Dialog International

Angela Merkel on President Obama's Germany Visit

In recent weeks there has been a great deal of ink spilled about a supposed "rift" between the Obama administration and German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The blog Atlantic Review has several posts about this, and The New York Times had a hand-wringing article last week:

A rift has quietly opened up between Germany and the United States, marked by official statements of harmony and private grumbling. It is not an outright crisis in relations, but there are underlying tensions and disagreements on matters ranging from the global economic crisis to the future of inmates held at Guantánamo Bay.

But on the eve of President Obama's historic visit to Dresden and Buchenwald Chancellor Merkel published an op/ed piece in the Sächsische Zeitung which put these rumors of a rift in the proper context.  The piece was not picked up by the international press, but I translated it for Watching America.

Es bleibt unvergessen, welche Opfer erbracht wurden, damit Deutschland und weite Teile Europas vom Nationalsozialismus befreit werden konnten. Und Deutschland hätte auch seine Einheit in Frieden und Freiheit nicht wiedererlangt, hätten die Amerikaner in den Zeiten von Mauer und Stacheldraht nicht entschlossen auf der Seite der Freiheit gestanden. (We can never forget the sacrifices made so that Germany and most of Europe could be liberated from national socialism. And Germany never would have been peacefully reunited in freedom, if Americans hadn’t stood on the side of freedom during the long period of the wall and barbed wire.)

Read my translation of the entire piece by the Chancellor at Watching America.

Germany to Accept Guantanamo Detainees

In a goodwill gesture to the incoming Obama administration, the German government is considering taking in a number of the detainees held at the US prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba:

Germany is considering taking some detainees and will have “intensive discussions” about what to do with prisoners considered innocent who cannot return to their home countries, German government spokesman Thomas Steg said today.

The announcement by Germany, coming two weeks after Portugal said it “will be available” to take some Guantanamo detainees, may make it easier for Obama to fulfill his campaign pledge to shut the prison, which has been the object of international condemnation and allegations of prisoner abuse.

“There will be prisoners who will neither want to remain in the U.S. nor will be able to return home,” Steg told reporters in Berlin. He said the considerations were humanitarian, as a way to ease the closure of the six-year-old prison should the issue of repatriation become a legal barrier.

Portugal’s Dec. 10 offer came in a letter from Portuguese Foreign Minister Luis Amado that urged members of the European Union to help resettle Guantanamo detainees who cannot be returned to their homelands.

This move, if approved, would be a good gesture by Germany and could signal a new beginning for transatlantic relations. Guantanamo is an abomination and a symbol forthe lawlessness of the Bush era. President-elect Obama has vowed to shut the facility as one of his first actions as president, so it is imperative that he follow through on this. This support by Germany will help him to close one of the darkest chapters of recent American history.  But the move can also be seen as an atonement for Germany's complicity in the prisoner abuse at the camp.  From 2002 until 2006 the Turkish-German Murat Kurnaz was held in Guantanamo. Early on, US intelligence officials realized Kurnaz's innocence, but the German authorities refused his repatriation. In fact, as Kurnaz points out in his book, Five Years of My Life, the German government sent over special interrogaters who beat him, instead of securiing his release.

Leading the initiative to take in the Guantanamo detaines is German foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier.  There is a certain logic to this, since it was Steinmeier who blocked Kurtnaz's early release back to his German homeland.  As Bernhard Docke, the German attorney for Murat Kurnaz,  told Der Spiegel today:"Aber der Himmel freut sich über einen reuigen Sünder mehr als über 99 Gerechte." (Heavan rejoices more for one repentent sinner than for 99 righteous ones.)

Germany's Troop Surge

Germany's defense minister Franz Josef Jung announced his intention to deploy an additional 1,000 troops to Afghanistan by early October, bowing to NATO pressure. This would increase German troop levels to 4,500 at a time when 3/4 of all Germans oppose German military presence in that troubled country, according to recent polls. The surge us unlikely to appease the United States, since the additional forces will remain in the relatively peaceful north of Afghanistan, while the US and Canada are facing a growing threat from the Taliban in the south. It was up to German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier to make the case for the surge in front of the Bundestag. Addressing parliament, Steinmeier said there had been "significant strides" in Afghanistan's development since the Taliban were driven out in 2001 "which one can be a wee bit proud of."  Steinmeier's problem is that there are not many people in Germany or elsewhere that believe that there have been "significant strides". 

