maoistroad: for debate - German imperialism in action

A New Grand Strategy

2014/06/13

BERLIN

(Own report) - An influential German weekly opened a debate on the call for redefining EU - US relations. The West's current policy toward Ukraine is diametrically opposed to "European" interests, according to an article published in the online-edition of the German weekly "Die Zeit". "Europe should not deprive itself of cooperation with Moscow; it should rather be enhanced. At the same time, the EU should intensify its relations with Washington, while pursuing "its own concepts" with more determination. The objective should be a "new and more promising transatlantic grand strategy." The article was authored by an associate of the Global Policy Institute, a think tank in London, but his standpoint also reflects opinions being expressed within the German foreign policy establishment. Back-stage disputes over Germany's policy toward Ukraine are slowly surfacing into public view.

"Readjust Transatlantic Relations"

With an article entitled "Europe must readjust its relations to the USA," published at the beginning of this week in its online-edition, the German weekly "Die Zeit" opened a fundamental offensive against the current policy toward Ukraine pursued by the EU and USA." This article is also remarkable because, until now - as in the rest of the German mainstream media - anti-Russian commentaries have prevailed also in this weekly. The online-edition of "Die Zeit" has even gone to the extent of publicly denouncing one of its free-lance contributors, who had written several rather differentiated articles for "Zeit-online," because he had also contributed articles to a journal, co-financed by Moscow. (german-foreign-policy.com reported.[1]) This article authored by foreign policy expert Chris Luenen differs considerably from the policy line previously published by the journal.

"Bridgehead" vs. "Exclusion"

In his article on the current debate of the policy to take toward Ukraine and Russia, Luenen, first of all, describes the strategic concepts, as Zbigniew Brzezinski - former security advisor for US President Jimmy Carter and influential still today in the US foreign policy establishment - had outlined in his 1997 classic "The Grand Chessboard." According to Brzezinski, Washington uses the EU as an "essential geopolitical bridgehead to the Eurasian continent," which is supposed to contribute to the "globalization of a western-style liberal order" as well as to the "globalization of US hegemonic security for the global order." Fitting into this concept is the "wish, to integrate Ukraine into the Euro-Atlantic structures," to be able to expand that "bridgehead" eastward. At the same time, however, Brzezinski warns of the "possibility of a major European reorientation," which "could either lead to a German-Russian arrangement or a French-Russian entente" - and to "America's exclusion from the [European] continent." Luenen adds that these apprehensions have worried "Anglo-American strategists since the days of the British empire," clearly discernable, for example in "Sir Halford Mackinder's 1904 Heartland Theory," "and apparently still vibrant today."[2]

The Russian-Chinese-Iranian Alliance

The "decision to expand the Western sphere of influence eastward, through the EU and NATO's continuous expansion," has in fact been the most serious "strategic mistake the West has made since the end of the cold war," says Luenen. This has merely pushed Russia and Iran "even further into China's arms and into an anti-hegemonic, anti-western alliance under China's leadership." However, "a Chinese-Russian-Iranian Alliance" would force the West "to engage in an even more aggressive foreign policy, to insure its access to important - but dwindling - raw materials, such as oil, gas and rare earth." Luenen explains that it is "somewhat easier" to insure Western interests - obviously meaning also access to "dwindling raw materials" - by the establishment of a ... strategic partnership with Russia (and with Iran)." Therefore, it was unadvisable to have provoked Russia by bringing Ukraine into the Western hegemonic system.

"No Longer Submit to the USA"

Leunen pleads with unusual frankness for a change of course in global policy. "The EU," he writes, "should no longer submit to a Made in Washington strategy." Instead, it should "stand up for its own interests," which it has "always been weak in pursuing." EU interests would be consistent with the "maintaining and consolidating" of its "ties with Russia." These are concerns Brussels should urgently address. Of course, it "naturally also" is necessary for the EU to make efforts to "maintain," and even

"consolidate a unified and strong West." But with a view toward Russia, it must pursue "its own interests much more explicitly" - and even show the USA, "if necessary, clearly where its limits lie." Alongside the consolidation of cooperation with Moscow - the question revolves around "redefining transatlantic relations." The EU must ultimately bring to bear "its own concepts concerning the West's future" as the "basis for formulating a new and more promising transatlantic grand strategy" - as others have stated it - but "on an equal footing with the USA."

