Posted on 06/18/2006 1:58:03 AM PDT by Atlantic Bridge
Former German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer has accepted a teaching gig at Princeton. Starting this fall, he will teach international crisis diplomacy to the next generation of American elites.
The Bush administration didn't much like what Joschka Fischer had to say during the Iraq war. So what will Washington say now that the former German foreign minister is trading his parliament seat for a professor's cap at Princeton? This fall, Fischer will teach the next generation of American elites about international crisis diplomacy at the university.
(Excerpt) Read more at service.spiegel.de ...
My father was a Harvard graduate - he quit giving them money years ago because of its unapologetic liberalism. He was disgusted how the school became so radical.
BuHuHaHa! He is such a moron.
That is why you are stuffing his beer belly now? Sorry - I could not resist and turned the meaning of your words.
Maybe you remember Fanz Josef Strauß. He was for sure one of the most profiled conservative politicians in Germany. A real political thunderstorm.
Did you know that he was a regular visitor of the "Leierkasten", Munich's most notorious bordello? I know that for sure, since I know a few people who were quite close friends to him. Although I do not believe that the "Leierkasten" is a place where the minister president of Bavaria should resort, I must admit that he was that extraordinary that it was worth to accept this quite "human" failing. In Bavaria they still say: "Er war halt a fescher Hundling".(I know - dialect - but you will understand)
It depends on the benefit that a person can give to its country or to its administration if it makes sense to the public to accept his/her human weaknesses.
Bush is disliked, so his religious convictions and his past drinking issues was smeared all over YOUR media and even mentioned by some of YOUR political leaders at times.
It is not MY personal political media just as the DU is not your personal political platform. Just to put things straight. Of course our politicians and our media in Europe are -as human beings- absolutely not different from their colleagues in the States. They will use every point of attack to discredit their political opponent. The BS about the (BTW - solved) drinking problems of President Bush in the mid 80ties and his service time in the national guard (instead of fighting in Viet Nam...) was first a issue in the US and our media adapted it like a swarm of hungry vultures. Nothing new.
You are right when you say that the personal lifes of politicians are a good indicator to their overall character. The question is if their personal failures are relevant. In western Europe we accept much more privacy than the US ever would as long as the public interests are not violated. And we have reason for that. To give you some examples:
1. The very sucessfull mayor of Hamburg, the conservative Ole von Beust and the chairman of the liberal-conservative FDP, Guido Westerwelle, are both homosexuals. Since they do not to pick their sexual behaviour out as their central theme I absolutely have no problem with that, although I am as homophobic as anyone can be.
2. Francois Mitterand had a illegitimate daughter. When the French press found out, he just asked them: "And?". The issue was done. As far as I know he had a very good relationship to her and never discriminated her because of that in comparison to his other kids. This is something I can live with (although I do not like Mitterand for political reasons - but we are speaking of moral issues).
Imagine the major of Houston being a homosexual. Imagine your President having a illegitimate daughter. Imagine that they are dealing with the issue without attracting attention. Would you (I am speaking of you as a person) be mature enough to make a appreciation of values with the conclusion that the person is that good in his duty that it is worth to accept their personal failure in one point??! Or would you prefer a officeholder whose personal life is clear as crystal but his abilities and skills are always only second best?
Schroeder and Fischer with their 5 or 6 marriages or the notorious homo Wowereit are also no benchmark for me. But if somebody made a mistake when he/she was young I see no problem. I.e. Angela Merkel was divorced when she was a young woman. Shi* happens. She married again. For some voters in your nation this would be a basic problem.
Yes, I see some things relativistic since I prefer pragmatic solutions. To me it is better to deal with toleratable failures humanly instead of "throwing the first stone" automatically. People who do, are simply narrow-minded idiots to me. Of course things must be within a certain frame. The problem is that this frame can not be defined clearly.
Those that are liked will get off easy as Clinton, Carter, Albright and others did.
