Posts by Oliverkrumme:
A misunderstood profession – The need for a new support of the modern soldier
November 17th, 2012The Cause
About a month ago, German singer Joachim Witt has released a movie clip for his latest song “Gloria”. The first section of this apocalyptically and bleak movie showed a group of soldiers, apparently wearing German military uniforms, involved in raping and murdering scenes. This short section caused a massive protest by the German Soldiers’ Association “Deutscher Bundeswehrverband” (DBwV), whose chairman, Colonel Ulrich Kirsch, has condemned the “message” of this clip as a disgrace for the soldier’s profession. This disgrace notion was even supported by a large back-up of former and present military personnel or affiliated academics, blaming Joachim Witt to have produced this clip as a tool to gain as much publicity as possible.
Witt has used a contemporary and popular tool to discredit the entire military system, by blaming soldiers as “rapists” and murderers”. This is in fact an often used message my anti-militarist, militant left-wing extremists – either from the actual left wing parties or from radical eco- and peace movement followers. Traumatised by Germany’s history in the first half of the 1990ies, these groups reject any direct or indirect German involvement in security and defence, or even a direct or indirect affiliation to military structures. To them, anyone even sympathizing with the army of with active or retired soldiers is a right-wing extremist.
Being a soldier in Germany is no longer a respected or even awarded profession. In the past few years, but in particular since the beginning of Germany’s contribution in Afghanistan, there have been increasing incidents of assaults or public disturbances against soldiers, public military events, and public inauguration ceremonies for recruits. For any anti-military activist it is a matter of collective disobedience to attack soldiers or even their dependents, not matter of active or retired ones. Not thinking about the long-term consequences, they are about to destroy an entire profession of a nation.
The question arising from this serious public disorder is: is the soldier’s profession so different from others that they actually deserve such a treatment?
The answer can only be: no!
How the soldier’s image got distorted
About a century ago, the soldier’s image was exactly the opposite of today’s one. If a young man wanted to gain public respect for himself, his family and his life, he had to be enlisted to the army. It was not only an ego matter or a matter of pride; it was above all a guarantee for a professional career. If someone has served in the armed forces, his later career in civil life was almost certain to succeed as well.
This image has radically changed after both World Wars, especially in Germany.
Ever since the end of World War 2, the image of the Germans has radically changed – from a military society towards pacifist and anti-military. This image was enforced with the Vietnam War, even though that Germany was not remotely involved in the conflict. However, this war had also a profound effect on the soldier’s image in the US, too.
The failure in Vietnam marked a radical turning-point for the US soldier’s reputation that was hitherto marked by glory, success, and pride – especially in the view of the victories over Nazi-Germany and Japan in 1945. Vietnam suddenly smashed the glory of the US GIs and turned it into a fragile, broken and disturbed target for public discussions. The US Vietnam trauma gave plenty of material for movies and it has completely destroyed the US’ collective feeling of invincibility. Every war conducted by the US afterwards – in, Somalia, Afghanistan, or Iraq – caused the same traumatic results as Vietnam did combined with the same public reactions.
Public failures
No matter which conflict or war you take into consideration, for military personnel it is not an easy job at all. Being exposed to threats for physical and psychological health, soldiers are probably more vulnerable to mental and physical harms than any non-military profession in modern life. Looking at a soldier’s personal commitment – no matter from which country or in which war zone he has been deployed to – it is all a matter of personal sacrifice, long-term separation from the family, and 24/7 danger for his own life. Modern soldiers are no longer just trained for battlefield combats, but for peace enforcement, peace keeping, rebuilding, stabilization, and highly complex logistics. Of course, the primary function of a soldier still is to fight with weapons and to defend his country and the system he has obliged himself to. That is still his original training, for any nation throughout the world, throughout any epoch.
