Europe
Steinmeier’s Iran remarks deepen rift within Germany and EU over international law
The controversy sparked by German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier’s description of the Iran war as a “violation of international law” continues to reverberate.
The German government led by Chancellor Friedrich Merz and the European Commission under Ursula von der Leyen have persisted in encouraging Berlin and Brussels’ support for the US-Israel position.
The German government has so far refrained from formally classifying the attack as a breach of international law.
Von der Leyen has continued to articulate similar views. Speaking recently on international law, she argued that “Europe should no longer see itself as the guardian of the old world order.”
Steinmeier, meanwhile, faced sharp criticism for his remarks, including a forceful response from the CDU/CSU parliamentary group leader in the Bundestag.
Steinmeier condemns the war
Steinmeier, who is due to leave office next year, issued pointed criticism of both the German government and the European Commission’s stance.
At the same time, as noted by German Foreign Policy, Steinmeier himself bore shared responsibility for Germany’s participation in the March 1999 attack on Yugoslavia, having served at the time as Minister of State in the Federal Chancellery.
He warned that “major powers” might be able to survive, and even profit in the short term, in “a world without rules.”
Arguing that neither Germany nor the EU could be counted among such powers, Steinmeier stressed that an international legal order with fixed rules governing the use of force is “vital for the survival of those who cannot count themselves among the major powers.”
He added that there was “no doubt” the war against Iran violated international law, and noted that the German government continued to claim it was still assessing the legality of the intervention.
“Not calling a violation of international law what it is does not make our foreign policy more convincing,” Steinmeier said.
CDU/CSU backlash against the president
Steinmeier’s remarks prompted a strong political backlash.
Jens Spahn, leader of the CDU/CSU parliamentary group in the Bundestag, stated that assessing actions “under international law” remained the responsibility of the federal government, “as in other cases.”
“I expect officials and senior representatives of the Federal Republic to await this assessment and respect it,” Spahn said, calling on Steinmeier to exercise restraint.
Alexander Hoffmann, the CSU regional group leader, echoed similar remarks on the sidelines of a parliamentary meeting.
“For us, international law has the highest priority. But it must not become a shield for terrorist regimes,” Hoffmann said.
Spiegel: AfD and Araghchi back Steinmeier
Following Steinmeier’s comments, German media outlets reacted swiftly.
Der Spiegel drew attention with a report headlined: “Steinmeier earns praise from Tehran and AfD for comments on the Iran war.”
The report cited Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, who said on X that Steinmeier deserved recognition for condemning violations against Iranians.
The far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD), which frequently criticizes the president, also expressed support.
Co-leader Tino Chrupalla said: “He was right on this issue, which is rare for the Federal President. The attack on Ukraine violated international law. The attack on Iran does as well.”
Deutsche Welle, reporting on the president’s post on X, added a note emphasizing that “the role of the German president is largely ceremonial and does not reflect government policy.”
Berlin avoids condemning US-Israel
Neither the German government nor the European Commission has so far formally described the US-Israel attack on Iran as a violation of international law.
In one of his initial responses, Chancellor Merz stated that “classifications under international law” would have “relatively limited impact.”
He added that “this is not the time to lecture our partners and allies,” while also criticizing any reluctance to defend core interests with military force if necessary.
Commentary by the German Council on Foreign Relations interpreted the latter remark as amounting to “de facto full political support” for the Iran war, which has been justified as a “preemptive strike.”
Merz’s demand that Iran must “immediately cease its indiscriminate attacks” was also seen as implying a departure from previously established norms of international law.
Von der Leyen: EU no longer guardian of the old order
Echoing Merz, European Commission President von der Leyen also spoke on March 9.
Addressing the EU Ambassadors Conference, she said there were differing views on whether the war against Iran was “a matter of choice or necessity.”
She argued that this debate “partly misses the point,” insisting that Europe must “simply take reality into account.”
Referring explicitly to international law, von der Leyen stated that “Europe should no longer be the guardian of the old world order,” describing it as part of a past that “will not return.”
In apparent contradiction, she also maintained that the EU would “always defend the rules-based order,” before adding that it could “no longer rely on this alone” to safeguard its interests.
Calling for a “more realistic and interest-driven foreign policy,” von der Leyen faced sharp criticism in the European Parliament shortly afterward.
ECFR criticism: Failure to condemn Iran attack undermines Ukraine stance
The positions taken by Merz and von der Leyen have drawn strong criticism from foreign policy experts at both national and international levels.
Beyond fundamental objections, tactical arguments have also emerged. The European Council on Foreign Relations warned that if Berlin and the EU fail to uphold international law in the Iran conflict, they will struggle to invoke it credibly in the context of the war in Ukraine.
The DGAP further argued that Berlin should not support “a war of aggression that runs counter to German interests in multiple respects,” citing risks such as an energy crisis, supply chain disruptions, and a potential wave of refugees linked to the Iran war.
According to DGAP, Germany remains “a marginal actor in the Iran war,” and therefore has no compelling reason to support the intervention.