Although I am no friend of Clinton I would not say that he got off easy with this Lewinski affair. It is not funny if your sexual affairs are discussed that open in the public (with all those details about tenacious stains and misused cigars). Besides of that even a public prosecutor investigated in that case (something I still do not understand since -to my limited knowlege- the relationship between Clinton and Lewinski was immoral but not punishable. Consensual sex between adults is not judicial except you are living in Iran. Maybe you can teach me something here). I doubt that it was in the interest of the US that all those smeary details of this sex-affair were made public. Not Clintons failure damaged the reputation of the US in the first place, the public orgy around it did the main damage. Nevertheless Clinton would have been well advised to spare his sexual hunger in the oval office.
Would Bush Sr. ever accept money to give speeches in the Middle East that are anti Iraq war, as Clinton has done? Even if Bush Sr. did not support the action or the way it is executed, did he get on a soap box and publicly undermine US policy in the Balkans?
If a nation is in a justified war it is the highest duty of its citizens (Presidents included) to support the millitary and to back the gouvernment against the agressors. Even if someone is completely against a operation or the war his critisim must not undermine the sucess of the troops. If it does it is treason. I am not supporting Clinton.
Just trying to keep up with Yale, I suppose.
If he committed perjury it is quite clear to me why a public prosecutor was needed. What I still do not understand is why Clinton had to give information about his sexual behaviour and relationship under oath?
You use Strauss as an example. Funny how his family was also pulled into the media, how his weight was used against him (As with Kohl), how even the fact that he was a private pilot was used as an angle to attack him years ago. Im sure you can remember the attacks on him because he was not for fuel tax hikes and how that was twisted since he was a plane owner as well.
Strauss was a outstanding politician. Much of Bavaria's wealth was possible through his fabulous work and leadership. Anyway he was a human being with quite human faults. Something I am able to accept.
The problem with Fischer and Schroeder was that there were no rules. They didnt even act in Germanys best economic, nor security interests; although you would never admit that. It is possible to go too far, and they did exactly that.
It is quite shameful to me to say that they had the order of their voters to do exactly what they have done. I share your view that not all of that was in the interest of Germany, but it was in the will of most Germans. Therefore their acting has somehow a justification. This is exactly my own problem with Fischer and Schroeder: They were the "accessory" of the vast German majority. After all I am convinced of democracy and I know that I have to accept decisions that are against my own interests or convincements. Maybe you know Ludwig Thomas words: Vox populi, vox Rindvieh!
When Der Spiegel runs a long article and keeps it on their web page for days about how Rumsfeld is disliked by his German relatives in northern Germany, that does not matter. It does not impact his decision making. That is not news worthy material, except if youre Der Spiegel and dislike Rumsfeld, or the US for that matter. On the other hand minor issues like Fischers pictures beating on German police in Hessen in the 80s, that they tend to not write much about nor did it stay long on their page. In fact, I dont think they even had the pictures posted, or did they (I cant remember)?
Well this BS about Rumsfeld was among the most awkward stuff the Spiegel ever wrote. It is also interesting to me that the pictures of Fischer with the black helmet on can not be found on the internet or in the press anymore although they printed them during the "affair". He did a real good job to clear everything that did not fit into his new Princeton-Einstein-professor-image.
In Germany prior to the politicization of the impending war in 2002 the public opinion was largely split with the majority being anti war.
- Merkel took the course of trying to "explain" and "reason" as to why action may be necessary, appropriate, and even beneficial in the long term. She politically removed herself from matters that in all reality were not in her lane.
- Schroeder saw a majority voting block and seized the opportunity. He saw that the majority was against this effort and politicized an issue that was NOT a German problem. He made Iraq into a German 2002 election issue. He brought it into every German living room, despite the Germans not being angagiert in this matter. All press coming from the Chancellors office reference Iraq was from that point on negative. One has to imagine the German secretary of state (Fischer) and Chancellor actually took shots at Iraq after Abu Gharib. You had a majority against the war, but they helped polarize and cement the anti-war sentiment.