Unfortunately, this personal commitment for security is not rewarded by the mainstream society; on the contrary. Even the fact that soldiers returning from combat missions, either crippled or suffering from PTSD (Posttraumatic Stress Disorder) does not raise social sympathy, but the exact opposite. It took years until PTSD was finally acknowledged by the national health institutions and by the government as a serious disease; a matter that has been advocated by the army and all soldiers’ associations for the past few years. But it is not yet recognized in society.
The sheer matter of fact that a second class artist like Joachim Witt is able to drag an entire profession in the mud by stigmatising them as murderers and rapists shows am utterly distorted understanding of contemporary society to one of the most important professions of a nation. Although the original job of a soldier is still to defend his country in the event of a war or of an armed attack by another actor – state or non-state, his new duties go far beyond simply using a rifle or how to fight in a cold and dirty trench. The modern soldier is a multitasking civil servant, responsible for multiple reconstruction, educational and conflict resolution tasks, for civil development and public order; despite the fact that he is wearing a uniform and using different tools to do his job. The modern solider of the early 21th century is far more civilized than his predecessors of the early and mid-20th century, but he still is following the traditional values of honour, pride, self-sacrifice, and discipline.
Regrettably, even the government as the military’s direct superior and commander in chief does not show much sympathy for the immediate effects of PTSD on its soldiers or the recognition of its military personnel in society. If an entire profession has become and legitimate target for humiliation and public attacks then it is an obvious failure of the state and of an entire society. A whole profession is losing support, and this loss will lead to a severe recruiting problem for young people interested in a military career, as they fear public attacks and humiliation.
Restoring a whole profession required
Even modern German soldiers still have to bear comparisons with old Nazi atrocities, and everyone sympathising with the armed forces is being blamed either as a right wing extremist or at least as a “neoconservative reactionary”. The general public needs a new view on the army and the modern soldier, and it is up to every single governmental and private actor to help restore the image of the modern, civilized and good soldier.
Soldiers are doing a tremendous effort for their job as good as they can, and they should be respected in the same way as any other person doing his civilian job. They enjoy our active and our moral back up, and we have to support their work as we depend on their skills to defend and to protect us.
——
(This article was originally published on http://ollys-blog.blogspot.de)
The author is an independent blogger and political analyst with a main focus on security and defence, EU affairs, and German foreign policy.
Join the Euro Army, now!
November 10th, 2012
By Oliver Krumme.
The Situation
In the middle of its deepest crisis, Europe is trying to redefine itself through its original foundation ideas, which in the long-run would lead to a “United States of Europe”. At the moment, this goal is further away than ever before, so we need new self-definitions.
While Europe is discussing about a fiscal union as a further “evolutionary step” in European integration, one big policy field remains completely out of the agenda. It was an idea in the early stages and it was more or less forgotten until the creation of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) through the Maastricht Treaty in 1993 in the so called “second pillar” of the European Union. Essential part of this second pillar was also the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) which was then transformed into the “Common Security and Defence Policy” (CSDP) with the Lisbon Treaty in 2009.
The ESDP/CSDP as a European Defence Regime
The basic idea of the CSDP is the creation of common and independent security and command structures with all European armies providing assets for CSDP missions. Ever since the creation of the ESDP/CSDP, more than 20 missions – civilian and military – have been launched and executed under European mandate, either independently or in cooperation with NATO. The first ones were in the immediate vicinity of the “core” EU with missions in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and in Kosovo, with its range expanding to Central Africa in Chad and Congo. Currently, the probably most important military CSDP mission is the European Naval Operation “Atalanta” patrolling at the Horn of Africa.
For all past and present security missions it was essential for European policy and decision makers to prove to the rest of the world – an in particular to the US and NATO – that Europe was in the end capable of organizing and executing military missions on their own; something that was seriously lacking at the beginning and that was repeatedly criticized by the US.