The think tank called for Berlin to initiate a “course correction,” arguing that Germany can only restore credibility and exert influence if it leaves “no doubt” that international law will remain the “foundation and guiding principle” of its foreign policy.
Europe
China’s critical mineral restrictions challenge EU defence expansion plans
The European Union’s plans to expand its defence capabilities are being hindered by China’s export controls and sales restrictions on critical raw materials.
In response, EU leaders are urging member states to accelerate efforts to diversify supply chains.
According to Nikkei Asia, the European Commission announced last week that it would propose new legislation requiring companies across the bloc to broaden their supplier base in an effort to address economic imbalances, although it did not explicitly name China.
The war in Ukraine and growing uncertainty over Washington’s security guarantees have pushed European governments to increase military spending and defence production.
At the same time, according to a report published in May by Joris Teer, a policy analyst at the European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS), China accounts for at least 70% of global mining or refining activity in 17 of the 34 materials classified as critical by the EU. Eight of those 34 materials are currently subject to Chinese export controls.
“China is undermining Europe’s rearmament efforts,” Teer wrote. “Simply by activating this tool, China has already increased its leverage and demonstrated both the capability and willingness to restrict supply whenever it chooses.”
The Aerospace, Security and Defence Industries Association of Europe also warned that geopolitical developments and intensifying global competition for critical raw materials are further underscoring the need to strengthen European supply chains.
The organisation represents more than 4,000 companies, including Britain’s BAE Systems, France’s Thales and Germany’s Rheinmetall.
European defence manufacturers are pursuing a range of strategies, including vertical integration, recycling, diversification and stockpiling.
Rheinmetall told Nikkei Asia that it has “no dependencies” and is “well prepared” regarding critical minerals.
A company spokesperson said: “Rheinmetall has stockpiled key raw materials sufficient for several years. We have also implemented IT systems that allow us to centrally monitor and precisely manage raw material consumption across the entire group.”
Analysts, however, caution that stockpiling alone will not be sufficient. Maria Shagina, a researcher at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said: “Stockpiling serves as an important buffer against sudden disruptions, but on its own it is unlikely to mitigate structural damage over the long term.”
Shagina added that replacing the volume and diversity of critical minerals controlled by Beijing with alternative sources would take years.
In 2024, the EU enacted the European Critical Raw Materials Act, aimed at rebuilding domestic supply chains for such minerals.
The legislation sets 2030 targets for domestic extraction, processing and recycling while limiting dependence on any single third-country supplier to 65%.
A €3 billion ($3.5 billion) fund was established last year to accelerate strategic projects.
Nevertheless, the European Court of Auditors has noted that the 2030 targets are not legally binding and that the EU remains far from achieving them.
Industry groups argue that policy inconsistencies could further slow progress.
The Cobalt Institute, which represents a sector vital to jet engines, advanced batteries and defence alloys, warned that proposed EU chemicals regulations risk undermining the industry.
“Europe has one foot in and one foot out,” said Michael Blakeney, head of government and public affairs at the London-based institute. “It says the right things, but its actions are inconsistent.”
Europe’s efforts are unfolding alongside a more aggressive US strategy to secure critical mineral supply chains.
Shagina said:
“The US is investing more capital to secure and expand capacity, taking greater financial risks and, in some cases, acquiring equity stakes. Europe, by contrast, is generally more cautious, which places it at a relative disadvantage in the competition for critical minerals.”
In April, the EU signed an agreement with the United States to coordinate supplies of critical minerals. Although some member states initially resisted over concerns that the deal could weaken the bloc’s strategic autonomy, they authorised the Commission in early June to join the US-led “Pax Silica” initiative, which coordinates investment and export-control policies.
Teer urged Europe to use ongoing US-EU-Japan negotiations as the nucleus of a broader coalition aimed at making critical mineral production outside China financially viable through state support, minimum-price mechanisms and supply rules.
“Particularly important are countries that either produce raw materials or possess significant mineral deposits, such as Malaysia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Brazil and Indonesia, as well as countries like India with large pools of skilled labour,” he said.
Teer also argued that the EU should activate its Anti-Coercion Instrument, which allows the bloc to impose tariffs and restrictions in response to economic pressure on countries outside the union, in order to deter China from introducing further restrictions.
A European Commission spokesperson said the bloc had “long been aware of the risks associated with the EU’s dependence on critical raw materials.”
“The objective is clear: to anticipate disruptions early and reduce the EU’s vulnerabilities while strengthening our industrial and defence capacities,” the spokesperson said.
Europe
Four European countries move to make citizenship harder to obtain
European countries are increasingly tightening their citizenship rules. Most recently, the Norwegian government has drafted legislation that would raise the minimum residency requirement for citizenship from three years to seven.
The proposed amendments to the citizenship law were presented by the Ministry of Labour and Social Inclusion.
Under the draft legislation, stateless individuals born in Norway, as well as those who arrived in the country as children, would be required to reside in Norway for at least five years before becoming eligible for citizenship.
The government also plans to increase residency requirements for foreign nationals who are married to or cohabiting with Norwegian citizens.