Schroeder was not acting in good faith, for a higher moral calling, or any other reason other than his reelection. After he went into coalition with the Greens and his platform was defined as anti-war in 2002 he could no longer turn back in 2003 when it really did happen. He might have been betting that it wont, after all, the US had threatened Iraq and built up forces there twice before.
Nonetheless, the Germans are no idiots. Had they gotten more than a one sided anti-war bombardment, fueled in part by the highest offices and political leaders in Germany, some of these solid anti-war feelings you have in Germany might not be there today. Most people didnt like nuclear missiles in their backyard either. But when people are told about the threat, the need, their purpose, etc. they still wont be happy about it and some will still oppose it vehemently, but many will understand and the majority will accept this ugly necessity.
Merkel has been near silent when it comes to Iraq. There is a reason.
The US is a fringe player in East Timor. We help Australia there. But nonetheless, it is their show and we dont tell them how to run it. They are the ones who pay for success or failure and they are the ones that are angagiert. Its not our place to inject ourselves. Germany reference Iraq injected itself into an issue that was not theirs until the election in 2002 came up.
I like Merkel, and her being quiet on a matter that is not hers is no sign of weakness - a political spin that was also played out against her after she chose to back the US. In fact, quite the opposite is true. Merkel is no fool. She knew very well that she would get her head beat on when she stood by the US in 2002. There is a reason why Stoiber distanced himself very quickly. Standing up for convictions and what you know to be right even if it means you will suffer damage from it - THAT is strength. That is moral courage by definition. That is a leader who has a core. The Schroeder alternative of defining strength because he saw a majority in an anti-war position, fueling this and standing up against an ally who really wont do much other than draw political and security consequences from it, that is not what defines sovereignty or strength, even though that was the way this BS was sold to the German public.
Your argumentation reminds me a littebit to the former Soviet doctrine of the "non-interference". Fact is, that the US expected help and money. Espechially money. Maybe you can remember Helmut Kohl's "Scheckbuchdiplomatie" who paid huge amounts of money and delivered weapons and munition. As far as I know it was more than 20 Billion Euros (not Marks) he gave to the nations who fought the second Gulf war in 1991. I do not have exact numbers anymore (but I can remember this dimension quite well) and I am too lazy to look for it. To give you some proof that quite a sum of money was payed I added just a article from the Fankfurter Rundschau out of 1991 (sorry - in German):
http://www.medienlabor-duisburg.de/pegel-ruhrort/?p=124
(note - the article is from the 30. January 1990. The fighting between coalition and Iraqi forces began on 16. January 1990. That means that only a part of the German financial help was paid then)
The thing is that neither Angela Merkel nor Gerhard Schroeder would have paid substancial sums during the 3rd gulf war due to the broad opposition in the German public. Not all of this sentiment was pushed from Schroeder although he has his part of course. I can remember that you predicted me once in a very emotional verbalism that we are going to pay. Fact is that we paid not a penny this time and we probably will not pay in the future.
You said: "....I like Merkel, and her being quiet on a matter that is not hers is no sign of weakness - a political spin that was also played out against her after she chose to back the US...."
It is interesting that you adopt completely my pragmatic stance in this issue. That is exactly what I said from the very beginning. None of our business (We are speaking about political realities and not about my personal stance). It would have been intelligent to shut up from the very beginning for German politicians and to give 100 to 200 million Euros in a bountiful gesture, although there is not much heroism in this stance. Anyway it is really funny to me that you bring up the "non-interference" issue. As I said - it reminds a littlebit to the past diplomatic games of the USSR.
You said:"...Standing up for convictions and what you know to be right even if it means you will suffer damage from it - THAT is strength. That is moral courage by definition. That is a leader who has a core...."
Agreed. But - it is a simple fact that the Schroeder-Fischer plot eroded America's influence in Europe in a fundamental way. The US have to deal with a completely different political situation in Europe after this duo infernale. The question will be if this erosion will continue or not.
Those who are the stakeholders and pay the ultimate cost economically, in blood, and politically are the ones who have a say. That is even the case in business as it always has been in politics.