The Old Pendulum

In German history, the strategy of a sort of pendulum policy, oscillating between East and West, constantly enhancing one's own position, extends as far back as the Anglo-American strategists' anxiety about losing influence on the European continent, which Luenen mentions. (german-foreign-policy.com reported.[3]) That strategy is dependent upon maintaining sustainable relations to both centers of power - Washington and Moscow. Some sectors of Germany's foreign policy establishment, including individuals within the political entourage of the "Zeit" weekly, have repeatedly protested against the Berlin government's current policy toward Ukraine, demanding that the German special relationship to Moscow be safeguarded. For example, from the very beginning of the Ukrainian Crisis, German Ministry of Defense's former Chief of the Planning Staff and current "Editor at Large" of "Zeit," Theo Sommer, has been raising strong criticism of western policy.[4] Former SPD Chancellors Helmut Schmidt and Gerhard Schroeder, as well as the Christian Democrat foreign policy specialist, Philipp Mißfelder, have been campaigning in favor of maintaining cooperation with Moscow. In the current

charged atmosphere, in which unequivocally transatlantic oriented forces are calling the shots of Berlin's foreign policy, the "Zeit-Online" journal has dared to step forward with an article that gives voice to the foreign policy establishment's spectrum, which has traditionally favored a "pendulum policy." Of course, this article is explicitly noted - arguably as a precautionary measure - as a guest contribution and the author being an associate, not of a German, but of a British think tank, has a greater detachment from the domestic German debate.

"Two Global Policies"

A few months ago, a columnist of the "Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung" had already confirmed that this controversy has been gaining significance in Berlin for quite a while. In reference to efforts to continue close cooperation with Russia, he wrote, "the future global constellation being sought in Berlin is one that will be multi-polar, in which the EU is economically tightly knit with Russia, in an effort to be able

to compete with the USA and China on the global market. Washington's approaches will be constantly scrutinized to see if they are in Europe's best interests. ... The same is also true in the Ukrainian Crisis, where some in Berlin are insinuating that Washington cannot wait to impose sanctions, because they possibly will prove to be more of a detriment to Europe than to the USA - not only economically but geostrategically as well."[5] The author, who favors a traditional transatlantic policy, explained that in Berlin, there are different concepts for securing German power in the global struggle - "two global policies."

BERLIN

(Own report) - The CDU and Green party-affiliated foundations have been holding conferences with prominent experts to continue Germany's campaign by elite circles to promote a more aggressive German global policy. Ultimately, a "public discussion of the security policy's soft and hard factors" must take place, insisted the head of the Policy Department of the German Defense Ministry, Monday at a conference held by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation. At the Heinrich Boell Foundation, just shortly before, the audience was told that "a 'pacifist Sonderweg'" (special path) cannot "be permitted." Germany must finally "come out of the comfort zone." According to the reader published by the Heinrich Boell Foundation, it must be "accepted that it may become necessary to take action outside the current

international legal framework." The reader calls for the creation of a "national security bureau" within the chancellery, patterned after the US-American "National Security Council," and to significantly "upgrade" the "equipment of Germany's intelligence services." Decisions on foreign military missions should, thereby, be structurally facilitated.

Global Policy Campaign

Germany's foreign policy establishment is persistently pursuing its campaign for a more aggressive German global policy. The campaign - which the German President has repeatedly revived with demands for an expansion of German military missions and is supported by major media organs - has not made

much headway. A recent opinion poll indicates that a majority in the German population favors discretion in foreign policy, while a mere 13 percent is in favor of new German military missions. (german-foreign-policy.com reported.[1]) However, the political establishment insists. Last week, two party-affiliated foundations - the Green Party-affiliated Heinrich Boell Foundation and the CDU-affiliated Konrad Adenauer Foundation - lent their support by holding conferences with prominent guests.

Hard Security Policy Factors

Last Monday, the Konrad Adenauer Foundation dedicated its second "Adenauer Conference" to "Germany's Role in International Security Policy." The event, in which the Chancellor's foreign policy advisor, Christoph Heusgen, personally attended, bore the thematic title "lessons learned from Afghanistan," to then focus on current and future conflicts - the "arch of crisis from Libya via Syria to Ukraine." "How can Germany Contribute to Stabilization?," was the question not only Thomas Bagger, head of Policy Planning in the German Foreign Ministry, was asked. This was after Géza von Geyr, head of the Policy Section of the Defense Ministry, had proclaimed that a "stronger disposition toward security matters" is sorely "needed" and - in this context - called for a "public discussion on the soft and hard factors of security policy," something the foreign policy establishment has been pleading for, since some time

. "We are receiving a growing number of responsibilities that we cannot ignore," claims Geyr.[2]

Pacifist Sonderweg? No Thanks!

