Posted on 02/12/2005 1:37:02 PM PST by longjack
Schröder for NATO-Reform - Struck:Germany Ready for the Near East
 |
| Großansicht |
Munich (dpa) -- Chancellor Gerhard Schröder's proposal for a reform of transatlantic relations has met with scepticism in the USA and at NATO. Meanwhile, Minister of Defense Peter Struck announced Germany's readiness to participate in a possible NATO mission in support of the peace process in the Middle East Saturday during the security conference.
UN-Secretary General Kofi Annan was to have been honored at a meeting in the evening in with a peace medal. More than 3500 people demonstrated against the conference of 250 Politicians and Military from around the world, among them also US-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. In all, about 4000 police were on call. At least 44 people were taken into temporary custody during the demonstrations. Several demonstrators had thrown bottles at the officers, and had shot fireworks at them, according to the police..
Struck (SPD) said, that in the Near East Conflict it hadn't come to the point where either the Israelis or the Palestinians have asked NATO for help. However, at such a request, the alliance would, "of course" realize its responsibility. There is no doubt, that Germany would also fulfill its responsibility in the framework of NATO.
NATO-Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer clearly stated: "Don't expect a special NATO-Initiative in the Near East of its own accord, however NATO stands ready, if the participants do turn to NATO." One of the prerequisites is a UN-Mandate. EU-Chef Diplomat Javier Solana had also mentioned an International peace mission in "Bild Am Sonntag". The Union's party deputy, Wolfgang Schäuble (CDU), showed himself as receptive to a Bundeswehr mission in the Near East.
In the discussion over the future of transatlantic relations, Schröder complained that NATO is no longer the primary location for the consultation and the coordination of the strategic ideas of the partners. He suggested a forum of high-caliber individuals, that will work out ideas for the new organizational form by the beginning of 2006 for the country and government heads of NATO and the EU. As Struck said, clearing up irritation among the participants, the Chancellor doesn't see it as a weakening, rather as a strengthening of the alliance. Due to a Schröder cold and fever, Struck delivered the speech for him.
Rumsfeld did agree to a study of the proposal. At the same time, he made it clear, that the USA, even though it has commitments to NATO, wanted to work further with changing partners. The coalition doesn't determine the mission - "The mission determines the coalition", Rumsfeld said. De Hoop Scheffer sees the Alliance as already in a process of reform. NATO has developed more in the last three years than in all of the decades before it: "Action is more important than words."
The Chancellor wants more balance in transatlantic relations as well. He hopes that the visit by US-President George W. Bush on February 22 in Brussels would lend new impulse. With reference to the rising international share of responsibility by Germany, he again announced a claim to a permanent seat on the UN-Security Council.
CDU-Boss Angela Merkel said, NATO shouldn't be permitted to become "Just a reserve alliance". To the USA she said: "Changing coalitions of the willing can't be a replacement for reliable security policies". Bayern's Minister President Edmund Stoiber (CSU), challenged Europeans and Americans to again make of the transatlantic alliance a "foundation that is ready for the future".
"Die Welt Newsticker".....12.02....19:11....Note that the page will update as new stories arrive
Tranlated by longjack
Roughly, I got the impression that the speech was an announcement that Germany will not to return to the conditions of the Kohl era.
This is open to interpretation, of course, and input is desired.
It seems to me to be a major policy shift.
Also note, the number of demonstrators arrested has been changed to 50.
longjack
Here's a "Spiegel-Online" article that describes the speech in more detail....
"Spiegel-Online"....Schröder will ein neues Verhältnis zu den USA
Here's one paragraph as an example:
Bei einer kritischen Bestandsaufnahme führt Schröder demnach aus, zwar bleibe eine enge transatlantische Bindung im europäischen und amerikanischen Interesse. "Aber bei der Umsetzung dieses Grundsatzes in praktische Politik kann nicht die Vergangenheit der Bezugspunkt sein, wie das so oft in transatlantischen Treueschwüren der Fall ist".
roughly....
Taking stock, Schröder says: yes a tight transatlantic union remains in European and US interests, but in the realization of this principal in practical politics, the past can't be the reference point as it often is in transatlantic oaths of alliegence.
longjack
Basically, the US is trying to be friendly with Germany, and Schroeder sticks a finger in our eye by now trying to ditch the NATO alliance.
Hey they can have ours if they'll take the whole UN to Europe someplace.
Schroeder is determined to Make a EU force without the US his primary objective. Of course, Germany will stand at the sidelines and cheer everyone who fights for their cause without comitting any German forces.
They have decimated their Military to the point of ineffectiveness already.
