Schroeder Won the Right to Lose His Job

Germany's Bundesverfassungsgericht (constitutional court) cleared the way for a general election on September 18, 2005. So Schroeder got his will - and will with certainty lose his chancellor job as a result of this election. Its safe to predict the same fate for foreign minister Fischer.

I'm just not sure what a new government will mean for German-American relations. A change in style: definitely. Chancellor Angela Merkel would not publicly criticize or "warn" the U.S. government in the arrogant manner Schroeder or Fischer did against "going alone" or using military means in Iraq or Iran.

But don't expect a change in substance. The next German government will not contribute a soldier or even a penny to military actions aimed at solving problems in Iraq or Iran. A Merkel government will most likely actively try to convince the U.S. government to turn to peaceful, "soft", diplomatic approaches in dealing with the Mullahs in Iran or the terrorist insurgents in Iraq. No chance for German support for the current U.S. administration in the UN Security Council, if German should become a permanent member.

This SPIEGEL interview with Wolfgang Gerhardt foreshadows the foreign policy of the next German government, at least if the Free Democrats (FDP) will be coalition partner of Merkel's CDU/CSU. Gerhardt, currently chairman of the FDP faction in the Bundestag, the German parliament, about the Iran crisis:

SPIEGEL: ... President George W. Bush says: "all options are on the table."

Gerhardt: There isn't any realistic chance of military action because the US cannot afford to overstrain itself. (...)

SPIEGEL: Wolfgang Schäuble, the conservatives' (CDU) foreign policy expert, is demanding a demonstration of unity with the US. On the Iran question he is therefore much closer to Bush than you are.

Gerhardt: We (the liberals) differed with Mr. Schäuble over the war in Iraq, and the same is true here. The US has found peace with India and Pakistan, both of whom acquired nuclear power status through their contempt for the non-proliferation treaty. If it's acceptable there, one can hardly threaten another country -- with which, incidentally, negotiations are ongoing -- with the military option.

SPIEGEL: So you don't want to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb at any price?

Gerhardt: "At any price" always means: it's my way or the highway! That's not a policy which sits comfortably in the tradition of German foreign diplomacy.

The "tradition of German foreign diplomacy" of course refers to FDP's Hans-Dietrich Genscher, Germany's foreign minister for 18 years under chancellors Brandt, Schmidt and Kohl. A leading German journalist, Josef Joffe, wrote:

Genscher was the master tactician-so much so that Richard Burt, the U.S. ambassador in the early 1980s, would end up calling him a "slippery man." The compliment was hardly misplaced, for Genscher was indeed hard to pin down. What did he want, and where did he want to take his country? From his rhetoric, it was usually impossible to tell.

He loved to wrap himself in the fog of bienpensant oratory. Genscher, the diplomat's diplomat, was an exemplar of political correctness before PC was even a gleam in a

e deconstructionist's eye. His favorite shibboleths were "bloc-transcendence," "peace order," "responsibility," "cooperation." He would drive his Western allies to distraction by drenching them with verbiage, and before the stuff was translated into halfway comprehensible English, he was off on yet another trip to yet another capital where the nuances of his demarches were ever so slightly different. He probably spent more time in the air than in his office on Bonn's Adenauerallee.

Did he say one thing and do another, as the Americans and the British always suspected? Such an indictment would hardly hold up in a court of law because Genscher's discourse was so voluble and so cloudy as to flummox even the most hardened prosecutor. To do an interview with him meant transcribing 6,000 words and then whittling them down to about 1,200-and usually without the benefit of a single memorable quote. (...)

He, Genscher, had always understood that Saddam wanted "hegemony in the region" while "some of our important allies had supported [his] regime for years with arms shipments . . ." Having scored his point, he explains why Bonn could not commit armed forces to the allied cause (in 1990). The army "was not prepared"; there was a constitutional ban on out-of-area operations (which the Constitutional Court has since declared nonexistent); there was the "fragile Two-plus-Four [reunification] process" with the Russians, who had, after all, been "close" Iraqi allies.

Seeking to avoid damage and to maximize their influence, brokers never commit completely to either side-that is the essence of their game, and Genscher was a virtuoso at it. (emphasis added)

Its a safe bet to expect a continuation of the "tradition of German foreign diplomacy" past Schroeder, whoever holds the helm of foreign policy. CDU's Schäuble would possibly steer a different, more realistic course, but he will only get a chance to become foreign minister in case of an absolute majority for the CDU/CSU and that is unlikely to happen.

Comments

[corbusier]

It is precisely this unwillingness to take sides on the part of its foreign policy which diminishes Germany’s influence in international affairs. Though they may be the world’s third largest economic power, they are among the most insignificant of countries when dealing with major crises. Shroeder’s campaign is trying to make his refusal to act militarily as a courageous stance, but that reasoning won’t fly with countries whose people very well understand the bloody sacrifices it takes to make peace.

My East German host family had very nice things to say about Gensher, or the “Genschman” as they endearingly call him. Somehow it never got to their heads that their fate was part of a larger movement the Soviet Union relinquishing control in response to aggressive Reaganite foreign policy. It seem that of the former Warsaw Pact countries, on the old GDR has distinctly apathetic views towards Americans, while all the other are far more admiring of the U.S.

www.architectureandmorality.blogspot.com

[tampawayne]

While I have been frustrated with German positions in the past, I have to say that on this issue I think they are essencially correct. Why not throw in the towel on Iran's nukes and try to focus on nurturing democratic change from below in that country?
I also agree with the last comment and would like to see some analysis/elaboration on why it is that East Germans are so anti-American.

