Chancellor Schröder moves toward a German military mission in Iraq

[Euphen]

Chancellor Schröder moves toward a German military mission in Iraq
By Ulrich Rippert
22 August 2003

<snip>

While some conservative politicians and uniformed brass still warn against reckless military intervention in Iraq and call for restraint, the German government has begun to change its point of view. Just as in matters of social and taxation policy, the interests of the large concerns and trade associations drive the government’s foreign policy. Despite all the denials, a German military mission in Iraq could come about sooner than most observers might expect. If the Schröder government initially wanted to hinder America’s recourse to arms because it threatened German business interests, it now fears being left to stand on the sidelines as the war booty is being shared out.

<snip>

The growing readiness of the German government to participate in the military occupation of Iraq has another, no less reactionary, aspect. It means lending support to the Bush administration, which is coming increasingly under domestic pressure.

Even as opposition to the Bush administration within the US grows, and the course advocated by Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush meets increased resistance; while the administration’s stated war aims are exposed as lies, and criticism of Bush from angry soldiers and their families increases in tandem with the rising death toll of American youth in uniform—the German government rushes to assist the regime in Washington.

In this way, the Social Democratic-Green Party coalition in Berlin supports the most right-wing political forces in the US, who act with brutality and ruthlessness against the American people, trample international law underfoot, and intimidate political opponents. Bush intervened repeatedly in German politics to strengthen the conservative opposition. He endeavoured to isolate Germany and France in Europe. But despite all that, Schröder now hopes, since Bush is in a tight spot, that a personal discussion with the president and a friendly handshake will “normalise the strained relationship.”

--------------------------------

http://wsws.org/articles/2003/aug2003/germ-a22.shtml

[Cha]

1. Gross! Schroder! Stay Out!

I can't believe what I'ma readin'!

[NYC]

2. I'm very confused.

I can't imagine why.

[Kellanved]

6. This arcticle is off

It is wrong on several points (see Gloria's post). It is wrong on the motivations of the pre-war stance (America was Iraq's most important trading partner and both Germany and France have/had far more business with the US as with Iraq.)

And most importantly: it is wrong on the Government's position: there is talk about sending UN-bluehelmets to protect the UN and NGOs but take no part in the peacekeeping and there is talk about sending Medevac-Jets and the hospital-ship.

Quite frankly the stance is : "get your resulution and then we'll see") - with possibly no troops for even an UN mandate.

The conservative pary's position is still: "get in there now", as a new interview the party's chairwoman Merkel shows.


EDIT: less aggressive subject.

[Kellanved]

7. addition

Sorry, too late to edit. So a new post.

And: The federal Government has moved in the political centre. Schröder is one of the centrists in the party and had to do some very unpopular decisions to keep the welfare system going and to create impulses for the Economy. I am not comfortable with many of these programs, but I have to acknowledge the need for such actions (and better by people actually caring than by the conservatives and their "Wisconsin works" program).
These decisions cost him and the SPD the support of many leftist (not realizing he's still the "leftest" leader in Europe) voters, creating a new audience for the post-communists. So a non-parliamentary left opposition is forming.
You have to see the article in this context; it is interesting, but has an absurd point of view not backed up by any facts.

[Euphen]

9. Why then did Schroder oppose war?

Out of some abstract love of peace? Also, why did he find himself unable to expose the real reasons behind the United States' rush to war? Are we to believe the German government was fooled by lies about weapons of mass destruction? The truth is that Schroder could not support a unilateral war, nor could he completely rule out support for a war if the US were to offer consessions to the UN, due to profound economic reasons. His position was bound up in the needs of the German bourgeoisie, which found itself less able than its British counterpart to be relegated to the role of junior partner.

As for the Social Democrats' economic policy, how is dismantling social services that have been around since Otto von Bismarck "keeping the welfare system going?" In fact, Schroder has carried out an unparalled attack on the welfare state, going farther than any government in postwar German history.