The wake-up-call for the Europeans to take action was caused by the atrocities in the Western Balkans in the 1990ies, and specifically the Kosovo War in 1999. With the US launching a military operation by bombing strikes on Serbia in February 1999, it became evident that the EU was unable to conduct a crisis prevention mission on their own. The matter of fact that Europe wasn’t even able to promote peace and stability on its own continent made it even more embarrassing. As a result of this, the EU Council declared on a summit in Cologne in 1999 that the EU “must have the capacity for autonomous action, backed up by credible military forces, the means to decide to use them, and a readiness to do so, in order to respond to international crises without prejudice to actions by NATO.” This Cologne-Declaration has been regarded as the birth moment for the ESDP.
However, ever since its creation, European military operations heavily depended on the contribution by its member states. Evidently, only the bigger member states with large military resources and capacities were able to provide assets for long-term military missions. But past and currently running missions have shown that even here the true flaws of the CSDP concepts in strategy and planning.
The Design Flaws
Most “out of area” missions, specifically the ones in Africa, did not have a long-term mandate, leading to the termination of the mission after one year already, while some missions on the Balkans are still on-going (such as EULEX in Kosovo and EUFOR Althea in Bosnia and Herzegovina). Also, successful military operations can only work with strong leadership. In the case of the Chad mission in 2008/2009 the mission was mainly concentrated on a French commitment with around 2,000 personnel. But on the other hand, exactly this unilateral leadership was criticized due to its unequal resource deployment contribution.
The biggest problem of the European Common Security and Defence Policy has to be found in the security and defence policy competencies of the member states. All security and defence assets are exclusively national policies and the national decision makers have to agree on the deployment of forces for a CSDP mission, also regarding their capacities through the national budgets. The next problem arising from this matter is the on-going cuts of the defence budgets. This is not only caused by a wide-scale reform of the national armed forces (in Germany’s case also through the suspension of compulsory military service and a massive troop reductions), but above all through the notorious and persistent Euro crisis. By default, in case of any fiscal or monetary crisis, the defence budget is the first one to be cut – a dangerous and wrong measure.
Regarding the international obligations of European countries to global security missions – and above all for anti-terror-missions, it is a matter of course that consistent budget cuts on defence and armed forces will have a profound and above all dangerous effect on the striking capabilities of international forces in out of area missions, no matter if under CSDP, NATO, or under UN mandate. As an example, Germany’s recent troop reductions, the budgets cuts and the closing of a notable number of military facilities all over Germany, it is seriously jeopardizing its own global responsibility for global security and its own political strength on the global policy making arena.
It is above all a question of losing reliability. The reason why the CSDP was created is due to the fact that the EU could not be taken serious as a reliable and strong security partner. Europe’s self-limitation to “soft policy” approaches used to be inefficient in the case of the Kosovo crisis and it will not be able to cope with contemporary international threats by persistent budget cuts and self-limitation of its armed forces. Once again, Europe is lacking a strong position for hard policy military structures and determination, with severe consequences for all global security partners.
There is however another, more obvious problem for a European army and you can find this problem in Brussels as well. For more than 50 years, NATO was the main responsible actor for European security during the Cold War and beyond; under supervision of the US, of course. Even though the early attempts of a European Defence Policy (EPC) failed in 1954 due to a veto by the French National Assembly, structures for a European defence community sort of existed with the Western European Union (WEU), although its actual influence to European security was merely academic compared to US dominated NATO. In the end, the WEU was abolished in 2011. At least, the WEU was the main initiator for the drafting of the Petersberg Tasks in 1992.
Recommendations
It is all a matter of security enforcing efficiency. The principle of European subsidiarity and exclusive member states’ national competencies on defence is hindering combined command and deployment structures. Also, it is imperative to create simplified and more efficient commanding channels from the European Army’s central command centres to all the units and de-centralised commanding units.
Furthermore, all national armies have to be subordinated to European central command which should supervise and monitored by the European Union Military Committee (EUMC) and the European Defence Agency (EDA).
