[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 89 (Tuesday, July 12, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 12, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
 THE RULING OF THE GERMAN HIGH COURT REGARDING OVERSEAS DEPLOYMENT OF 
                          THE GERMAN MILITARY

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I arise today to draw the attention of my 
colleagues to a most significant ruling issued today by the German high 
court, sitting in Karlsruhe. That court has ruled that the German 
Constitution, the basic law, contains no prohibition against the 
overseas deployment of the German military.
  In effect, this means that the German military will be able to 
participate fully in United Nations peacekeeping operations, the 
operations of the Western European Union and in future NATO combined 
joint task forces. This departure constitutes a most significant step 
forward toward adapting NATO, in particular, to the new security needs 
of the post-cost-war world. To date, whenever NATO has contemplated 
broadening its mission beyond simple border defense, it has been 
hindered by the fact that Germany, one of its most military potent 
members, asserted that it was constitutionally prohibited from 
deploying troops outside NATO territory. That fundamental problem has 
now been resolved.
  Shortly after the Clinton administration first took office, the 
President's permanent representative to the United Nations voiced U.S. 
support for an expansion of the permanent membership of the U.N. 
Security Council, particularly with a view to German and Japanese 
membership. At that time I introduced a Senate resolution, subsequently 
incorporated in the State Department authorization bill, stating that, 
while the United States should support German and Japanese Security 
Council membership, the initiative should proceed no further until both 
nations had made themselves ready to take on all of the 
responsibilities of permanent Security Council membership.
  In particular, I was concerned that, at that time, both the German 
and Japanese Governments were asserting that their constitutions 
prevented their participation in U.N. military operations. Would the 
American people tolerate a situation where German and Japanese 
diplomats were voting in favor of operations which would place United 
States soldiers in harm's way while, simultaneously, they had no 
intention of having their own military participate in those operations? 
Such a departure, in my opinion, would have proved disastrous for our 
relations both with Germany and Japan.
  The German High Court ruling has effectively addressed this problem 
and, in response, the Clinton administration must vigorously press the 
case for Germany's permanent membership in the Security Council. I am 
particularly concerned that Germany's proposed membership should not be 
delayed by Japan's failure similarly to address its constitutional 
situation. There is no reason why the two countries' applications 
should be regarded as inseparable. Germany has acted on its 
constitutional problem. It has done so forthrightly and it should be 
rewarded for its resolve.
  Since the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the welcome unification of 
a too long divided Germany, Chancellor Kohl has repeatedly urged his 
countrymen to take a role in the international community consonant with 
their country's economic prowess. In the aftermath of Operation Desert 
Storm I, myself, traveled to Bonn at the suggestion of Germany's then-
Ambassador to the United States Juergen Ruhfus, in order to press upon 
the German Government my observation that Germany's inability to 
participate in that undertaking had placed considerable strain upon 
United States-German relations.
  In pressing the issue of the overseas deployment of the German 
military, the Chancellor has demonstrated his recognition that this is 
not simply a question of Germany asserting its international rights but 
also of taking on its international responsibilities.
  By contrast, Japan is doing its utmost to avoid addressing its 
central constitutional problem. The current government, a coalition of 
the conservative LDP Party and its traditional rival, the Socialists, 
harbors vast internal policy differences. The differences over defense 
and security policy are particularly bitter, with the Socialists 
traditionally maintaining that Japan's self-defense forces are 
unconstitutional. Consequently, in order to retain power, the coalition 
is failing to discuss Japan's security obligations while the foreign 
ministry pushes for a permanent seat for Tokyo on the United Nations 
Security Council.
  Japan's simultaneous hunt for enhanced status while it avoids 
internal discussion of the responsibilities intrinsic to that 
enhancement is not only curious, it is also dangerous. Consider the 
current situation in the Korean Peninsula. If the worst were to occur 
and war breaks out, the United States is treaty bound to fight 
alongside South Korea. In doing so, this Nation would, in effect, be 
defending Japan as well as South Korea. However, under current accepted 
Japanese interpretations of its constitution, Tokyo would be forbidden 
from putting its troops on the line in the event of such a war.
  When the Korean war was over, and the accounting done, Americans 
would undoubtedly consider Japan a questionable ally. We would ask why 
our sons and daughters had to die to defend a country that refused to 
defend itself. Current circumstances and current Japanese aspirations 
demand that Japan address its constitutional situation as forthrightly 
as has Germany.
  Before I close, I should note that I have already heard one 
commentator assert that the German high court's decision does not 
constitute the significant departure which it might appear, because the 
high court also ruled that future overseas deployments of the German 
military will require the approval of a majority in the Bundestag. I do 
not, in any way, believe that this provision undermines the 
significance of the high court's ruling. If any nation is to send its 
troops overseas, it needs to know that it enjoys the full support of 
its electorate, as expressed through the elected legislature.
  I supported the proposal that the Congress vote prior to any 
initiation of hostilities with Iraq. More recently, I supported the 
Nickles-Cochran proposal that no U.S. troops be deployed on U.N. 
peacekeeping operations absent an affirmative vote of Congress. The 
involvement of the national legislature, be it the Congress or the 
Bundestag, in decisions to send forces overseas is not a demonstration 
of weakness. Rather, it is both a demonstration of mature democracies 
at work and a recognition of the major importance of the decision which 
is being taken. No civilized nation can blithely place its citizens in 
harm's way, whether they wear a uniform or not, and decisions to send 
troops into danger should, therefore, be thoroughly considered by both 
the executive and legislative branches of Government.
  In closing, let me congratulate the German people for addressing this 
complex and troubling question and for resolutely taking up the burden 
of world citizenship. I trust that we will shortly see Germany 
occupying a permanent seat in the U.N. Security Council.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________