129 Base closures, reducing to 6 months the sign up period for draftees.
They want to use diplomacy (Talking for years without getting results) on every issue.
Schroeder should change his name to "Ostrich". Would be very fitting.
Probably more like tranforming it to give the EU more input in who does what, but, yes, it basically has the same effect as you say.
The idea I got from the quotes, which included politicians from both parties in Germany, is that Germany doesn't like the idea that the US will form coalitions with free block countries and that they will be formed and tailored according to the mission at hand.
longjack
I think you're right.
After reading the "Spiegel" article I was struck at how pushy the speech was. He must have something backing him up...a France-Germany-Russia Axis?
On another note:
Kaiserslautern is on a roll, keeping my fingrs crossed that they can keep it up. I think they should stay up now. That sets up next year as a Bundesliga year and the World Cup in the summer.
Fritz-Walter-Stadion is hosting a game aren't they? Do you think you'll be there?
Also, the wind was so strong on Betzenberg today it tore roof parts off. I hope everything's OK at your mother's home.
longjack
Looks like no problem with relegation this year.
Yes, K-town is hosting world cup.
I will peobably be there again in a couple of weeks.
There is definately a EU-Russia axis coming.
However, it won't work. At the first sign of problems, the Russians will turn off the Gas and Oil spiget.
Oh well, Schroedrs problem. I believe, he will use the EU force as a Campaign tool next year. Not as openly Anti-American, but still Anti- American.
He scores well with the Germans on that one, with the help from the Goebbels media.
You must be talking about "The browning of Germany"?
The Germans want to stay on the sidelines, they will not do the heavy lifting. They will point to the "new EU mwmbers" and ask their new slaves to do that. After all, since they can't measure up to the Master race they will become expendable with the exception of providing Tax Euros to bail the Germans and French out.
There will be a revolution, I am convinced. It may be bloody or not?
We were hoping that she could have the option of University later, which, of course, has a lot of financial advantages.
Not now, though. I'm sure Universities there will be tuition only in a couple of years, anyway.
I'm glad you read the article. As I mentioned earlier today, I thought the speech is quite controversial regarding relations with the US.
I also long for the days of Kohl and Schäuble.
longjack
I thought this article is very interesting about Germany's misconceptions regarding the US
In his fascinating recent book Cowboy Capitalism German journalist Olaf Gersemann looks at the myths which many Europeans hold dear about America and why the American capitalist system is such a bad thing compared to their European economic system. One might wonder how they can think these things given the obvious numerical indicators like their lower GDP growth (or none at all), enormously higher unemployment and much lower productivity, but apparently deriding America based on pure fantasy is part of their cultural mindset. A lot of these myths have been embraced by the left here in America as well. Gersemann does us all a great service by puncturing them once and for all with the lancet of fact.
Here are some examples of myths debunked from Cowboy Capitalism:
Myth: The U.S. unemployment rate is lower than that of the European Union largely because America imprisons a greater proportion of its citizens.
Fact: The growth in the number of prison inmates in the United States contributed only about .1 to .2 percentage points to the reduction of unemployment between 1985 and 1998. The actual difference in unemployment between most European countries and the US is, of course around 4 full points, nowhere near that .1 or .2 percent
Myth: America is a stratified society with a small handful of wealthy individuals and lots of low-income families, with no middle class in between.
Fact: Measured in 2002 dollars, the share of U.S. households that made $35,000 to $100,000 was 44.5 percent in 2002. That makes the middle class the single largest segment in the US population by a large margin.
Myth: In the U.S. the rich do not pay their fair share of taxes.
Fact: The top 10% of high-income US households pay 65% of all income tax while in Germany that top 10% pays under 50% of the income tax and other European countries follow similar patterns of having very small wealthy classes which pay very little real tax.
Myth: In the U.S. the poor are growing more numerous.
Fact: Between 1972 and 2002 the share of U.S. households with under $35,000 income per year, adjusted for inflation, declined from 44.9% to 40.6%. BTW, that poverty level is higher than the average income in most European nations.
Myth: European welfare provides better for the most needy compared to the U.S. system.
Fact: The poorest 30% on welfare rolls in the U.S. receive 40% of the total benefits paid. In comparison the poorest third receive only 20% in Italy and 30% in France and Germany. This means that the US system weights distribution of welfare more towards the most poor than do European systems. In addition, the official poverty level in the US is almost double that of most European nations when adjusted for relative consumer prices, yet our total number of poor is no higher and the quality of life for our poor is enormously better.
Myth: Living standards are higher in Europe than the U.S.
Fact: The U.S. has the highest living standard of any industrialized country. Adjusted for consumer price index, the 2003 per capita U.S. income was 36% higher than France, 42% higher than Germany and 44% higher than Italy.