Finally, all national armies have to be integrated into the unified European army under unified commanding structures for all ground, naval, and air forces. If all 27 (respectively 28) EU Member States combine their national armies, the Euro Army would have up to 5 million military personnel at its disposal – including reserve and paramilitary forces. In fact, this would be the largest army in the world, more than the US, Russian, and Chinese army combined. But in order to have a strong striking force, the common European military budget has also to be adapted to the new structures, which can only mean that the defence budgets have to be significantly increased, and build capable technical equipment. This includes investments in naval forces, air forces, and modernized ground combat vehicles. Additionally, it requires an efficient cyber army to prevent, deter, and if necessary even launch cyber-attacks, as this will be the future main battle field.
The answer for Europe is not only a political and fiscal union, but above all a military union. In terms of security there is no room for any kind of hesitation, budget cuts, or even personnel reduction. If Europe is on a brink of new self-definition, it should also define itself as a unified and collective security community – more than ever before.
——
(This article was originally published on http://ollys-blog.blogspot.de)
The author is an independent blogger and political analyst with a main focus on security and defence, EU affairs, and German foreign policy.
The Obvious and Predictable Result – The Absurdity of Modern Election Campaigning
November 7th, 2012By Oliver Krumme.
Finally! The votes have been made; the US and the whole world can get a rest now. Not a rest from a hard week of work, or a natural disaster, but from something far more exhausting than any other public event or full scale military operation:
Presidential elections!
Now, with Barack Obama being re-elected, the US can get back to normality, after having been pushed through nearly two years of constant campaign rallying. It’s not only a relief for the candidates and the parties, but above all for the people who were getting extremely annoyed about the constant election presence in media and in daily life. It was not only a long and exhausting campaigning time, but also an absurd one.
In a recent facebook post of “The Economist”, a cartoon was show satirising the massive efforts of the two Presidential candidates Barack Obama and Mitt Romney to be (re-)elected: how much money they spent, how many tedious and unsubstantial speeches they have held, and how many days they spent campaigning in the past two years – primary elections included. At the end of the cartoon, Romney and Obama were running down a finish straight, neck at neck, with Uncle Sam and a big Earth globe waiting at the finish line. While waiting, the globe – obviously annoyed and not impressed – finally asked Uncle Sam: “Is there no easier way to choose a president?”
This question not only applies to the US Presidential elections, but to any election in any democratic country. Parties and candidates invest large quantities of (partly public) funds for their campaign rallies. The actual campaigning not only starts a few months before Election Day, but already years in advance. And the work load during elections is immense: speeches, public events of all kind, massive election teams are being recruited to support the candidate, candidate ads prepared to bomb the television networks and the websites.
Even before Election Day, not only the American voters were bored by the constant election hype, but also people abroad. Even if you look to Germany, election campaigning for the 2013 parliamentary elections has already started – even though the elections won’t take place before the end of September. Parties and single candidates are driven by the hunt for every single potential vote – from their own electoral basis as well as from the swing voters. The spin doctors invest time and money into deep analyses how to win more votes from potential voting groups, they draft specified target audience programmes and individually designed key messages, they prepare their candidates for the TV debates by simulating the main adversary.
If you compare a Presidential candidate to modern corporate marketing, you won’t be able to spot a big difference. The way a company attempts to sell his product to the customer, the same way is done by a party with its candidate. Some might find this comparison cynical, but it is a matter of fact: the President and his adversary were nothing but products, and the voters are the consumers who have to pick either one of them. The only – obvious – differences: even if you don’t vote you get either one of them, without actually paying, nor do their get any refund in case they’re unsatisfied with the performance of parties or politicians after the elections – which would in fact be an economic disaster since voters are notoriously unsatisfied.
So, elections are just like modern advertisement, it’s all about commercials and constant product placement. Marketing experts have a relatively easy job: if a consumer is already convinced about the company’s product, he will keep going these company’s products.
Basically, it is the same with political parties or candidates.