The reaction in the German press to the announced surge has been rather muted, more like resigned disappointment that Germany is being dragged into a quagmire. Typical was this editorial by  Martin Rücker in the Wiesbadener Kurier with the subtitle  "Aufstockung der Bundeswehr-Truppe in Afghanistan ändert wenig an der schlechten Lage" ("A surge of German troops in Afghanistan will do little to change the bad situation there."):

Der Afghanistan-Experte (Conrad Schetter) am Zentrum für Entwicklungsforschung der Universität Bonn erklärte: "Für die Handlungsfähigkeit der Bundeswehr ist die Aufstockung wichtig. Aber der Schwund an Sicherheit in den vergangenen Jahren war dramatisch - da sind 1000 Soldaten mehr nur ein Tropfen auf den heißen Stein." Bei Feldforschungen habe Schetters Institut eine zunehmend feindselige Stimmung in der afghanischen Bevölkerung auch gegenüber den Deutschen festgestellt: "Ausländer werden verstärkt als Besatzer und nicht mehr als Befreier wahrgenommen." (Conrad Schetter, the Afghanistan expert at the Center for Development Studies at the University of Bonn said: "The surge is important for enhancing the capabilities of the army.  But the denigration of security in the last few years has been dramatic - 1,000 more troops are just a drop in the bucket."  Surveys on the ground conducted by Schetter's institute show that there is growing hostility towards the German troops by the Afghan population. "Increasingly, foreigners are seen as occupiers and no longer as liberators.")

Many military analysts believe that it would take over 350,000 troops to achieve real security in Afghanistan, and there is zero will among the NATO partners to commit to anywhere near that level, and the US remains stuck in Iraq.

The big winner here will be the Left Party (Die LINKE), which has been consistent in calling for German troop withdrawal from Afghanistan. This was recognized by Green Party leader Claudia Roth, who said in an interview that the surge was "grist for the populists' mill", where "populist" is code for the hated Left Party.

 

A Nation of Tax Cheats

A huge tax scandal is unfolding in Germany, and it is having political consequences.  It seems that rich Germans would rather put their money in secret bank accounts in Liechtenstein than pay the taxes they owe under German tax laws.  The scandal is affecting some of Germany's best-known managers:

It began last week with the arrest of a leading German executive on suspicion of tax evasion. Now Germany is enthralled by a tale of unbridled greed that offers as much drama as any Hollywood thriller could — but with possibly far greater political consequences. Prosecutors have said that further probes are under way into the tax affairs of hundreds of individuals suspected of funneling millions of euros into anonymous bank accounts in Liechtenstein under the radar of German tax authorities. The targets are  thought to include some of Germany's wealthiest and most prominent citizens.

Everyone is outraged: this is further evidence of the sad state of affairs in the Banana Republic of Germany. Now it appears that even representatives in the Bundestag may be involved in tax evasion; the general outrage is helping the politcal fortunes of the LEFT party.  A climate of class warfare and general animosity towards the wealthy now pervades Germany.

On the other hand, cheating on taxes is an equal opportunity activity in Germany: everybody does it:

"So wird es von drei Vierteln aller Deutschen praktiziert und empfunden. Die meisten haben ja einen offiziellen Job und arbeiten dann eben nach Feierabend oder am Wochenende schwarz. Weil sie in ihrem offiziellen Job Steuern zahlen, haben sie kein Unrechtsbewusstsein. Wenn dann noch so prominente Fälle wie Zumwinkel bekannt werden, denken sie sich: Jetzt erst recht, wenn nicht mal der Steuern zahlt."

Schwarzarbeiten - or working of the books- loses more revenue for the German government than the secret accounts of the wealthy.