[corbusier]

I would be all in favor of promoting democratic movements in Iran, and I don’t doubt that the current administration in the U.S. would desire this, too. Bush has actually been very clear about his support for democratic dissidents in Iran. But to really start a major challenge to the Iranian mullahs would require covert operations and competent human intelligence. Alas, the CIA has proven itself incapable of late to accomplish either of these, and anything resembling a coup would appear to have America’s fingerprints all over it since it did such a thing in the fifties. I don’t think Shroeder or Morkel would be willing to support covert activities in promoting democracy in Iran. Did Kohl ever discreetly support East German dissidents, or was the Fall of the Berlin Wall the result of events beyond Germany?

[Motorhead]

..."negotiations are ongoing." Yep, the Iranians sure are scared of the Europeans.

But that FDP dude is right in a way. What is wrong with a sovereign state having its own nukes? It is somewhat hyprcritical to say some states may have them but others not.

But since when did this Wolfgang Gerhardt dude become and expert on US military strength and capabilities?

[moonfarer]

On the above discussed subject of "Genscher".

This German "diplomat" is, without a doubt, the most forked tongue individual of the entire era of post-war German politics.

He served as a member of the FDP Party unter Willy Brandt's leftist government as foreign minister and supported Brandt's traitorous "Ostpolitik" hook, line and sinker during the 1970ies.

Thus, he acted with total disregard for Germany's constitution which demanded a re-unification of Germany within its pre-war borders of 1937. His tireless efforts in this regard were a prelude to Germany's illegal recognition of 25% of its arable land surface as part of Russia, Lithuania and Poland.

During the re-unification process, Russian emissaries approached the German government with a plan to offer a buy-back for the Russian part of East Prussia. They were rebuffed by Genscher with the immortal words for any German," I would not even accept it if it were given to us as a present"

Of course, it was denied after the fact but the leak came from Russia which had no motivation to invent such a story. Taking Mr. Genscher's proverbial slimyness and hostility toward East German Expellees into account this story is absolutely credible.

Frederick the Great, King of Prussia would have said about Genscher with his usual sharp tongued humor,"Hang this traitor at once - but hang him at a lower level."

Needless to say, Genscher is being "celebrated as an 'Elder Statesman'" in today's Germany with its totally messed up value sytem.

(Notes asides: Of course, Genscher takes also the anti American side in case of the Iraqi war.)

USA

[Doughnut Boy Andy]

@Motorhead

"But that FDP dude is right in a way. What is wrong with a sovereign state having its own nukes?"

I found a very apt answer written by yourself I believe:

"Cos gambling is for fools.... but thats the way i like it baby I dont wanna live forever!"

:-) A great song but in this case Id prefer not to gamble on this issue.

"It is somewhat hyprcritical to say some states may have them but others not."

Yes but its not too much to ask that a nuclear state has the necessary checks and balances to make sure that it doesnt use them irrationally. I wouldnt really describe Iran as a democracy despite the elections and so how sovereign it actually is is questionable. Iran is a theocracy which is run by religious leaders that threaten to wipe out a neighbouring state that it doesnt even accept or acknowledge. Even in the thick of the cold war, neither the USA or the UdSSR were up to blowing us all sky high to meet our maker. Both states systems had a natural instinct (if you will allow this phrase) to continue to survive in this life and pressure to do so. A nuclear strike would only have taken place if either had gone that mile to far and even then its questionable, a we (thank f**K) will never know. Democracies are of course the most reliable as its hard to convince over 50% of voters that we should all die. Even dictatorships, because the boss in charge at least is having a good easy life, quite literally have a wish to remain alive and in power. N.Korea may be a pain in the butt but despite all the "anti-imperialist" anti US rhetoric old Kim has a family and a cushy deal going on for himself and probably wont press the button knowing the consequences. Even the crazy MoFos like Saddam are aware of this. Despite all his talk of holy war and his funding of suicide bombers, the US soldiers found a fair stash of porn and booze in his palaces showing that he was up for a cushy existence. Why he never backed down to the US is still a mystery to me though. So why not Iran?, you ask. Well theocracies believe in matyrdom and another life after this. At least thats what they say they do. Perhaps the whole government of Iran is just all bark and no bite as well but that is one big risk. If they really do believe their rhetoric that its Gods will that they wipe out Israel, the USA and western decadence in a holy nuclear strike or two then would you be willing to take the risk that they wont actually do it? Now in this case gambling really is for fools...

[Annoy Mouse]

Gerhardt tells the world that he does not believe the United States is capable of defending it’s policies.

“There isn't any realistic chance of military action because the US cannot afford to overstrain itself.”

He goes on to site his stand on moral equivalence by noting Pakistan and India have a bomb therefore what could be the harm for the Islamic regime of Iran to have one also. Every one gets one. I suppose it is irrelevant that the mullacracy in Iran has made a solemn promise to god to kill the Jews and chants death to the Americans in its’ political assemblies. We have tenuous relations with Pakistan, albeit faltering, and our relationship with India is good.

“The US has found peace with India and Pakistan, both of whom acquired nuclear power status through their contempt for the non-proliferation treaty. If it's acceptable there, one can hardly threaten another country.”

Germany is a traitor to Western democracy.