The SDP is now moribund and deeply discredited in the eyes of the German public. Even within his own party, Schroder can only maintain control through blackmail. SDP memebers leave by the thousands each month. The same pattern is repeated in Social Democratic and "left" parties throughout Europe. There can be no saving of the SDP or the welfare state in Germany.

[Kellanved]

10. As you seem very well informed I can't see how to help you.

However my point of view:
Fact is that the welfare system is not designed for an extended economic crisis, the EU is already "pissed" as is ; limited cuts can prolong the time it keeps going.
Neither the Agenda 2010 nor the Healthcare-Reform are destroying the social net- please don't overestimate their significance (and don't underestimate them). And please don't think that any decision surrounding this was easy; I blame the Party General Secretary Scholz for failing to communicate the changes to the Party-Members.
I had the opportunity to discuss this at length with leading politicians in and out of parliament. Nobody is happy with it, but there isn't an alternative in sight.
Saying all is well and continuing as usual was what Kohl did for 16 years (and Schröder for the better part of his first term) - no more.

Were the US to offer support to the UN and tasty Economic contracts for "old Europe" I don't see how he could say no - Parliament is a different matter altogether. This case might mean Chancellor Clement and a great coalition.

The Federal Government went pretty far with it's doubts about the Iraq evidence (remember Fischer and Rummy? ); anything more direct was diplomatically out of question.

Blackmail? We're talking about politics; I can't remember anything out of the ordinary.

[Euphen]

11. Limited Cuts

Schroder's attacks on the welfare state, which are hardly "limited cuts," are much more significant than you realize. They represent the culmination of the SDP's decay over the past ninety years. What was once the party of August Bebel and Rosa Luxembourg now emulates the anti-social policies of the Bush administration.

The fact that the "left" oppostion to Schroder can see no alternative to his policies is a further indication of this decay. In fact, there is an alternative, but not one that can be voiced by those layers. The only social force that can is the German working class.

By blackmail I meant Schroder's repeated threats to resign.

For more information on the SDP's history and decay I would suggest this article:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/may2003/germ-m30.shtml

[movonne]

3. I can't see how this can happen...the German people would not want this.

[Gloria]

4. Here's an article from Germany on this......

in the current World Media Watch...

3//Deutsche-Welle/DW-World.de 21.08.2003

http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,1430_A_952795_1_A,00.html



GERMANY DELIBERATES MILITARY ROLE IN IRAQ



The German government is coming under mounting pressure to rethink its attitude towards military involvement in Iraq following Tuesday's attack on the United Nations in Baghdad. In the past months, Berlin has used every opportunity to emphasize that it would not send German soldiers into post-war Iraq, unless there was a clear U.N. mandate.



(SNIP)



Despite this stance, the German government was among the first to condemn Tuesday's bloody attack on the U.N. in Baghdad. Chancellor Gerhard Schröder and Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer called it an act that was directed not only against the U.N., but against the international community as a whole.



German policy should stay the same



Foreign ministry spokesman Walter Lindner brushed aside international demands that Germany should assume a military role in Iraq to help secure peace there. He referred to U.N. resolution 1483, which states that it is the responsibility of the coalition forces to maintain stability and secure peace in post-war Iraq. "That hasn’t changed a bit after the terrible attack in Baghdad," said Lindner.



The spokesman pointed out that Germany was not part of the coalition forces. "We would have liked to see a greater role for the United Nations in the peacekeeping and reconstruction process, but it was not to be. As things are at the moment, there’s no reason for the government to rethink its decision not to send German soldiers to Iraq."



Yet statements like this have not prevented senior parliament members of the ruling Social Democrat (SPD) and Green parties from thinking ahead and going through all the possible scenarios that might evolve in the wake of Tuesday's attack.

MORE

[Cha]

5. Thanks for this, Gloria!

[ixion]

8. no german troops in Iraq...

see this thread, which is from LBN.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=79704