If someone votes for a party because he is convinced with the party agenda and identifies his preferences with this party or candidate, he will keep going voting for this party – or not voting for the opposing party/candidate. As a result, the campaign rally organizers focus on the swinging voters and states, with mass media boasting these swingers up to a state in which they might have thje ultimate decisive role in an election.
It sounds plausible, specifically if the numbers of these swingers are high. However, it is widely exaggerated for a good reason:
Although the presidential candidates mainly focus on swing states like Ohio or Florida, the outcome was more or less predictable. During the 2008 elections, both states have voted for Barack Obama. It was exactly the same for this year’s elections. And to be honest, even though this election was closer than the one in 2008 between Obama and his Republican adversary John McCain, everything else but a victory for Obama would have been a massive surprise.
Ask yourself: if the results seem obvious and the vast majority of the population keeps voting for their pre-selected parties and candidates, is it reasonable to do all the campaigning efforts just for a few undecided voters? In economic terms it doesn’t because the investment made in extra campaigning does not necessarily lead to a massively different result. You can take any election of any democratic state into account. Elections are already decided because of long-term planned political agenda setting or because of unexpected events, and not by massively conducted campaign strategies.
Being aware of this, people get tired about the long-term campaigning and just want to get back to their daily schedule. It should also be noted that this nearly two-year campaign rallying has paralyzed policy making in the US because both parties were specifically focusing on self-promotion and attacks on the opponent. Both camps, Democrats and Republicans would have been well advised to focus on the common problems of the US in domestics and international relations rather than hunting for votes. The 2012 Presidential elections have increased the cleavages between the Democrats and the Republicans, and above all between the American social classes.
You might think now that elections and campaigning are redundant per se, if the outcome is pretty much predictable. In a certain way, it is. Looking at the constant election condition in the US, things could be organized and conducted far more efficient, without constant media barrage resulting in the paralysation of a whole nation in the middle of a recession. It seems, however, that none of the two camps actually focused on anything else than self-promotion, agenda promotion and attack. Now, with the elections finally over, maybe the can gather some remaining power for the crucial needs of the country. It would be required.
The to-do-list is massive, and time is running out. After having won the elections, President Obama stated that “the best is yet to come”. Obviously, he is still in an optimistic campaigning mode, as the prospects are no good at all. Too much precious time has been utterly wasted and the fiscal cliff is coming closer and closer.
——-
(This article was originally published on http://ollys-blog.blogspot.de)
The author is an independent blogger and political analyst with a main focus on security and defence, EU affairs, and German foreign policy.
Public media or state media? Political influence on German broadcasting networks
October 25th, 2012
By Olive Krumme.
Today, the spokesman of the Bavarian conservative party CSU (Christlich Soziale Union = Christian Social Union) resigned from his post after an incident that conspicuously reminded of state controlled media in authoritarian countries. Hans Michael Strepp, spokesman of the CSU since 2006, was accused for having called the public broadcasting channel ZDF and demanding not to broadcast a report about the party convention of the CSU’s political counterpart, the Social Democratic Party (SPD).
To understand the dimension of this unusual step, we first have to understand the German media system. What we do have in Germany is a system of publically funded broadcasting networks. The two major public TV-networks – ARD and ZDF – are both, unlike the private networks, not only funded through public assets and fees, but also supervised by public institutions. Therefore, there is a notable number of high ranked German politicians who are also members to the governing bodies of these networks. The purpose of this political presence in German media is to ensure neutral, politically balanced, and above all sincere quality news and broadcasting coverage. To ensure even a wider public representation in the networks, some boards’ seats are also held by members of the federal states, and of the three major religious communities.
Since party members have a genuine interest in the broadcasting contents, they are keen to impose some “influence” to the broadcasting and journalism activities of the networks. Like this, the board is able to have an influence on the filling of important posts with “party loyal” journalists and editors. This has a profound effect on the neutrality of the networks, as critics have repeatedly stated for the past years.