Language requirements are set to become more demanding as well. The proposal would raise the required level of spoken Norwegian proficiency from A2 to B1. The new rules would apply to applicants aged between 18 and 67.
Commenting on the changes, Minister of Labour and Social Inclusion Kjersti Stenseng said: “Obtaining and holding Norwegian citizenship should be a privilege.”
The government argues that simplifying administrative procedures while simultaneously tightening eligibility criteria will help reduce the country’s large backlog of pending applications and shorten processing times.
Norway is the latest European country to announce revisions to its citizenship rules.
In Finland, the minimum residency requirement for citizenship was increased from five years to eight years on October 1, 2024.
The country also plans to introduce a mandatory citizenship test for applicants aged between 18 and 64 from the beginning of 2027.
Finnish Interior Minister Mari Rantanen said: “The introduction of a citizenship test is the final component of a comprehensive reform aimed at making citizenship requirements more stringent.”
Sweden has also approved a similar reform. Beginning in June 2026, the standard residency requirement for citizenship will increase from five years to eight years. Authorities are also introducing a financial self-sufficiency requirement for applicants and expanding the scope of security screenings.
Explaining the rationale behind the changes, Migration Minister Johan Forssell said: “It was possible to become a citizen after living in the country for five years without knowing a single word of Swedish, learning anything about Swedish society, or even having one’s own source of income.”
The most far-reaching changes have been implemented in Portugal. Portuguese President Antonio Jose Seguro has signed legislation raising the minimum residency requirement for citizenship from five years to 10 years.
For citizens of the European Union and the Community of Portuguese Language Countries, the requirement has been set at seven years.
The residency period will now be calculated from the date a residence permit is granted rather than from the date a citizenship application is submitted. The new rules will also affect the children of immigrants.
Previously, children could obtain citizenship one year after birth if their parents held residence permits. Under the new rules, at least one parent must have legally resided in the country for a minimum of five years.
The law also introduces a mandatory examination covering Portuguese history, culture, values and social structures.
Migration policies are tightening across the European Union as well. On June 17, the European Parliament approved legislation allowing irregular migrants whose asylum applications have been rejected but who cannot be returned to their countries of origin to be deported to third countries.
The new EU rules permit the establishment of migrant detention centres outside the bloc’s borders. African countries are reportedly among the options being discussed for such facilities.
Europe
SpaceX warns EU satellite spectrum plan could disrupt connectivity in Ukraine
SpaceX has sharply criticised a European Union plan to restrict access to satellite spectrum, arguing that the proposal risks degrading connectivity in Ukraine and disrupting emergency communications services.
In a document shared with European officials and reviewed by the Financial Times, SpaceX warned:
“This proposal significantly increases the likelihood that Europeans will be deprived of direct-to-device satellite services, or that new European operations will create global interference issues, including for emergency services such as those operating in Ukraine.”
In a proposal unveiled in May, the EU recommended reserving part of the spectrum band used for direct satellite-to-smartphone connectivity for European operators, thereby limiting the frequencies available to US and Chinese providers.
The 2 GHz frequency band in question is currently used by two US companies, Viasat and EchoStar.
SpaceX argued that the EU plan prioritises “an operator’s country of establishment over economic, technical and regulatory realities.”
When the proposal was announced, EU technology chief Henna Virkkunen defended the move, saying the bloc wanted to “increase European capacity in this sector.” She added that other parts of the frequency band would remain open to international operators, arguing that prioritising European providers was justified.
Other participants involved in discussions over the proposal said some EU officials were specifically seeking to limit Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite network.
Europe’s initiative follows a warning from Washington. In March, the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) cautioned that it could take retaliatory measures if the EU chose to favour European satellite operators over alternatives such as Starlink.
At the time, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr told the Financial Times: “Some of the discussions in Europe regarding satellite sovereignty concern us. If Europe decides to move down that path, then, as you know, we will have to consider reciprocal measures.”
The European Commission’s proposal has not yet entered formal negotiations with EU member states or the European Parliament.
A source close to SpaceX said the company remained hopeful of influencing the outcome of the process, given concerns raised by both businesses and several European governments.
-
Asia2 weeks agoPentagon adds Alibaba, Baidu and BYD to list of firms with alleged Chinese military ties
-
Europe2 weeks agoAfD says Ukraine should compensate Germany over Nord Stream sabotage
-
Opinion1 week agoA voice rising from New Delhi: BRICS’s manifesto for a new world order
-
Europe2 weeks agoToyota and JLR warn EU ‘Made in Europe’ rules could threaten jobs and investment
-
America2 weeks agoWorld Cup referee from Somalia denied entry to US as immigration scrutiny intensifies
-
Middle East1 week agoMine clearing in Strait of Hormuz could delay shipping traffic for up to 50 days
-
America6 days agoData leak exposes Peter Thiel’s secret ‘Dialog’ network of politicians, regulators, and tech elites
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoTürkiye calls for Azerbaijan-Armenia peace treaty, highlights normalization steps with Yerevan
