‍

In my long professional life as a diplomat, I had no reason to be ashamed of my government's policies. Today I could no longer say that when I read that the Federal Government had to be reminded by a decision of the Berlin Administrative Court that it is bound by promises already made and is obliged to grant a visa to an Afghan scientist and her family who is part of the federal government's federal admission program.

‍

Despite the acceptance of the Afghan family, the government did not want to accept the Afghan family in Germany. The judges ruled that this was illegal, and the government must issue the promised visas.

At the mercy of the Taliban

Just as a reminder, one of the major criticisms of Germany's hasty withdrawal from Afghanistan was that former employees of the German armed forces and NGOs were left behind and at the mercy of the Taliban's revenge. If possible, the traffic light coalition's admission program was intended to make up for this as far as possible. To do so, following a successful audit in Afghanistan itself and a commitment from the Federal Government, this group of people had to travel to Pakistan on their own, where a remaining security check was to be carried out. However, this check was so slow that even after two years, half of these people are waiting to be flown out. They are now at risk of being deported back to Afghanistan by the Pakistani authorities.

Doubts about compliance with the contract

It is embarrassing enough that the new federal government believed that it did not have to honor the promises made by the old federal government's admission program. If this sets a precedent, it will ultimately cast doubt on the German government's adherence to the treaty. After all, a contract is nothing more than a verbal promise in written form. Anyone who believes that they do not have to keep verbal promises loses trust.

‍

Even more alarming, however, is the reaction of Jürgen Hardt, foreign policy spokesman for the CDU/CSU parliamentary group, who said, “The individual decision of the administrative court does not reflect the will of the voters.” Since when is the will of the voters and not the law the basis for a court decision?

Terrifying understanding of law

Hardt's words are reminiscent of Trump and, unfortunately, even more of the “common sense” that used to be used to undermine the application of laws by the courts. A frightening understanding of the law that also undermines the separation of powers. Hardt probably believes, albeit in vain, that he can save the rule of law in his statement by adding that the decision of the administrative court “should be reviewed at the higher administrative court level in the normal legal process.”

‍

Is he hoping that the will of the voters will be taken into account there? This hope will not be fulfilled. Otherwise the German judiciary would be in a bad way. And the federal government should be ashamed of itself.

‍