Condoleezza Rice on German Reunification

Spiegel Online International ^ | 09/29/2010 | CONDOLEEZZA RICE

[AncientAirs]

In a SPIEGEL interview, former United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice discusses America's fight for German reunification, Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev's woes at the time, Chancellor Helmut Kohl's merits and the later mistakes of his successor, Gerhard Schröder.

[Waverunner]

Did she mention France’s peeing of the pants.

[advance_copy]

Six words: “Mister Gorbachev, tear down this wall.”

After eight years of real leadership in the White House, all it took was six words. The Germans did the rest themselves.

[InABunkerUnderSF]

Reads like a left wing reporter trying to put forward the meme that the US forced united Germany to remain in NATO and completely disregards that it was the German people, East and West who were driving the process.

GHW Bush’s handling of the end of the Cold War may not have been perfect but as someone who appreciates a good game of chess, I’d say it was pretty close to.

It’s also plain to see that Secretary Rice doesn’t get how the US and NATO role in Yugoslavia negatively impacted relations.

[dr_who]

Hard to tell whether the reporter is left wing or most Germans are this pathetic and delusional.

[dr_who]

It doesn’t matter what the US does. It’s always our fault. They’d blame us for WWII if they could, and no doubt some of them might.

[hc87]

Spiegel, about as Anti-American as Time Magazine.

[CondorFlight]

She keeps stressing the US presence in Europe.

Why did we need that presence after communism fell?

Why did we need NATO after that?

NATO is a security blanket for Europe, but with the arrangement that the US pays most of the bills, which allows the European states to have miniscule armed forces.

The US taxpayer has been stiffed for 50 years.

Maybe we should let Europe defend Europe? (Surely a novel idea...)

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

The old saying about NATO was that it exists to keep the Germans down, the Americans in, and the Russians out. These days the Germans are up, and the Europeans want the Americans out and the Russians in. Of course the Eastern Europeans still like the old idea (generally).

[Red Dog #1]

"We had no concern about a resurgent Germany, unlike the British or French."

"It wasn't explicit that the United States would not support German unification unless Germany were unified in NATO. But we left no doubt in the minds of our German colleagues that we expected Germany to be unified in NATO. "

Why does NATO still exist? It's not to protect Europe, it is to keep Europeans from waring amongst themselves.

[wolf78]

NATO is a security blanket for Europe, but with the arrangement that the US pays most of the bills, which allows the European states to have miniscule armed forces.

Well, it has to be seen in context. The US spends about 650+ billion per year on defense, which is more than 40% of worldwide spending. EU states are 300+ billion or about 20%. The whole rest of the world - including Russia, India and China makes up just a good third of worldwide military spending. The UK spends 2/3rds of the Chinese military budget, with China having 20 times the population. France spends more than Russia. Germany spends more than Australia, Canada and Mexico combined. Italy with 5% of the population spends more than India.

Today every US citizen spends $2000 on defense, a large chunk of that for WOT operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, only a small portion going to bases in Europe. Adjusted for inflation per capita spending was a bit above $1000 before 9/11, compared to Europe in the $500-800 range.

Total number of active troops is about the same for the US and EU countries (~1.5 million each).

So, by US standards Europe indeed has "miniscule armed forces". By the standards of the world it is armed to the teeth and can well defend itself against puny foes like Iran etc. Yes, if the US were to quit Europe, many states there would have to increase defense spending a bit, with countries like German and Italy probably being forced to start their own expensive nuclear weapons programs.

But this idea of a poor, defenseless Europe is rather US political fiction than fact. The cost of the American empire is at least as much choice as it was once necessity.