German coalition faces debate over military draft
There are no talks planned between Germany's coalition parties on reintroducing compulsory military service despite the moves to strengthen the armed forces, according to a senior member of parliament.
"The coalition agreement clearly states that we are in favour of voluntary service," Matthias Miersch, the leader of the Social Democrats (SPD) parliamentary group - the junior partner in the conservative-led government - told the Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung newspaper.
"We can negotiate compulsory military service in the next legislative period if necessary, but not in this one," he added in remarks published on Saturday, referring to the tenure of the current parliament which is due to run until 2029.
Miersch said the goal of 60,000 additional soldiers, cited by Defence Minister Boris Pistorius, is achievable only in the medium term: "At the moment, there is not nearly enough training capacity available."
Military service was mandatory for Germany men from 1956 to 2011, with the possibility of doing civilian service instead on grounds of conscientious objection.
However, due to the Ukraine war and the perceived increased Russian threat to Europe, there has been discussion of reintroducing the draft as in some EU states, such as Lithuania in 2015 and Croatia which is planning to do so this year. It comes amid a broader rearmament effort among European nations.
Pistorius, also from the SPD, has said that another 60,000 troops would be needed in Germany's active forces for NATO's planning targets for increased defence capability.
Pressure from the right
The new parliamentary commissioner for the armed forces, Henning Otte, who like Chancellor Friedrich Merz comes from the conservative Christian Democrats (CDU), has floated the idea of renewed conscription to prevent the Bundeswehr – Germany's military - from being overstretched.
As the new commissioner, Otte told reporters that he intended to "put this on my agenda again this year."
The head of the Bundeswehr Association, André Wüstner, also advised the coalition to move towards a possible new draft.
To achieve the increased NATO targets, voluntary service must become more attractive, said Wüstner. He also expressed doubts that it would be possible to recruit up to 60,000 additional men and women for the active forces on a voluntary basis.
Miersch said that the key question was exactly how to make military service attractive to citizens.
This was not currently possible simply because of the lack of equipment, he argued, urging Pistorius to "now invest and appeal to young people differently."
The chairman of the defence committee in the parliament, CDU politician Thomas Röwekamp, also backed reintroducing compulsory service.
"Of the approximately 700,000 school leavers, less than 10% currently opt for voluntary service and only 10,000 for service in the Bundeswehr," Röwekamp told the Rheinische Post newspaper.
"Anyone who wants to live their life in freedom and prosperity cannot rely solely on the commitment of others."
He therefore called for compulsory service for men and women in the military or alternatively in social or civil society areas. "In this way, we not only strengthen our defence capabilities, but also social cohesion," he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
42 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Donohoe: Pharma Tariffs Could Cost Ireland 75,000 Jobs
00:00 The pharma tariffs is one thing that, you know, President Trump has promised that those will come very soon. He said that last week. That's a sector where we know that Ireland has particular exposure as well. How are you quantifying those risks? How serious do you see that as being potential damage to the Irish economy? So it's very difficult to quantify what the risks could be while a decision has yet to be made regarding what America may do. From a general point of view, The macroeconomic modelling that we've done for the Irish economy would indicate that there could be approximately 75,000 jobs that could be affected by it across the medium term, with 20 to 25 of those affected across next year. And it's indicated that from a growth perspective, there could be 1 to 1 and a half points of growth that we could lose across the medium term. But again, to put that in the context of what our strengths are, with 2.7 million people at work, we have a growth outlook for our economy even now of 2 maybe even more than 2% per year. So those risks could materialise. They will become clearer in the time ahead. But the reason why these companies have part of their global supply chains here in Ireland is because we've the skill, the experience and the competitiveness built up to keep them in our country. And we will look down at how we can maintain that, even if the trade environment around it does begin to change. What sort of tools would you be looking at? I mean, if you're talking about there being a potential of 75,000 job losses? Well, in terms of the job losses, it's not really jobs that could be lost. That could happen. It could also be jobs that might otherwise not be created And again, looking at all of that, we still believe if that were to happen, it will happen at a time in which the number of people at work in Ireland would still be, by our standards, at a historic high. In terms of the decisions that are available to us to respond back. It is many of the matters we're working on at the moment how we can increase investment levels within our economy. If you look at Mike's article in the business post yesterday about Ireland, he talked about our strengths, but he also pointed to the need to invest. He also talked about the need to maintain openness within our economy. And Minister Chambers and I, who, as you know, it's the Minister who focuses a lot on our public expenditure. I looking at the investment decisions we can make in energy and infrastructure in the next few years, that could strengthen our economy at a moment of change so they are the big decisions that we're looking at at the moment.