The concept of media controlled by the government or by single parties is not new and it is a common conduct in authoritarian states – past and present ones. So far, the German media landscape remained relatively free from significant and exaggerated party intervention, even though their governing bodies are marked by massive party presence – especially by the Conservatives and the Social Democrats. But now, after this incident of attempted “media manipulation”, the opposition and smaller parties compared this act as an attempt to control media and bring all news coverage in accordance to party guidelines. The German Minister of Development and Economic Cooperation, Dirk Niebel from the Liberal Party (FDP), compared the political system of Bavaria with an authoritarian developing country. The Green Party even went a step further in its criticism by comparing the CSU as an absolutistic party.
Even more, the CSU as the ruling party in the federal state of Bavaria is facing a severe reputation loss and it might have a negative effect for next year’s regional elections. The CSU was hoping to regain its absolute majority in the Bavarian regional parliament, a majority the CSU has been used to for decades; and the polls have so far indicated an absolute majority. Now, with this media trouble starting up, the targeted absolute majority is in danger.
Also, the CSU is known for a more right wing bias in the German party system. Being only represented in the federal state of Bavaria, the CSU enjoys a unique reputation and is considered as the conservative back-bone of the conservative union (CDU/CSU) – also because the CSU in terms of ideology is more of a right wing party than the CDU as such. That gives the CSU and its leaders quite a weight in German politics, and Bavaria considers itself as the most powerful of all the 16 federal states – in economic, financial, and political terms. It also has a strong influence in the Federal Council (Bundesrat), the second legislative chamber of the German governmental system that represents the interests of the 16 federal states.
The question remains: did the former spokesman call the ZDF editors after having received an “order” by his party superiors, or did he act unilaterally?
Bavarian Prime Minister and chairman of the CSU, Horst Seehofer, claimed that he had not the slightest idea about Strepp’s call to ZDF until ZDF editors made an announcement that Strepp has intended to prevent a broadcast about the SPD’s party convention. Now, Seehofer describes this action as inexcusable and unacceptable. But no matter if Strepp has acted unilaterally or not, the damage for the CSU is immense, and the timing couldn’t be any worse – specifically in the view of the approaching election in Bavaria and the general parliamentary elections in Germany next year.
What happened these days in Germany – and most likely will go on covering the front pages – was a warning signal to German media as a whole and the general public, and a message: it is a message that media has to be kept free of any intervention through parties or any governmental institution. The time has come to reconsider the public media system in Germany, and it would be required to keep the governing bodies and the editorial structures free of any party influence – conservative, social democratic, liberal, etc. As long as political parties are represented in the board of directors and have an influence on the contents of broadcasting and news feeds, there won’t be a truly free media in Germany. Unfortunately, this system has been in existence since the end of World War 2 and has been regarded as a stabilization and monitoring tool. But in the long-term it caused a negative image about the public broadcasting networks for being too bureaucratic, too inefficient, and not independent enough. German media politics has proven itself to be old-fashioned and inflexible towards necessary changes, but now it has received a wake-up call.
Ironically, ZDF editors marked Strepp’s action as a severe breach of the freedom of the press and underline the necessity and importance of free media – knowing that the parties do have a significant weight in editorial work. Maybe this was a desperate call from some free thinking journalists.
However, everyone knowing Germany’s “enthusiasm” for fundamental changes won’t expect a complete U-turn, not even in media.
———
(This article was originally published on http://ollys-blog.blogspot.de)
The author is an independent blogger and political analyst with a main focus on security and defence, EU affairs, and German foreign policy.
Germany for the lead – a potential but silent global power
October 11th, 2012By Oliver Krumme.
While German chancellor Angela Merkel was away on her recent visit to Greece, a dominating discussion developed in international and European affairs, specifically in the view of the crisis: can Germany be considered as a lead-nation and should it take more leadership responsibility, even on a global scale?
