 300 km. The HIMARS were modified so that they could only launch shells with a range of 50 km or 50 miles.
Second, Scholz is creating a political obstacle for himself by raising the issue of a possible need for Bundestag authorization for the transfer.
Germany has ratified the U.N. Charter and is under Article 51 authorized to take military action in collective self-defense in the event of an “armed attack” against a state requesting assistance.
By Scholz’s apparent reasoning, even action taken in collective self-defense under Article 5 of the NATO Treaty and Article 51 of the U.N. Charter would require authorization by the Bundestag.
Such an interpretation of the German Constitution would render Germany’s obligation to respond to an attack on a NATO country nearly meaningless.
Third, since the advent of the United Nations Charter in 1945, the legal concepts of war and being a party to a war no longer exist, except for a narrow exception in international humanitarian law for being a party to an “international armed conflict”. That exception has no bearing on Scholz’s decision whether or not to send the Taurus missiles to Ukraine. Scholz needs to update his files with inputs from international legal experts both inside and outside his administration.
Since 1945, the relevant U.N. Charter and international law concepts are individual and collective self-defense in response to an “armed attack” in violation of the prohibition of the use of force contained in Article 2 paragraph 4 of the U.N. Charter.
Engaging in military actions of collective self-defense of Ukraine does not and would not make Germany a party to a war against Russia under international law. Uninformed and ignorant popular beliefs may embody concepts which have not existed, legally, since 1945. Still, it is shocking to hear Chancellor Scholz repeat them.
Scholz should be explaining the post-1945 concepts of armed attack and collective self-defense to his countrymen and the world, not spreading popular misconceptions and raising questions about Germany’s ability to fulfill its obligations under Article 5 of the NATO Treaty.
I understand that such detailed legal arguments may be tedious and difficult to follow for the non-specialist, but they are critical to an understanding of the flimsy and fallacious arguments the Chancellor seems to be offering to justify his inaction on the transfer of the Taurus missiles.
Schlitz’s article reminds me of the way Joe Biden has set up the chessboard and the rules regarding which pieces may be moved and in which direction.
In fact, Biden has turned Queens into Castles, and Castles into Pawns.
Biden has established the following Rules, which in effect amount to rules to ensure the enforcement of Putin’s “red lines”.
These rules are:
1. No weapons furnished by the U.S. (or other NATO countries) may be used by Ukraine to attack targets within Russia proper, or the Kerch Strait Bridge.
2. As a condition for the receipt of weapons that could theoretically be used to attack targets in Russia, or the Kerch Strait Bridge, Ukraine must solemnly promise not to use them to do so.
3. The U.S. and other NATO countries will make physical modifications on weapons in order to ensure that they cannot be used to attack targets in Russia, or the Kerch Strait Bridge.
4. U.S. intelligence and other assets will not be used to enable Ukraine to strike targets in Russia, or the Kerch Strait Bridge.
Why has Biden been enforcing Putin’s red lines in this manner?
Why has Biden refused to allow U.S. and NATO country weapons to be used by Ukraine against targets in Russia from which missiles are launched at Ukrainian cities and infrastructure, as Ukraine is authorized to do by international law and the U.N. Charter?
Why, in a word, has Joe Biden been forcing Ukraine to fight the invading forces of Russia, a nuclear superpower, with one hand tied behind its back?
The answer appears to be Biden’s inordinate fear of Putin’s nuclear threats.
That is a subject for another article.
Suffice it to say, for now, that the logic of the war and what is at stake, including the United Nations Charter and its prohibition of the illegal use of force, suggests that the U.S. and NATO will have to face down Russia’s nuclear threats sooner or later–-whether in a couple of years, four years, or 10 years.
Scholz is not the Statesman Germany needs to lead the battle to defeat Russia in Ukraine. One can only hope that he has an epiphany, and instead of approaching the struggle with Russia like a small-town mayor preoccupied with maintaining his position in power, he metamorphoses into more of the Winston Churchill kind of leader that Germany and Europe need.