Why this refusal to pay taxes in Germany? And what can be done about it?  The SPD and its allies on the left are calling for harsher punishment - with stiff prison sentences for tax evaders.  Others say the tax rates are too high and tax reform is desperately needed.  Does the widespread dishonesty reflect a legitimation crises for the German government?

Or is tax avoidance simply wired into human behavior?  It is estimated that the United States loses approx. $300 billion each year in revenues because its citizens don't pay what they owe in taxes. The Bush administration has bankrupted the nation by granting generous tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans, so that the US now has the most regressive tax system among the wealthiest nations.  But this generosity towards rich Americans is evidently not enough: wealthy Americans have also been hiding their assets in Liechtenstein banks.

Combat Troops to Afghanistan? Nein, Danke!

Earlier in the week US secretary of defense Robert Gates sent a "stern" letter to his German counterpart requesting more German troops for the NATO mission in Afghanistan.  Berlin gave its answer yesterday:

BERLIN, Feb. 1 -- Germany on Friday rejected a formal request from the United States to send forces to war zones in southern Afghanistan, the latest setback to the NATO alliance as it tries to scrape together enough troops to battle resurgent Taliban forces and stabilize the country.

Defense Minister Franz-Josef Jung said his country's contingent of 3,200 soldiers would stay put in the northern provinces, where they patrol some of the most secure areas of Afghanistan. "That will have to continue to be our focus," Jung said to reporters.

NATO commanders have said they need to add 7,500 troops to the 40,000-member force that NATO oversees in Afghanistan. But there have been few countries willing to comply. Meanwhile, NATO has been struggling to persuade some members not to worsen matters by pulling out.

Joerg over at the Atlantic Review is alarmed, and sees this as a crisis for NATO's future. I'm not so sure. The NATO mission in Afghanistan is extremely unpopular in Germany.  The polls I've seen indicate that only 29% of Germans support the mission.  Why would they want to double it at this time, when Afghanistan is increasingly seen as a failed state? Even the US Afghan Study Group, in its new report (pdf)  admits the entire strategy in Afghanistan was flawed. Unfortunately, the Study Group recommends basically doubling down ("increasing the footprint") in Afghanistan - i.e. continuing the flawed strategy with more resources - as the way forward.

In its final days, the Bush administration is peddling furiously to salvage its "legacy" and pin its failures on others.  NATO is convenient scapegoat for the failure in Afghanistan. Jung did the right thing in telling Secretary Gates to f**k off that Germany would not agree to his request.

Forget America

Check out this video (accessed only from the Web site of Die Zeit) of journalist Jens Jessen exhorting viewers to Forget America (Vergesst Amerika!).

For non-German speakers, Jessen explains that the United States is in a weakened state thanks to broad array of problems - including the Iraq War fiasco - and so can no longer be considered as a model for Germany.  But America's woes have a silver lining for Germans, since now they can address problems in a way that makes sense within a European, or specifically German context without constantly glancing across the Atlantic at Big Brother.  Long Live Old Europe/ Es lebe das Alte Europa!

What is disconcerting about this video, however, is the painting of Vladimir Nicolai Lenin in the background (visible above to the right of Jessen).  What is Jessen trying to say with this image? 

Losing Heart in Afghanistan

Over at the Atlantic Review blog Joerg has started an interesting debate about Germany's  - and NATO's - mission in Afghanistan. There is a growing sentiment among the NATO participants that the peace-keeping and nation-building task is now undermined by the heavy-handed tactics of the US military, which have caused scores of civilian deaths in the country.  Things in Germany came to a head over the weekend when a suicide bomber killed three German soldiers.  Now the Afghanistan mission is exposing a rift in the governing CDU/SPD coalition in Berlin:

"The German soldiers are being identified with the way the US led the war," Annen said in an interview. "In my opinion, the mandate for Operation Enduring Freedom should not be extended."Trittin, whose Greens were in office with the Social Democrats when they made the decision in 2001 to send German troops to the American mission, said that the actions of US special forces were leading to the deaths of civilians and that German participation should be ended.Germany has the third-largest force serving in Afghanistan, after the United States and Britain