The question for German leadership is filled with historically based prejudices and fear. Fear of a strong Germany attempting to regain domination in Europe – economically and politically. In GDP terms Germany is currently the strongest country in the EU, and unlike many other EU member states, it remained relatively spared by the crisis. Also, it is undisputed that modern Germany is enjoying an overall positive reputation and image in contemporary society. In the prequel of the celebration of this year’s “Reunification Day” on 3 October, German radio stations made a survey on the Germans’ image in the world. As you can imagine, the positive aspects reach from punctuality, diligence, a love for details and discipline.
On the negative side, however, Germans are regarded as inflexible, picky, cheap, and are severely suffering from a lack of humour. These negative aspects are prevailing in some European countries, specifically the ones that are most hit by the crisis, i.e. Greece and Spain.
During her visit, Chancellor Angela Merkel was demonized in the Greek population and media, as expected. Greek authorities were so seriously concerned about her safety that they set a security force of approximately 7,000 security personnel for her personal protection. To many Greeks she was the impersonated evil, the very embodiment of the evil Germany, the Germany that wants to dominate Europe – again. With Greece spinning more into economic and social disaster, and Greeks unable to cope much longer with the increasing social cuts, the Greek population spill their personal rage towards Merkel and Germany. They specifically blame Germany for opposing the Eurobonds and an increase of financial bail-out mechanisms for Greece; but above all they blame Germany’s alleged indifference to the Greek misery and fate.
As a result of this, combined with the popular communication of the “return of the evil German”, Germany is struggling with its potential leadership role in Europe. It is not only related to historic events or the Greek case that nations and other actors are resentful towards a strong Germany, it is in fact a matter already articulated by some individual EU member states – above all by the UK and some newer members. Claiming for leadership ambitions themselves, they accuse Germany to regain domination in Europe through the artificial back-door of what they call “pseudo democratic” European institutions, in close alliance with France. Those are in fact the very words of notorious anti-EU critic and Member of the EP, Nigel Farage, who does not miss any opportunity to attack Germany and the EU as a whole.
On the other side, although Germany is one of the main initiators of the European integration process and economically a de facto leader, it is also reluctant to actually take over a bigger share of international responsibility and a consistent and sustainable leader role. Germany is still suffering from a severe inferiority complex caused by its self-limitation for more collective and international responsibility. This can significantly be seen in international conflict resolution for Syria or the boiling Israeli-Iranian conflict. But most of all it can be seen in Germany’s disgust for military operations and security obligations. Ever since the end of World War II, German foreign policy is in particular marked by a non-aggression and non-military self-conduct. However, this has also led to the overall pacifist view of modern Germany – another positive reward.
The question remains: shall Germany take over more global leadership or not?
Basically, it is only a logical matter of course that Germany should take the opportunity to take over more power. It certainly does in economic terms and it definitely should do it in political terms. The level of current “German leadership” is limited since contemporary German foreign policy is in particular marked by a common quest for consensus rather than domination. The era of nationally marked domination of Europe has come to an end with the end of World War II, and no European nation is able any longer to pre-dominate the EU agenda – not even Germany, France or the UK. A potential field for a leadership role of Germany should be identified in the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) where strong and unanimous action is strongly required. But efficient action can only be done and conducted with a lead-nation, specifically in terms of security and military missions under CSDP mandate. France has proven on various ESDP/CSDP missions that a strong European foreign policy can only be done with strong leadership, and this policy should also be applied by Germany.
Jan Raudszus from his theriskyshift.com blog describes Germany as an illusionary giant whose leadership role in Europe is rather weakening because of its domestic drawbacks in the educational and health care system, but most of all because of the deteriorating demographic situation in Germany itself, leading to extreme log-term difficulties for the pension and labour structure. But most of all, Germany’s leading role is being overestimated in Europe and on a global scale. This is the main reason why Raudszus states a decreasing German influence in Europe, leading to a shrinking importance on a global scale, combined with the inefficiency in policy-making of the Merkel Administration.
