The Munich Security Conference will take place between February 17 and 19. Originally, Foreign Minister Baerbock wanted to present the first "National Security Strategy" of the FRG, on which the Foreign Ministry has been working for a year. As of now this will probably be delayed for some time still. However, since the topic has been on everyone's lips in recent weeks, there were once again calls from various quarters of the bourgeois press at the beginning of the year calling for a so-called "National Security Council" Yankee-style. In January, the heads of the state chancelleries of the federal states met at a crisis meeting to discuss this matter further, while at the same time the heads of the traffic light coalition tried to settle their differences behind closed doors.
To understand what this "National Security Council" exactly is, or much more is supposed to be, it is important to understand what the first so-called "National Security Strategy" is, which was first outlined by ex-Federal Defense Minister Lambrecht in a keynote speech last fall. This strategy is a renewed attempt by the German bourgeoisie to combine its foreign policy, security policy and military policy - both politically and organizationally - and to make these different policy fields run in a common and unified direction. Lambrecht describes it as follows:
"Security is once again becoming the central task of the state. From a single mold, across departmental boundaries, as the term "integrated security" indicates. But at the same time - and this is very important to me - we must also be sensitive to the dividing lines between internal and external security, which are enshrined in our constitution and must not be blurred. This is also a clear signal, despite all the integrated approach: we must be clear about this and we will pay attention to it. As Minister of Defense, I can say that the Bundeswehr in particular will play a more important role in our political thinking and actions in the future. We had become accustomed to seeing our armed forces exclusively as players in crisis operations abroad or in administrative assistance - Corona, floods, forest fires. That time is over. We must once again see the Bundeswehr as the central instance for our provision of public services. And do so every day."
This is quite openly the attempt of German imperialism to further develop militarization and to bundle it politically in a concrete strategy. That this prioritization of security cannot proceed without organizational consequences can be seen well in the fact that Lambrecht speaks of pursuing security "from a single mold" and "across departmental boundaries," which means nothing other than even closer and more uniform cooperation between all organs of foreign, security and military policy. Of course, to warn of possible constitutional problems when presenting one's own strategy is the icing on the cake.
When Lambrecht's speech deals with the new role of the Bundeswehr, her militarism comes to the out big time. The Bundeswehr is no longer to be used only abroad against the peoples of the world or domestic alleged "natural and health crises." as it was before. Lambrecht says, in her own shameless words, that the Bundeswehr will once again become "the central instance for our provision of public services." And what she means by that is certainly not that the Bundeswehr will be used in the future to build new public housing or to rehabilitate roads. It is specifically the statement that German imperialism will rely more and more on its military to enforce its interests in the world and also at home.
The "National Security Strategy" is nothing else than a political-organizational strategy program of the German bourgeoisie for a concentrated effort of central control and coordination of military rearmament and militarization, in which all necessary authorities and state sectors participate in order to plan and enforce the military and security interests of German imperialism in a more uncomplicated and, above all, more coordinated way.
But it is not to stop at just more efficient organization of German militarization; Lambrecht also articulates very clearly Germany's claim to leadership and shows once again that this project can only be realized in confrontation with the United States, as she says at various points in her keynote speech:
"Germany's size, its geographic location, its economic power, in short, its weight, make us a leading power, whether we like it or not. In military terms, too.
(...)
The conclusion is clear: We Europeans, and thus most prominently we Germans, must do more to be able to credibly demonstrate so much military strength that other powers will not even think of attacking us.
(...)
If we can do that, then the signal will be unmistakable:
• Germany takes its role seriously
• Germany stands firm in NATO and with its allies.
• Germany is ready to lighten America's load in Europe and thus make a decisive contribution to fair burden sharing.
We must make Europe stronger on its own merits."
Under the fig leaf of "lighten America's load in Europe," the former defense minister presents German imperialism's interest in curtailing U.S. imperialism's power position in Europe. The "fair burden sharing" here is rather Germany's claim to get a bigger piece of the pie by taking a bigger military role.
In order to make itself further independent of the U.S. and to build up further, independent military capabilities, German imperialism relies on its hegemonic leadership role in the European Union, as Lambrecht says "And here it is important to me: the EU can also contribute to the states of Europe doing more for their own security. We should take full advantage of that. (...) Germany is at the forefront, but as a central hub country it naturally also has a special obligation. Here, I will advocate even more commitment."
