The price of principle
Germany describes its Israel policy as historical responsibility. The UN General Assembly described it as a losing position.
Germany’s foreign minister personally lobbied some 80 ministers and ambassadors in New York before the June 3 ballot, and was still expressing confidence hours before the vote. The result was 104 votes, 23 short of the two-thirds majority required for a UN Security Council seat and the first such defeat since reunification. Austria and Portugal won comfortably. While the candidacy was failing, Annalena Baerbock, Germany’s former foreign minister, was presiding over the General Assembly as its elected president. Germany held the chair of the institution that was rejecting it.
Johann Wadephul offered two explanations: Russian lobbying had worked against Germany because of its Ukraine support, and Berlin’s backing for Israel had likely cost votes. Portugal and Austria, which took both seats, are no less supportive of Ukraine. That leaves one explanation.
Germany has spent the past four years defending international law with consistency, applying it to Russia’s conduct in Ukraine with precision. In Gaza, the same standards would have demanded a sharper verdict on civilian casualties and military conduct. Berlin declined to deliver one, citing Staatsräson, its post-Holocaust doctrine placing Israel’s security at the core of national interest. That is a defensible domestic position. What it is not is the record of an independent actor that other governments should want representing them on the Security Council.
Wadephul also pointed to Germany’s status as the UN’s second-largest financial contributor. There is a distinction between paying for an institution and being trusted to lead one. The General Assembly, in a secret ballot, illustrated it.