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
A Belgian Minister Wants To Link Migration And Trade Cooperation
Belgium's Minister of Asylum and Migration, Anneleen Van Bossuyt in Brussels, on June 5, 2025. ... More (Photo by NICOLAS MAETERLINCK / Belga / AFP) / Belgium OUT (Photo by NICOLAS MAETERLINCK/Belga/AFP via Getty Images) A Belgian nationalist politician has said the European Union should try to coerce countries, particularly those in the developing world, to cooperate more with the bloc's deportation agenda, by threatening to take away tariff exemptions or expedited visa procedures if they don't. The suggestion - linking trade and asylum policy - is just the latest in a series of similar statements, as the EU, as well as the U.K., look to deport more people back to their countries of origin. Speaking to the U.K.'s Financial Times newspaper, Belgium's minister for migration, Anneleen Van Bossuyt (described by the FT as a 'rightwing nationalist politician') said the EU should 'make more use of the leverage' it has. By this she means that the EU should threaten developing countries - very often the countries of origin of people seeking shelter in Europe - with taking away favorable trade arrangements or other cooperations, if those countries do not help to reduce the amount of irregular migrants in Europe. The statement, while slightly more transactional than the language typically used by European ministers, sits neatly with the dominant trend in Europe when it comes to irregular migration. Pressure has been building for years to reduce the number of irregular migrants on the continent, as right-wing parties gain electoral support and other anti-immigration groups dominate the political conversation. Earlier in 2025, the European Commission, in apparent deference to these concerns, announced it is developing a framework for the creation of 'return hubs' or reception facilities outside the EU where people can be deported. Such a system would be a radical step, as it would see people removed to countries they have no connection to or support in, and likely falls afoul of the EU's own obligations not to remove people to a situation they may face harm or danger. From the point of view of deportation-minded politicians, the obvious solution is to send more people to their countries of origin. This is complicated, however, as many countries refuse to accept people returned against their will, while still others lack capacity or infrastructure to receive people back. In this context, Anneleen Van Bossuyt's comments are unsurprising, as there has been considerable focus on the EU's perceived 'inability' to send people away, and policymakers are scrambling around for other levers to pull. Earlier in June, the EU announced plans to reform the bloc's visa system, wherein around 60 foreign countries benefit from visa-free travel. The idea is to make it easier to suspend or cancel that 'benefit' if a country falls afoul of the EU, including if that country is the source of an increased number of asylum seekers. Likewise, the government of the United Kingdom has announced it intends to review its own visa system, with an eye to tying it to the issue of irregular migration, thereby pressuring foreign countries to accept more deportation flights. With all this in mind, the comments in the FT from Anneleen Van Bossuyt - while made by a 'right-winger' - are very much in keeping with the political approach of the U.K. and EU's leadership overall.
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
Goodbye to Berlin: New Novels Recall a City's ‘Poor but Sexy' Heyday
Berlin, they say, is dead. Kaput. Over. Not what it used to be. Then again, part of Berlin's modern identity as Europe's licentious, experimental, ultraliberal techno capital is that it has always been finished. A jaded, black-clad noise musician declared as much to me on my first visit to the German capital in my early 20s, two decades ago. Then, as now, Berlin existed in a perpetual state of disdain for its present in favor of a vanished, superior past — the precise years of which varied widely depending on whom you asked (and tended to coincide with the person's youth). Still, the consensus seems to be that Berlin is, if not quite over, no longer the anything-goes metropolis that, from the collapse of the wall to the 2010s, enchanted so many people seeking a freer, cheaper, less conventional way of living. I lived in Berlin for several years starting in 2018, and continue to spend my summers there. I still find it inspiring, more so than my native Dublin (a capital that's always felt like a village), but there's no avoiding the facts: The city is fast becoming as expensive as London or Paris, and a new nexus of capital and property speculation is erasing what's left of a bohemian utopia in its 'poor but sexy' heyday. Dark historical clouds once again swoop in. I regularly see footage of Berlin's Polizei suppressing pro-Palestinian protests with disturbing brutality, while a state-sanctioned cancellation campaign against critics of Israel's actions in Gaza has chilled the cultural sector. The sinister far-right party Alternative für Deutschland is on the rise. The other kind of party — the one represented by storied techno temples such as Berghain and Tresor — is now the stomping ground of tech and finance elites. I've just read a batch of novels set in Berlin, all published this year. While fiction is an imperfect receptacle for history, it tends to capture the moods, textures and sensibilities of a period far better than official records can. Novel writing being a slow-motion affair, only one of these four books is set in our evil decade. The others take place in the decade prior — when an image of the city solidified just as the reality underpinning it began to dissolve. Reading about Berlin at its most recent peak underscores the subtle manner in which a city can both vanish and endure — can be credibly declared dead even while retaining great promise and vitality to those who still flock there in search of a better life. The books speak less about the city itself than the desires, pretensions and last gasps of a 21st-century vanguard: the hedonistic cosmopolites and dropout creatives who once dominated the cultural discourse but now look very much like an endangered species within the current world order. While common themes emerge — gentrification, immigration, economic and political shifts — these four very different novels form something of a Cubist portrait of a place, and a people, receding into the mists of history and nostalgia. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