The Germans didn't interfere with Vietnam, Cuba, Grenada..... The US was the leading nation in the campaigns during the 90s through the Balkans. US money, 30+ dead US soldiers, shot down planes and the political spotlight was on the US. China was complaining even then. The US who is the nation shouldering the predominate weight on it's shoulder in S. Korea, is not very receptive to advice even 20 years ago from a Germany that does little in this matter. Today we are no longer the leading nation in the Balkans largely because we withdrew. Those who hold the stakes and pay the price have the say. This is not a new phenomenon, rather common sense and it applies to most aspects in life.
--
Germanys contribution in 1991 financially would have not covered the fuel expenses of the DoD. Wars are expensive. One cruise missile fired may cost over a million. Some missiles fired can cost as much as 4.5 million per shot. The landing fees of one C-5 at Frankfurt is over $30,000. There wear and tear of machines, the expense due to the loss of life and and and is astronomical. War, contrary to your fellow Germans with their conspiracy theories is a costly matter and economically damaging and not something that we do to boost our economy. Iraq and Afghanistan cost the US DoD in excess of $70-80 Billion a year in addition to the normal defense spending. However, Germany did pay in the vicinity of $880 million in 1991 and that is substantial at that time. Nonetheless, it's peanuts compared to the true cost of Desert Shield and Storm. Campaigns the germans were no large stakeholders in and didn't meddle with.
The US expected nothing from the Germans in 2003. No demands were made. Anything to that affect is speculation and more conspiracy theories. The tension between the US and Germany were created by Germanys political sabotaging of the push for action in the UN, the pressuring of other EU states who were backing the US, the blocking of NATO being engaged. Its not doing nothing that irritated the US, rather it is the direct working against them and the coalition.
--
US relations with near all of Europe are as they always have been. In fact the relationships with the former Eastern states has grown substantially. Despite all the negative news, who would have ever thought the Ukraine would be moving towards NATO and contribute troops to Iraq? Poland, Lithuania, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovenia all share far closer ties to the US today than even 10 years ago.
Is it the US that has lost influence in NATO? In the UN? In the Middle East? Is it the US the was bullying nations that voluntarily signed a declaration of support to the US in 2002 reference Iraq? You can bet your behind that the policy makes in the Check Republic, Poland and elsewhere took note of Chiracs statement, Some hopeful future EU members missed a good opportunity to keep their mouth shut. I dont think you need to worry to much about US influence. Thats like the Germans who worry about the state of the US economy. Were doing OK.
What you see is a US that is DIS-engaging from old Europe. We are severing some of the close ties we once had. Personally I even believe this to be a poor decision, but nonetheless that is the trend. Germany does matter, and they are one of our closest allies. Germany shares ALL our geopolitical interests economically and in security concerns. Disagreement is usually about the means to the end, not the end itself. Working together towards a common goal makes things easier for all. Iran is an example. Iraq is an example of where Germany was activley working against the US and today at least subtely has come on board.
With the rise of China and India, the threats posed in the Middle East, North Korea the end of the Cold War, the meergence of the Theater Ballistic missile and WMD prolifferation, the US has largely shifted its focus. There is a reason why the State Department, CIA and DoD lay little value on German speakers today. Look at the new uniforms for our Army which are patterned for the Middle East and Caucasus. Consider where the bases are being built
The areas were we see conflict and were our interests are threatened have shifted. The face of the threat itself has changed and so must the structures whaich are designed to deal with them. Air defense is morphing more and more to missile defense, the heavy Cold War assets designed to get into a slug fest with numerically superior Soviet forces are going away and clearing the path for lighter faster more movable vehicles that are better suited for the missions of today.
As far as Europe is concerned, the US has less confidence that Germany will practice a Realpolitik. 2003 proved that the Germans are willing to break from this concept. The lack of a perceived imminent threat to the German public, anti-Americanism (based on various factors) have led to a strange relationship where while we are in reality geopolitical allies, while the US is largely German influenced historically and in fact a mix of European cultures in general, there is this love/hate feeling. Example: A paper like der Spiegel (Extreme left) is simply for ideological reasons an American hating media outlet. But does Germany really want a nuclear Iran? Yet if the US took any action, one can expect to get a very anti-war biased reporting.