He faces the pro-Russian elements within his own Social Democratic Party, the leaders of the Linke (Left) Party, Sarah Wagenknecht and her new party on the left, as well as the far-right Alternative for Germany Party (AfD), which contains many pro-Russian elements. “Les extrêmes se touchent,” as they say.
Which will Scholz be? Bürgermeister or Statesman? Much depends on the answer to this question for Ukraine, for Germany, for Europe, and for the world.
UPDATE March 16, 2024
Ukraine desperately needs the Taurus cruise missiles German Chancellor Olaf Scholz refuses to send them. Scholz is guided by his concern not to get in front of public opinion and not to antagonize the pro-Russian members of his own Social Democratic Party, parties on the Left (Die Linke) , or the Left Party,), Shahra Wagenknecht (ex-Linke) new party, and the extreme right-wing party, Alternative for Germany (Alternativ für Deutschland or AfD).
To grasp the gravity of what Scholz is doing, one has to imagine Winston Churchill saying he had to see what the polls said before he decided whether to negotiate a separate peace with Germany, or send RAF bombers to bomb German cities in 1940.
Scholz had the insight to declare that the Russian invasion of Ukrainemarkeda turning point in history (Zeitenwende). Unfortunately, he lacks the courage and leadership qualities necessary to translate his insight into effective action to defeat Russia in Ukraine.
See Carlo Torralba, “Los Taurus, el armamento alemán que ansía Ucrania para golpear a Rusia lejos del frente; La escasez de misiles de crucero aire-tierra en los arsenales ucranios y de toda Europa sitúa a Alemania como el único aliado que puede satisfacer la demanda de Kiev a corto plazo, El País, el 16 de marzo dec2024 (05:30 CET).
UPDATE March 17, 2024
Just how weak Olaf Scholf’s Social Democratic Party is in its support for Ukraine was revealed again on Sunday, when the-party’s leader in the Bundestag(Congress), called for a freezing of the conflict in Ukraine and settling it later.
See James Jackson, “Top Olaf Scholz ally urges him to ‘freeze’ Ukraine war as party fights over Russia: Rolf Mützenich stokes more party division as he asks if it is time to stop asking ‘how to wage a war’ and look at ways of ending it,” The Telegraph, March 17, 2024 (3:14 pm)..
The stupidity of Mützenich, or blind ideology coupled with raw bad faith, is astounding. It is the equivalent of Conservative or Labor leaders in Wniston Churchill’s national unity government calling in 1943 for Britain to” freeze”the conflict with Adolf Hitler ad Nazi Germany and to settle it later.
“Instead of asking how to wage war, isn’t it time to ask how we can freeze a war and end it later?”Mützenich asked
It may be time for Germans to start thinking about forming a new coalition government, made up of the Christian Democrats (CDU/CSU), the Green Party, and the Free Democratic Party (FDP). Such a government could send the Taurus missiles to Ukraine.
Given the stakes in the war with Russia, the parties that would make up such a coalition need to put their differences aside and to act not only to prevent a Russian victory in Ukraine, but to secure a victory in that country’s war of self-defense against Russian aggression.
Simon Tisdall of The Guardian provides a provocative yet measured overview of the current situation, considers the possibility of a ceasefire, and concludes the war will not end until Putin is removed.or otherwise leaves power..1
James Rowles is a former Lecturer on Law at Harvard Law School and professor of international law at other universities.
See Simon Tisdal, “How will the Ukraine war end? Only when Vladimir Putin is toppled;; A ceasefire on Russia’s terms would embolden the tyrant to pick new targets for his expansionist aims,” The Guardian, March16,2024 (16:00 GMT.)
***
Support the Author
Your author needs your support.
You may sign up for a free subscription. To receive all of the content as soon as it is published and to support the newsletter, please upgrade to a Paid or Founding Member subscription. To do so, click on the “Subscribe now” button below.
Alternatively, you may make a contribution to the author’s Go Fund Me appeal by clicking on the last button below. Go Fund Me does not take 10% as Substack does.