The opposition Left Party has gone even further, calling for the immediate withdrawal of all German troops from Afghanistan.  The Left Party has been derided as reckless and extremist, but it is simply giving voice to what the overwhelming majority of Germans think:

BERLIN, May 23 (Reuters) - Nearly two thirds of Germans want their troops to withdraw from Afghanistan after three German peacekeeping soldiers were killed over the weekend, a poll published on Wednesday showed. Carried out on Monday by the Forsa polling agency for weekly Stern magazine, the poll showed 63 percent of respondents believe Germany's Bundeswehr armed forces should withdraw from Afghanistan compared to 35 percent in favour of remaining.

The situation in Germany is similar in some respects to the rejection of the Iraq War in the United States.  Every poll shows that the overwhelming majority of Americans want US troops to be withdrawn sooner rather than later, even as the Bush adminisitration with the backing of the  Republican Party escalates the war with a surge of additional tens of thousands of troops. The difference is, Germans have come to the desire to withdraw from Afghanistan after losing only 21 troops, while it took the deaths of nearly 3,500 troops for Americans to wake to the folly of the Iraq misadventure. 

Putinizing Democracy

"What is pure democracy?" asked Vladimir Putin at the joint press conference with Chancellor Angela Merkel in Russia yesterday. "It is a question of ... whether you want to see the glass half full or half empty." Putin was lashing back at Merkel's criticism of Putin's crackdown on protesters in his country:

"Early on Friday, leaders of the Other Russia coalition of opposition - Garry Kasparov and Eduard Limonov - and right advocate Lev Ponomarev were prevented from leaving Moscow for Samara to join the Dissenters March, which is timed to the summit of Russia and Europe there. According to some sources, the opposition chiefs weren’t allowed to set aboard of plane, as police doubted validity of their tickets."

The other day I wrote about the efforts of the German police to disrupt the protests planned at the G-8 Summit in Heiligendamm.  I ended the post with this: "I can only laugh when Washington or Berlin express outrage at how Vladimir Putin has stifled dissent in Moscow." Well now it is Putin himself who is laughing at Merkel by pointing out how protesters in Germany are being are being taken into "preventive custody".

More about this in Telepolis:

Bundeskanzlerin Merkel kam durch den Gegenangriff Putins auf Estland, aber auch auf die Praxis in Deutschland, offensichtlich ein wenig aus dem Tritt und konnte nicht recht erläutern, was der Unterschied zwischen der Haltung gegenüber Demonstranten in Deutschland und Russland ist.

Putin will be watching with great satisfaction at the Summit how the protesters will be blocked from getting within 2 Kilometers of Heiligendam, how they will be shepherded into makeship prison camps for the duration of the Summit. Then he can listen to his good friend President Bush talk about "enhanced interrogation techniques" at the prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and the massive illegal surveillance progam on American citizens.

Dear Vladimir, you are wrong.  The glass of democracy is neither half-full nor half-empty. It has been completely empty for a long time.

A League of Our Own

Writing in the Tageszeitung, Armin Osmanovic almost sounds like he wants to sign on to John McCain's League of Democracies.  Osmanovic envisions an Allianz der Demokratien:

Um dem Ziel der globalen Sicherheit näher zu kommen, muss sich der Westen neuen Rückhalt innerhalb der Staatengemeinschaft organisieren. Notwendig ist die Bildung einer "Vereinigung von Demokratien", in der neben den Nato-Staaten auch Länder wie Japan, Brasilien, Mexiko, Indien, Südkorea, Ghana, Südafrika, Senegal oder Botswana einen Platz einnehmen könnten. In einer solchen Staatengemeinschaft könnten auch die vier gescheiterten Anwärter auf einen UN-Sicherheitsratssitz Japan, Brasilien, Indien und Deutschland eine herausgehobene Stellung einnehmen.