Myth: Long term unemployment is a chronic U.S. problem and European job creation is better.
Fact: In the U.S. in 2003, 65% of the unemployed found new work within three months. In France it was 26%, Germany 17% and Italy 12%. The jobless rate in each of the three nations has been consistently higher than the highest U.S. unemployment rate (6%) since 1980.
Myth: American wealth is an illusion which hides massive personal debt.
Fact: While Americans do carry high credit card debt, the average American family is not imperiled by that debt, and in fact increased net worth by 50% between 1989 and 2002.
Myth: In America many people need two or three jobs to make ends meet.
Fact: In 2003, 5.3% of all employed Americans had more than one job, primarily by choice not by necessity. The choice to work harder and more hours is part of what raises American productivity so much higher than other nations, and gives us such a high per capita income. Only 1.5% of Americans had a second job through necessity. In Germany in 2003, 2.4% of employed people had multiple jobs by necessity.
Gersemann makes most of his direct comparisons with Germany, but the trends are similar in France, Italy and Spain as well as many of the smaller countries. The same trends do not hold true for the most capitalist nations in Europe - Switzerland and the United Kingdom.
No Need for Another Organization to Compete With NATO, says Rumsfeld - "I would say anything that puts at risk that institution, you would have to have a very good reason for wanting to do it. I think there is no reason for something else to be competitive with NATO, myself."
The security dialogue between the United States and the European Union "in its current form does justice neither to the Union's growing importance nor to the new demands on transatlantic cooperation," Schröder said, but "no one can produce ready answers" on how to change it.
Rumsfeld was more enthusiastic in his endorsement of NATO as an historic security institution with valuable past achievements and numerous prospects for future development, but also said that as a large, slow-moving institution it was sometimes of limited use in facing fast-moving threats.
"NATO is the most impressive military alliance in the history of mankind, but it is what it is," Rumsfeld said. "There are some times when things have to happen fairly rapidly."
The NATO alliance, Rumsfeld said, "has navigated through some choppy seas over the years" and had always found a way to reconcile even sharp differences. That should happen again in order to maximize cooperation in fighting new threats such as Islamic extremism and weapons proliferation.
"Today, we share a common enemy," Rumsfeld said. "Radical Islamists do not seek an armistice with the civilized world. They will not negotiate a separate peace. Rather they seek to impose the totalitarian rule George Orwell described as 'a boot stomping on a human face - forever.'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big News Network.com Saturday 12th February, 2005 (UPI)
The European nations will never achieve full security without the cooperation of Russia, Germany's defense chief said Saturday.
Our continent cannot achieve security without Russia, German Defense Minister Peter Struck told the annual Munich Conference on Security Policy or Wehrkunde. He was reading a speech written for, and approved by, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. But Schroeder could not attend because of an attack of influenza.
Struck called close European and Western security ties with Moscow one of the essential principles of European politics echoing Chancellor Otto von Bismarck's 19th century admonition to future German leaders to always keep open the telegraph lines to St. Petersburg.
The European nations, Struck said are staking on genuine strategic partnership with Russia. The Russia-NATO Council exemplifies the chances for partnership in security policies.
It has no where near the import that the German review does, probably because it's a summary. I'm sure someone will have the complete version in English up shortly.
I don't know if you can read German. The speech seemed pretty agressive to me.
Notice, also, the news item in the OP said that Struck (who gave the speech in Schroeder's absence) had to calm the crowd down by telling them that Schroeder was only trying to strengthen the alliance.
Your previous post is a good flashback to the pre-OIF days, and if we go back to those times, the trend towards a EU force becomes clearer.
As I wrote before, Schroeder's speech seemed to me to be that of a man who had his back covered, which is why I mentioned the France-Germany-Russia Axis. Schroeder has mentioned that in speeches, by the way, I just can't remember when anymore, but I think it was about the pre-OIF time.
longjack
By the time that NATO finishes surveying Schroeders concept...the next election will arrive for Germany. Schroeder is destined this time around to fail, and the CDU will arrive on the scene to request a totally different view of the NATO situation. For right now...the extreme liberals in the Schroeder are very happy that he pressed this issue and they sleep well at night knowing that NATO may be dissolved within the next few years if Schroeders proposal takes place. As humorous as it sounds...there are numerous members of the current government (even excluding the Greens)...who are extreme anti-US and anti-NATO. These are people who would not even allow themselves to stand in the same room with GW...if ordered to by Schroeder. Its a comical situation to watch these people explain themselves and their stupid policies on TV. Luckily, the commerical networks never carry a minute of their agenda...its only the state-run channels that dump the stuff on the public.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.