Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.
August 25, 2005 at 02:43 PM
Then what motivation does the US have to not veto the admission of Germany into the UNSC? From what I have read, only Japan's entry into the UNSC is backed by the US. Japan, unlike Germany, actually acts as though it was a US ally. America should veto Germany's entry into the UNSC. China will most likely veto Japan's entry into the UNSC, so when the dust settles, the status quo will probably remain as it is.No chance for German support for the current U.S. administration in the UN Security Council, if German should become a permanent member.
Agree with you. The only possible allies from Western Europe for the US are Britain and Italy. Either is dicey, though UK may have learned from July, it's only a matter of time...onedomino said:Then what motivation does the US have to not veto the admission of Germany into the UNSC? From what I have read, only Japan's entry into the UNSC is backed by the US. Japan, unlike Germany, actually acts as though it was a US ally. America should veto Germany's entry into the UNSC. China will most likely veto Japan's entry into the UNSC, so when the dust settles, the status quo will probably remain as it is.
Kathianne said:Agree with you. The only possible allies from Western Europe for the US are Britain and Italy. Either is dicey, though UK may have learned from July, it's only a matter of time...
canavar said:Berlusconi is indeed very pro-American...
But when you look at italian people, they want their troops home...
Italy gave order to arrest some CIA-People to be judged under italian jurists...
Does the name SGRENA say something to you?
this was this from-sunni captured women...
Italian intelligence man went in to IRAQ to negotiate with sunnites-terrorist to free her, and Italian intelligence-man freed her...
As Sgrena and Intelligence man neared an American Checkpoint, GI shot them Italian Intelligence man dead, and also wounding SGRENA...
Major Daily newspapers in Italy are in the Hand of Leftist...
When Berlusconis time is over, Italy will do the same as french people.
Interesting recounting of a story well covered on the board. Try the search feature. Your attempt was weak.Kathianne said:
padisha emperor said:Well, don't make a confusion : the feeling of the people and the behavior of the governement.
Italy : a lot, I think the majority of the population, is against Bush. And against the war.
France : well, you know.
Germany : the same
UK : a lot is against the war. remember, the biggest mobilisation against the war was not in Paris or Berlin, but in London.
USA : less than 40% of positive opinion for George W. Bush. His weakest score since his election in 2001.
Why Keary didn't win ?
CSM said:In my opinion, Kerry didn't win because he wanted to turn over the soveriegnty of the United States to the Europeans and the UN...and fortunately, the majority of Americans disagree with that philosophy....
ah PE...felling fiesty this morning I see.padisha emperor said:.......
Of course
and he also wanted to destroy the white house and build instead of it the Palais de l'Elysée, like in France. And also a Reichstag...
And the new USA capital would have been paris in Summer, Berlin in Autumn, Aix in Winter and the seal of the UNO for spring...
you can't believe that because this guy wanted to have better relationship with the other countries, he wanted to turn over your sovereignity...
Imagine if the german Bundeskanzler wouldn't have done their Ostpolitik, because people like you would have said : now, you don't respect our sovereignity....you'll bring it to Poland !"...
Oh, a last thing : you seem to be very attached with the US sovereignty. it's normal.
But the minimum would be that USa respect the other countries's sovereignty...lkie the Iraqi...Because I think that attack a sovereign nation without declaration of war , or a green light from UNO, it's fully illegal and in violation with the concerned nation's sovereignty.
So, you make me laugh with your sovereignty, when i look at the things you've done.
CSM said:ah PE...felling fiesty this morning I see.
Your last statement is symbolic of why we willnever agree on this subject. I do not view a green light from the UNO as a necessary for this country to defend itself. Or to provide military and financial aid to our allies...
I do not want this country and it's citizens to be regulated by the rest of the world.
As for respect for another nation's soveriegnty...France is not and has not been the epitome of goodness in that respect, have they? The French government has a big problem with the US defending itself, with the way we (the citizens of the US) live and work and make laws in this country. They (the French government) have not hesitated in any way to criticize the US, its foriegn policy, its trade and economic treaties, etc. And then the French have the arrogance to tell us that we should respect other countries! What they (again, the French government) really means is that we (the US) should do as they (the French) tell us, whether or not it is good for the US and its citizens...and most of the time the only interests the French are looking out for is their own.
Actually our little dialog here is a very illustrative example of the main topic. You and I have a very disparate view of things. What Europe (not just the French) seems to forget is that at the end of the First Gulf War there was a CEASE FIRE signed by the opposing parties...it was not a peace treaty. Iraq violated that cease fire many, many times (something the current president of the USA mentioned more than once in his reasons for going to war among many other things....Europe and some citizens of this country ignore all but those reasons which fit their agenda to criticize the US.padisha emperor said:yeas, I was quite on the nerve, but you're for nothing in it
if UAS would have been attacked by Iraq, of course they wouldn't have to wait a green light from UNO.
but here, it was not Iraq who attacked USA.
USA show to the world pics of WMD, these WMD never existed.
The attack on USA was a terrorist attack, not an attack from the sovereign State of Iraq.
There is a difference.
USa belong to the wolrd nations community, they have to resepct the rules of the game.
For the french interferences in the USA policy : it 's just critics. Not an intervention to change the things.
France said things, it belong to the sovereign people of the USA to decide, of course.
We didn't invade a country. Or when we did it - Ivory Coast - it was not an invasion, but a peace operation under mandate of UNO.
I can understand your feeling, you have the right to be angry... Of course, it's not my country and my co-citizens who have been attacked and killed in NY.
But it changes nothing, it was an unfair violation of sovereignty, the Iraqi war.
anyway, I think we 've done a deviation from the original sin of the topic.
CSM said:Actually our little dialog here is a very illustrative example of the main topic. You and I have a very disparate view of things. What Europe (not just the French) seems to forget is that at the end of the First Gulf War there was a CEASE FIRE signed by the opposing parties...it was not a peace treaty. Iraq violated that cease fire many, many times (something the current president of the USA mentioned more than once in his reasons for going to war among many other things....Europe and some citizens of this country ignore all but those reasons which fit their agenda to criticize the US.
The way Europe in general cnducts business and forms its foriegn policy is very different than the process here in the US. Naturally, US foriegn policy is sometimes at odds with the foriegn policy and interests of other nations. Europe and those other nations naturally object to US foriegn policy when that occurs...I understand all of that very well. What I dont understand is how the fact that the US is looking out for its own interests is bad and yet other countries looking out for their own interests is good....
