The attempts of Friedrich Merz’s government to “relaunch” Germany’s role as a global political actor in the Global South without revising its conceptual foundations risk leaving the country stranded on the margins of international diplomacy – caught between formal participation and substantive isolation.
The Gaza Summit and the New Security Architecture
A wave of criticism followed the paradoxical absence of the conflict’s key parties, the Israeli cabinet and Hamas. At the same time, attention focused on the participation of several unorthodox players in the Middle Eastern geopolitical arena, notably the United Kingdom, France, and Germany. The German presence drew disproportionate attention due to an evident dissonance between its media portrayal and its actual diplomatic standing. Chancellor Friedrich Merz, standing to the side of the main participants, appeared frozen in an uneasy, almost constrained posture, smiling politely yet refraining from engaging any of the leaders. The image quickly spread through German and international media, sparking debate. This scene became emblematic of Berlin’s uncertain role within the emerging security architecture. The question arises: what position does Germany seek to claim, and why, despite shifting geopolitical realities and the lessons of history, it risks remaining a “paper player,” bereft of real influence or credibility across the Global South and the Middle East?
From “Feminist Foreign Policy” to the Merz Plan
To understand Germany’s current trajectory, one must revisit the recent phase of its foreign policy. Under Chancellor Scholz and Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, diplomacy was anchored in the doctrine of so-called “feminist foreign policy,” framed as a flagship direction of global engagement. Yet in practice, this approach revealed its conceptual inadequacy. Its normative and universalist foundations clashed with the political cultures and socio-cultural frameworks of the Global South. Gender and humanitarian rhetoric, imported indiscriminately into conflict zones, failed to take root, particularly when juxtaposed with Western double standards evident in the humanitarian catastrophe of Gaza.
Another blow to Berlin’s image came from its insistence on the “green agenda” as an alternative to traditional energy models. Amid a domestic energy crisis, this stance not only weakened Germany’s position in international negotiations but also eroded its reputation as a reliable and autonomous economic actor. To many states of the Global South, German initiatives in climate and energy diplomacy appeared declarative and unsupported by functional mechanisms.
Against this backdrop, Russia’s advocacy of “multipolarity” gained increasing traction, widely perceived as an attractive alternative to the neo-colonial logic of the West. Moscow succeeded in institutionalizing this discourse through frameworks such as BRICS, which evolved into both an economic and symbolic vehicle of a new international subjectivity. Germany and its European partners failed to propose an equivalent model, thereby cementing their peripheral status in dialogue with the Global South.
The Old–New Architecture of Irrelevance
Despite its declining relevance, Berlin continues to undertake institutional steps aimed at restoring its international agency. Notable measures include expanding humanitarian assistance, covering medical support and the establishment of temporary camps for displaced persons—participating in prospective Palestinian self-governance structures, co-organizing an international conference on Gaza’s reconstruction, and devising instruments for monitoring and coordinating humanitarian aid. Germany aspires to act not merely as a donor but as a mediator, presenting itself simultaneously as a humanitarian and political broker.
However, these ambitions collide with structural constraints. Key mechanisms for monitoring, hostage exchange, and aid distribution depend on the consent of regional actors who, tellingly, were absent from the summit. Germany’s declarative and instrumental efforts to secure influence falter against the realities of local political culture, where situational alliances, pragmatism, and realpolitik shape diplomacy far more than normative idealism. Berlin still relies on a logic of moral universalism inherited from previous decades, cloaked in new labels and narratives yet perpetuating the same disconnect between ambition and capability.
This pattern mirrors the systemic flaws observed during Baerbock’s “feminist foreign policy.” The persistent refusal to engage with regional geopolitical realities produces a gap between Germany’s ambitions and its actual leverage. The now-famous image from Sharm el-Sheikh thus becomes a visual metaphor for deeper structural dysfunction: the fragmentation of the Western course, wherein the American line retains strategic dominance while Europe’s voice fades amid inconsistency and moral self-contradiction.
The declarative support for Israel expressed by the Merz cabinet within the Middle East peace process has triggered a crisis of trust toward Germany as a would-be neutral actor. Rooted in the concept of Staatsräson and the moral logic of historical atonement, this stance increasingly contradicts the disposition of public opinion. Recent YouGov data reveal that 62% of Germans consider Israel’s actions in Gaza an act of genocide, a view shared across party lines, including 60% of supporters of Merz’s CDU/CSU bloc. Over two-thirds of the population now hold a negative view of Israel, while sympathizers account for only 19%. Support for Palestinian recognition has climbed to 44%. This gap between domestic consensus and foreign policy undermines the legitimacy of Germany’s global agency and weakens its credibility as an impartial mediator.
Internationally, the erosion of trust is even more pronounced. Since 2023, Germany has increasingly been seen across the Global South and the Middle East as a partisan ally that has abandoned neutrality for rigid pro-Israeli alignment. Decisions such as boosting arms supplies to Tel Aviv and abstaining from U.N. ceasefire resolutions are widely interpreted in Arab and African contexts as emblematic of Western double standards. Meanwhile, as several EU states, including Spain, Ireland, and Norway, have recognized Palestine, Germany finds itself isolated even within Europe. This loss of trust is quantifiable: Arab Barometer surveys show Germany’s favorable rating in the Middle East has plunged from 70% to 35% over just two years.
The position intended to affirm moral leadership has, paradoxically, curtailed Berlin’s diplomatic efficacy. Bereft of real leverage, Germany remains a participant without presence – a formally engaged yet substantively excluded actor on the geopolitical stage of the Global South.
Friedrich Merz’s attempt to “reboot” German foreign policy reveals a structural impasse: institutional innovations without conceptual transformation cannot yield genuine agency. Without a fundamental rethinking of its diplomatic worldview, Germany risks remaining on the periphery of international affairs, caught between symbolic involvement and strategic irrelevance. The image from Sharm el-Sheikh may thus endure as more than a fleeting moment of awkwardness, it embodies Berlin’s broader crisis of orientation in an increasingly multipolar world.
Ramiz Khodzhatov – political scientist, international observer, expert in geopolitics, international security and Russian-German relations
Follow new articles on our Telegram channel