Just shortly prior to the Adenauer Conference, the Heinrich Boell Foundation had held

its "Annual Foreign Policy Conference," June 19/20. At this conference, German President Joachim Gauck's initiatives for the expansion of German military missions had been thoroughly discussed, according to a conference report. There was wide-ranging consensus that Germany should "not only enhance its military capability," but that it "should use all foreign policy tools more decisively," and that "a 'pacifist Sonderweg'" cannot "be permitted." In view of the widespread popular opposition to a more aggressive global policy, the conference report explains that "conference guests pointed to the obviously growing gap between the 'Berlin [government]' and a sizable portion of the German population on questions of foreign policy."[3] That must be changed. Germany must "leave the comfort zone," insists the foundation's board member, Ralf Fuecks.[4]

Violation of International Law? No Problem

In a supplementary reader to the "Annual Foreign Policy Conference," the Boell Foundation published papers worth noting. "German leadership," according to Bodo Weber, a Senior Associate at the Democratization Policy Council in Berlin, is "possible and makes good sense." However, it should be noted that "Germany's refusal to take on its international responsibilities," is a problem of a "lack of political will and leadership." "Berlin's already small circle of foreign policy makers and its foreign policy community" should, therefore, "seek to close ranks regardless of party affiliations and develop common concepts and initiatives." In addition, Germany must "take the lead in the revival of a common European foreign and security policy." In all this, it must be acknowledged that "the United Nations does not meet the challenges

of the 21st century's global disorder." It must, therefore, be "accepted that it may become necessary to take action outside the current international legal framework."[5] Germany has demonstrated this in 1999 with the war on Yugoslavia.

Parliamentary Approval? Only Gets in the Way

Jan Techau, Director of the Carnegie Europe, in Brussels, makes concrete proposals in the reader for a more aggressive global

policy. Techau goes beyond calls for a "significant reinforcement" of the EU's foreign policy and an "expansion of the civilian and military Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP) missions," to demand also a "radical reformation of the so-called German parliamentary approval prerequisite." In questions of war and peace, the German Bundestag should merely be permitted a "right of revocation." The Federal College for Security Studies in Berlin (BAKS) should be transformed into a "world-famous strategy school." For "federal 'political' civil servants," there should be "service career legal stipulations introduced, requiring training" in military policy think tanks. And finally, the BAKS should be placed under the auspices of a "National Security Bureau," an institution to be formed, which - "similar to the US National Security Council" - should be established within Berlin's Chancellery. The Ministry of Development should, according to Techau, in the Green Party foundation's reader, be transferred to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs while "the German intelligence services are in need of a significant upgrade of their technical equipment."[6]

To be Continued

The positions taken by Geyr, Weber and Techau, receiving a larger public resonance, through the party-affiliated foundations of the CDU and the Greens are simply more evidence that the campaign for a more aggressive global policy is broadly rooted in Germany's foreign policy establishment and growing stronger. It is not to be expected that the elite's campaign to impose its project on the population will subside.

More reports and background information on

Germany's campaign by elite circles to promote a more aggressive German global policy can be found here: Sleeping Demons, The Re-Evaluation of German Foreign Policy, Domination over Europe, The Agenda 2020, The World's Expectations, Germany's Act of Liberation and Hegemon with a Guilty Conscience.

[1] See Die Weltpolitik-Kampagne der Eliten.
[2] "Dichte an sicherheitspolitischen Herausforderungen". www.kas.de 30.06.2014.
[3] Deutsche Außenpolitik: Auf dem Weg zu mehr Verantwortung? www.boell.de 30.06.2014.
[4] Ralf Fücks: Raus aus der Komfortzone - Deutschland auf dem Weg zu mehr internationaler Verantwortung? www.boell.de 23.06.2014.
[5] Bodo Weber: Deutschlands außen- und sicherheitspolitische Verweigerung. Reader zur 15. Außenpolitischen Jahrestagung der Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung. Berlin, Juni 2014.
[6] Jan Techau: Zu Europa und Westbindung bekennen! Reader zur 15. Außenpolitischen Jahrestagung der Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung. Berlin, Juni 2014.

Sunday, July 6, 2014

for debate - German imperialism in action

No comments:

Post a Comment