Mrs. Merkel’s decision to abstain from the Security Council vote was fiercely criticized by many in her own party, while Joschka Fischer, a member of the opposition Greens and a former foreign minister, wrote that ”Germany has lost its credibility in the United Nations and the Middle East” and that “German hopes for a permanent seat on the Security Council have been permanently dashed.”

Photo

Klaus Naumann, the former head of the German military, said that “even the idea of a European Union seat” on the Security Council had been damaged, adding, “Germany has turned the idea of a unified European Union foreign policy into a farce.”

In a meeting of Mrs. Merkel’s own parliamentary caucus, Ruprecht Polenz, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, called Germany’s abstention “a catastrophic signal,” according to Der Spiegel. Christian Ruck of the Christian Social Union, the Bavarian sister party, complained that “the European Union is falling apart.”

It is not easy to draw a clear line through all these events, said Stefan Kornelius, foreign editor of the daily Süddeutsche Zeitung. Germany is still “the savior of the euro,” he said, “and it’s unthinkable that one day Germany should be the savior of Europe and the backbone of the economic union and the next the funeral director of alliance politics.”

The Libyan vote was "highly disturbing,” coming out of pacifism, exceptionalism, immaturity and fear of domestic backlash, he said. “And it came at an unfortunate time for Merkel, when the country was driven by angst due to the nuclear accident in Japan. So this combination of nuclear angst and deeply rooted pacifism just ahead of very important state elections — this was the perfect storm.”

The German government, caught up in the political fallout from the Japanese nuclear calamity, decided to abstain at the United Nations because that was a “more honest” expression of Germany’s aversion to military action of its own in Libya, said a government official who spoke on condition of anonymity, following diplomatic protocol.

The official stressed, however, that the government’s attention had been focused primarily on Japan. When history is written, he said, “people will remember 9/11, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Kennedy assassinations and Fukushima.”

Advertisement Continue reading the main story

François Heisbourg, special adviser for the Foundation for Strategic Research in Paris, said it was uncomfortable for Germany to find itself in the company of Russia, China, India and Brazil while its main European allies and the United States voted for the resolution.

Photo

Given that President Nicolas Sarkozy of France had infuriated Mrs. Merkel and other European allies by his unilateral and seemingly impulsive recognition of the Libyan opposition, Mr. Heisbourg said, it seems unfair to simply blame Berlin for the breach in European unity. “But in public opinion, it looks like Germany refused European and Western solidarity,” he said.

Mrs. Merkel is acting with serious political constraints, with her coalition partner, the Free Democrats, dropping in the polls and their leader, Guido Westerwelle, the foreign minister who came out so strongly against the Libyan operation, considered to be in danger of losing his party leadership. State elections are chipping away at her control of the upper house of Parliament.

If her Christian Democratic Union loses its traditional stronghold of Baden-Württemberg in elections on Sunday, as polls indicate it will, she will face an opposition majority in parliament, badly weakening her political authority and freedom of action.

Newsletter Sign Up Continue reading the main story Please verify you're not a robot by clicking the box. Invalid email address. Please re-enter. You must select a newsletter to subscribe to. Sign Up You will receive emails containing news content , updates and promotions from The New York Times. You may opt-out at any time. You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services. Thank you for subscribing. An error has occurred. Please try again later. View all New York Times newsletters.

“The nuclear decision was Merkel trying to stem a political tsunami,” said Constanze Stelzenmüller, a senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund in Berlin. “This was crisis prevention.”’

Ms. Stelzenmüller suggested that Germany’s growing isolationism was part of a larger movement away from the certainties of cold-war alliances and institutions. With the end of the cold war, these more national priorities were inevitable, but are uncomfortable. “We Germans are doing what others are doing, but we are whipsawing more.”’

Germany explained its decision to withdraw its naval forces from the Mediterranean by saying the arms embargo on Libya needed a parliamentary mandate, since it could involve military force.

At the same time, to placate German allies, the government approved sending 300 more soldiers to Afghanistan to operate NATO surveillance planes, to ease the strain on countries that are involved in Libya and may need to redeploy forces.

Opposition lawmakers were unimpressed, however. “It’s a perverse logic,” said Wolfgang Gehrcke, foreign affairs spokesman of the Left party, “to exacerbate the war in Afghanistan because one doesn’t want to get involved in a war in Libya.”