Double standards and their consequences
Berlin’s power politics has suffered a severe setback following Germany’s failed bid for a seat on the UN Security Council. Punished for obvious double standards in foreign policy?
BERLIN/NEW YORK (own report) – The failure of Germany’s bid for a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council deals a severe blow to the German government’s global political ambitions. With just 104 votes, Germany trailed far behind the considerably smaller states of Portugal (134) and Austria (131) in Wednesday’s vote in New York. The double standards with which Berlin operates are widely regarded as one of the main reasons: while Germany sharply criticises opponents such as Russia for alleged or actual breaches of international law, and demands other states support sanctions, it turns a blind eye to, and is indeed seen as complicit in, crimes committed by close allies, not least Israel and the United States. In response to the debacle in the UN General Assembly even the Social Democrats (SPD), the junior partner in Germany’s ruling coalition, is now saying that in future “double standards must not be applied in international law”. The setback also indicates that the dominance of the major Western states in international politics is waning. Smaller countries like Austria and Portugal can expect to enjoy new sources of sympathy in future. The German government is hinting that it will not make another application until the 2035/36 term. In response to the diplomatic snub, calls from certain quarters in Germany can be heard demanding that the country’s contributions to the UN be reduced if it has no seat on the Security Council.
‘Shaping foreign policy’
Last year, Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul spoke openly about the objectives the Federal Republic of Germany was pursuing with its bid to retain its non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council. The United Nations Security Council was “the most important, really global body for global security”, for which, despite all the conflicts worldwide, “there is still, in principle, consensus and support from all,” said Wadephul in his speech before the conference of all German ambassadors on 8 September 2025. He presumed that, “Germany belongs at this table as one of the key European powers.” Germany’s presence on the Security Council was, he added, needed above all “because we want to shape foreign policy in this world” – “and because this is in our interests!”[1] The CDU politician pointed out that, “especially in an increasingly harsh geopolitical climate, membership of the Security Council opens up access to decisions, formats and information.” Indeed: “Access that will remain open even years after our membership.” A seat at the top table was, Wadephul said, of great importance to Berlin: “especially when international law is under pressure and multilateralism is faltering, it is our responsibility to stand up to this resolutely.”
Crimes? Who cares.
A key reason cited for Germany’s failed Security Council bid is the fact that the German government constantly preaches abstract adherence to international law yet pays no heed to it in concrete cases in which its allies are accused of serious violations – even when scrutinised on the world stage. For years, the German government has stubbornly refused to take a stance on Israel’s egregious violations of international law – not least during the Gaza War. Berlin has only offered meaningless platitudes. In December 2025, under pressure from Israel, it did not even agree to argue for extending the mandate of the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA). This failure to speak out is all the more striking given that Berlin regularly attacks Russia – an adversary – in the strongest terms over alleged or actual war crimes in Ukraine. In the case of Israel, Germany’s stance is particularly damning because, as Daniel Forti, a UN expert with the International Crisis Group, notes, “a large majority of UN member states … have supported Palestine and are very concerned about Israel’s war in Gaza and the West Bank”.[2] The repression in Germany of pro-Palestinian voices and all opponents of Israel’s warfare has also met with strong international condemnation.[3]
‘Too complex’
The German government has also found little understanding in many countries for its stance of de facto endorsement of the United States’ wars of aggression. While Berlin continues to pressurise states around the world to impose sanctions on Russia for its war against Ukraine, it is still apparently incapable of arriving at an official legal assessment under international law of the US and Israeli war of aggression against Iran. The same applies to the US incursion in Venezuela in early January and its abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. Chancellor Friedrich Merz claimed that “the legal classification of the US operation” was “complex”, so “time” was needed to address this act.[4] The “time” needed has now been dragged out for over five months without any official statement having been issued. The acquiescence is now drawing criticism even from within Germany’s ruling coalition. Siemtje Möller, deputy chair of the SPD parliamentary group in the Bundestag, was recently quoted as saying that it was necessary for the federal government to “call out behaviour that contravenes international law in future for what it is, regardless of who questions it”.[5] Adis Ahmetovic, foreign policy spokesperson for the SPD parliamentary group, also struck a critical note, demanding: “Double standards must not be applied in matters of international law.”
Declining powers
Beyond the widespread aversion to hypocrisy and duplicity in German foreign policy, the failure of Germany’s bid is also attributable to shifts in the balance of power in international politics. In recent decades, the Federal Republic had always managed to achieve its goal of being elected to the UN Security Council once every eight years. As the term of office is two years, Germany, viewed over the long term, held a non-permanent seat on the Security Council for a quarter of each eight-year period. This has been seen as considerably disproportionate. But Berlin could justify its presence by the fact that Germany pays a larger UN membership contribution than most other states. Germany, as a large and economically powerful country, claims enough diplomatic weight to hold its own against the powerful permanent members. Acceptance of Germany’s role is evidently waning in the international community. This is already apparent from the fact that two smaller Western European countries, Austria and Portugal, both put up candidates against Germany at the same time. The Federal Republic’s failure in the Assembly vote shows that there is a growing global need to push back, to some extent at least, against the large, influence-wielding powers.
‘Cut UN contributions!’
The outcome is a bitter blow to the German government’s global political ambitions – all the more so as Berlin has far-reaching goals and even aspires to a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. Following Germany’s failed bid for a non-permanent seat, it is less clear than ever just how this claim can be justified. Accordingly, we are now seeing some initial signs of a decline in German interest in the United Nations. Given that Germany is one of the largest contributors, some politicians have raised the idea of cutting back contributions. In 2025, Berlin transferred 3.22 billion euros to the New York-based body. CDU politician Manfred Pentz, who currently serves as Minister for International Affairs in the state of Hesse, has concluded, “If in future we do not have the influence there that we are entitled to, the question arises: why should we continue to invest so much money in the United Nations?”[6] The Trump administration has shown what damage can be done by withholding payments to the United Nations and pulling out of agencies for similar motives. And as funding is cut off, the UN’s role is becoming increasingly precarious.
[1] Rede von Außenminister Johann Wadephul zur Eröffnung der Konferenz der Leiterinnen und Leiter deutscher Auslandsvertretungen. auswaertiges-amt.de 08.09.2025.
[2] Martin Ganslmeier: Katerstimmung und Fehlersuche. tagesschau.de 04.06.2026.
[3] See: “Stigmatised, criminalised, attacked”.
[4] Bundeskanzler Friedrich Merz erklärt zur Situation in Venezuela. bundesregierung.de 03.01.2026.
[5] Was bedeutet Deutschlands gescheiterte UN-Bewerbung? zdfheute.de 04.06.2026.
[6] Deshalb wurde Deutschland bei der UN-Wahl abgestraft. n-tv.de 04.06.2026.