Lambrecht also announced plans to work on joint European "arms procurement agencies," referring to the Brussels-based "European Defense Agency" at the head of which she has sent a German vice president. Through its supremacy within the EU, German imperialism is trying to take an even stronger leading role in the European arms industry. Why this is a necessity is shown by the list of the world's top 100 arms companies, 40 of which are from the U.S. alone, which clearly dominates the global arms business with 51% sales.
Lambrecht says "Our goal in the EU is to jointly procure 35 percent of our investments in armaments. Currently, it's just eight percent. There's really a lot of room for improvement there." To ensure this, Lambrecht also wants to have the export rules for armaments changed so that armaments cooperation can be more uncomplicated and simpler. In the future, therefore, even more weapons and combat systems will be produced and distributed more quickly in Europe under German leadership.
Another point of dovetailing military and security policy in the "National Security Strategy" is the issue of internal security and counterinsurgency. Lambrecht talks about how the Bundeswehr should no longer just provide administrative assistance for Corona, forest fires and floods as usual, but should take on a much more central role in German government policy in the future. The examples she lists are not only designed to make it clear that the FRG will conduct more foreign missions in the future, but that it should also become more militarily active at home. We all know enough examples ourselves: G20 in Hamburg, the 2006 World Cup, etc., and next year's European Championship, which will be held in Germany, also lends itself to this. For further coordination, Lambrecht proposes a so-called "National Security Day" and lists:
"- From homeland security to intelligence,
- from diplomacy to development policy,
- from the protection of the constitution to the military threat situation, discuss them, talk to each other. Don't push it away, but perceive it and also have a discussion about it - and then draw the appropriate conclusions."
Since the "National Security Strategy" is intended to be a project that transcends ministry boundaries and seeks to establish an all-encompassing German security policy, domestic policy, foreign policy and even questions of development policy are to be considered here from the standpoint of the security interests of German imperialism in order to address them together. If, for example, the contradictions of the imperialists in the Ukraine war were to become more acute with the delivery of tanks and possibly even fighter jets, and strong protests were to develop against this in the FRG, it would not be inconceivable that military intelligence services, the foreign intelligence service BND, the Office for the Protection of the Constitution and also the interior ministries with their police forces could act together and in a coordinated manner within the framework of this security strategy, especially against the anti-war movement, anti-militarists and anti-imperialists, and could attempt to criminalize them.
Even today, military services are already taking action against opponents and critics of rearmament. The recently uncovered surveillance of artists of the "Center for Political Beauty" could thus serve as a kind of appetizer for such an approach. These artists had taken action to draw attention to the theft of weapons and ammunition by fascists in the Bundeswehr and were classified as "enemy propaganda" by the Bundeswehr's "Operative Communications" department and consequently monitored. In this case, the Bundeswehr even planned to take its own countermeasures against the group.
However, there is still a great deal of disagreement within the government on the question of how this "National Security Strategy" is to be implemented in concrete terms. The Green-led Foreign Ministry proposed the establishment of a "National Security Council." A government body with this name already exists in the U.S. The "United States National Security Council" is under the direct leadership of the U.S. President, at whose side then the heads of the State, Defense and Energy Departments, as well as various coordinating heads of the U.S. intelligence agencies, jointly determine the foreign policy of Yankee imperialism. What this "National Security Council" in Germany is supposed to be, what powers it is supposed to have and, above all, in which ministry it is supposed to be located, is still unclear and the subject of the dispute between the traffic light parties.
Although there is already a body in the form of the "Federal Security Council" in which ministries responsible for security meet and decide, for example, on arms exports, this body does not even have its own secretariat and thus does not have sufficient organizational form and authority to transfer the security policy outlined by Lambrecht to the various departments of the foreign, interior and defense ministries and enforce it.
The Greens want such a "National Security Council" to be located in the Foreign Ministry, which they lead, while the SPD would naturally like to see such a body in Olaf Scholz's chancellery. It therefore remains to be seen whether such a centralized leadership structure, based on the U.S. model and standing above the individual ministries, will come to fruition at all. It would be a very aggressive step in the dismantling of the democratic-liberal façade of the bourgeois state and would bring with it a good amount of justified resistance against it. What is certain to come, on the other hand, is the further advance of the militarization and rearmament of German imperialism in its striving to develop into an superpower. "National Security Council" or not - the "National Security Strategy" of German imperialism will in any case be an expression of this striving.