Within Europe the US will shift some of its assets to Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Austria, Hungary, and Slovenia. There will also be some repositioning within the old allies we have. In Italy you are seeing an INCREASE in US presence and the CIA/NSA has moved much of their stuff to Great Britain.
http://www.hqusareur.army.mil/htmlinks/Press_Releases/2004/Mar2004/23Mar2004-01.htm (We stood up an Airborne Brigade in Italy recently as 2004).
The former activity at Bad Aibling (F91) is now in Great Britain at F83. The base was expanded there.
Germany will remain an ally and we will remain there for a long time, but the days where we had 80+% of all our European forces there and near all our other governmental agencies are ending. Germany in the past was like an aircraft carrier for the Navy. It was a node, forward positioned, contingency, and staging area for nearly anything we did in Africa and the Middle East. Data collected in other places would be processed there, you had huge mothballed hospitals (just in case), large open spaces on bases that offered staging and logistical capabilities with access to runways like at Rhein Main. State Department communications from all of Africa and the Middle East was funneled through there. You had Landstuhl Medical center where if a soldier got hurt seriously on a training exercise in Turkey they will fly him there. In fact, many of the wounded from Iraq and Afghanistan get treated there before moving on. You have Depot level maintenance where tanks could get higher level rebuilds and contracts with firms like MTU were in place making even the rebuilding of complex turbines possible despite being thousands of miles away from the US war industrial base. The FAA had its European offices there as did many others. It was simply the base of operation from which US agencies conducted their business in Europe, our intelligence community could safely process and analyze data collected elsewhere and our DoD could stage, preposition, and launch from. Its the US that is reducing its footprint in Germany and the US/German relations that were damaged in 2003. The relationship to Japan, S. Korea, Great Britain are what they have been and many of the new nations in Eastern Europe today share closer ties to the US than ever before, with the trend being positive. US influence is not eroding in Europe as you believe. Your perception is formed by your limited perspective.
--
Germany is already doing exactly what I said it would do. Do you realize that Iraqi officers were in Germany getting training in Obberammergau in 2005. That Germans are in part training Iraqis in the UAE or Qatar (I forget which one), that German intel and some security forces are already INSIDE Iraq today. Already under Schroeder the Iraqis were coming to Germany! Germany in all reality has no choice. Unless you plan to never conduct any trade with Iraq, unless you want to isolate yourself you will eventually get pulled at least to some extent into Iraq, like it or not. The Schroeder position of 2003 was eine Volksverarschung.
His anti war anti US and position on Iraq in 2003 was as retarded, as fake, and as devious as his position on missile defense in 1999. While he was beating the America is destabilizing the world. America is starting a new arms race! Drum and Germans were going ja ja, die Amis, ach die Sebelrastler Germany joined in on MEADS (A TBM defensive system), the German government argued that NATO should be the collective shield for European missile defense. Do you realize that while Germany was beating the America is bad and missile defense is stupid drum the Germans were buying PAC 3 Patriot (A TBM defense system). While your chancellor was playing his games the Germans were buying into the Standard Missile 3 program and building Aegis class boats capable of employing them (Yet another Ballistic missile defense system).
http://www.missilethreat.com/news/200604070948.html
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/meads/
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/patriot/
Schroeders games were neither honest nor noble. Out of one side of his mouth he wants to politically benefit and survive by playing the anti-American card, on the other hand hes doing exactly that which he is accusing the big bad evil USA of doing. Ill let you in on another little reality. Without Germanys approval, those prisoner flights would have never happened, and Schroeder HAD to have known and HAD to have approved of them and it was even in Germanys own best interest that this be done. Yet had the issue truly exploded earlier while he was still in office, he would have played games with it. Merkel? She said what she had to - followed by an extended period of silence.
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.