Würde eine solche "Vereinigung der Demokratien" bereits heute bestehen und wäre die Glaubwürdigkeit der westlichen Staaten nicht durch ihren Einsatz in Afghanistan und im Irak beschädigt, dann könnten diese Staaten heute viel effektiveren Druck auf die autoritären Regime im Sudan oder in Simbabwe ausüben. Gemeinsam könnten sie sich etwa den Vorschlag des französischen Politikers François Bayrou zu eigen machen: Er fordert, dass Frankreich die Olympischen Spiele in Peking 2008 boykottiert, wenn China Maßnahmen gegen den Sudan noch länger verhindert.

Speaking the other day at Stanford University, Senator John McCain called for a "League of Democracies" :

We should go further and start bringing democratic peoples and nations from around the world into one common organization, a worldwide League of Democracies. This would not be like the universal-membership and failed League of Nations' of Woodrow Wilson but much more like what Theodore Roosevelt envisioned: like-minded nations working together in the cause of peace. The new League of Democracies would form the core of an international order of peace based on freedom.

Of course, McCain and Osmanovic are coming at this from opposite poles. Osmanovic is harshly critical of the military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, while McCain wants the League of Democracies to beef up their military capabilities so that they become more of a Coalition of the Willing. Still, both see this as a way to circumvent the United Nations and a way to punish Russia and China. The concept of a group of democracies separate from the UN strikes me as wrong-headed since it would alienate not only Russia and China - who we want to move to more open societies - but also all Arab states, indeed the entire Middle East with the exception of Israel. In the end, it is also a silly idea, since it is absurd to think that European nations and anti-colonial nations in the developing world would join an alliance that is perceived as another vehicle for American hegemony, benign or otherwise.

Habermas on the EU's Future

Jürgen Habermas is always worth listening to. On the occasion of the EU's 50th birthday, Habermas was interviewed by Perlentaucher.de on the way forward in Europe.  Habermas celebrates the notable successes of the EU, but is also frustrated that further progress is stalled because of seemingly intractable differences among member states. His solution for the logjam is worth noting - Sign and Sight provides an English translation of the interview:

"(J.H.) A bold vision for 50 years down the line will not help us get on right now. I am content with a vision for the period leading up to the European elections in 2009. Those elections should be coupled with a Europe-wide referendum on three questions: whether the Union, beyond effective decision-making procedures, should have a directly elected president, its own foreign minister, and its own financial base. That is what Belgium's Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt advocates. Such a proposal would pass muster if it won a "double majority" of EU member-states and of individual citizens' votes. At the same time, the referendum would be binding only on those EU member-nations in which a majority of citizens had voted for the reforms. If the referendum were to succeed, it would mean the abandonment of the model of Europe as a convoy in which the slowest vehicle sets the pace for all. But even in a Europe consisting of a core and a periphery, those countries which prefer to remain on the periphery for the time being would of course retain the option of becoming part of the core at any time.

Habermas has been an outspoken critic of the US-led "war on terror".  For this outspokenness he has often been accused of "anti-Americanism".  Here he rejects that label and mentions what America means to him:

"(J.H)my criticism of the Bush government bears not the faintest whiff of anti-American sentiment. Here in Germany, anti-Americanism has always been part of the most reactionary movements. But the fact that my generation in particular admires and has learned from the political culture of the United States, which is rooted in the 18th century, does not oblige me to unquestioning loyalty. Rather, it obliges me to hold fast to the normative significance of the Federal Republic's orientation towards the West, even against the self-destructive policies of an American government which can be voted out of office. Secondly, I am not naive enough to believe that even a Europe which has learned to speak with a single voice could alone bring about the long-overdue reform of the United Nations. If the United States does not spearhead the movement for reform – as it did twice in the course of the 20th century – there is little prospect of its success. We can at most cultivate the hope that a stronger Europe will be able to influence its allies along these lines. At the same time we must reckon with the likelihood that the next U.S. administration will pursue a neo-realist power policy and will tend not to be open to the normative prospects of a strengthened United Nations Organisation.

I like his reference to "the self-destructive policies of an American government which can be voted out of office."  That is what we are trying to achieve in 2008. And I also believe that some of the Democratic candidates such as Barack Obama are open to a reinvigorated UN.