However, it should be pointed out that Germany is actually underestimating itself which has also been a consistent problem caused by German academics in evaluating German foreign policy. The only obstacle for Germany is its self-limiting character itself – presumably co-caused by the German character as well.
A few weeks ago, the “National Power Index” has revealed that Germany was in fact leading the index’ popularity section, well ahead of the USA, the UK or France – and scoring a strong fifth place in the overall national power ranking. Apparently, there is a global wish for Germany to take over more global responsibility. It is up to Germany itself to provide the determination and above all the willingness to be a global leader. Also, being aware of its historic heritage and responsibility upon the present and future generations, Germany is trapped by its own history and presumably unwilling to go for a remotely stronger leadership role – or in other words: we Germans are too reluctant to do so. In short: Germany is not lacking potential for leadership but willingness and global self-confidence – for the moment.
———
(This article was originally published on http://ollys-blog.blogspot.de)
The author is an independent blogger and political analyst with a main focus on security and defence, EU affairs, and German foreign policy.
The red lines of 1914 and 2012 – Historic parallels leading to a new global disaster?
September 29th, 2012
By Oliver Krumme.
It has been nearly 100 years since World War I started in Europe after the assassination of the Archduke of Austria-Este Franz-Ferdinand and his wife in the Bosnian city of Sarajevo, on 28July 1914. In a very recent article for the German security policy website “Atlantische Initiative”, Volker Perthes – director of the leading German think tank SWP – has described the current Israeli-Iranian crisis as a parallel event to the political prequel before the outbreak of World War I. This comparison seems to be vague at a first glance, but looking deeper into the details, some frightening similarities become aware.
While the Archduke’s assassination in Sarajevo was the flash point for a conflict that has been built up over years of rising European rivalry and military predomination, the situation now has to be relocated to the Middle East. With Israel and Iran on the brink of an armed confrontation, and the international community unable to mediate between the two potential adversaries, it just seems to be a matter of time until the first one pulls the trigger.
In fact, rhetoric from both sides anticipates a war to be a matter of course. More worrying, however, was Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s appearance at the UN General Assembly in New York that conspicuously reminded of former US Secretary of State Colin Powell’s demonstration of the “existence” of Iraqi WMDs in the immediate prequel of the Iraq war in 2003. With a cartoonish-like presentation of a bomb and a fuse, Netanyahu tried to display three so called “stages” in Uranium enrichment. According to Netanyahu, Iran has already completed the first stage of a 70% Uranium enrichment and is about to finish the second stage of 90% very soon. Netanyahu called the international community to prevent Iran from completing the second stage. As the Israeli Prime Minister stated, the “red line” (which he demonstrated with a red marker before the world public) has to be drawn at this second stage.
However, the question is not who the most dangerous and war driving actor in this conflict is. The question is more, what the international community is going to do about it.
Netanyahu’s presentation at the UN looked like a desperate call for support, specifically addressed to the US. As Volker Perthes has stated in his analysis, it is now up to the US and also to the EU to immediately mediate in the rising conflict and to enforce negotiations before the crisis spins out of control. The trouble is, however, that any possible mediation cannot necessarily be expected by these two major actors, for obvious reasons.
The US is entering the hot phase of the Presidential campaign rally, and so far none of the two candidates – neither President Barack Obama nor his Republican rival Mitt Romney – have made a clear statement on whether the US might back up Israel in case of an armed confrontation or not. Regarding the traditionally strong Jewish lobby in the US, it might be the only opportunity to win the US’ support for a conflict. On the other side, both candidates are aware of the negative electoral consequences of a war strategic commitment, or even a simple verbal remark. If either side makes a verbal support concession, it might cost him the presidency as any war message or war inflicting agenda is a classic election killer.
Also, the entire US Middle East policy under Barack Obama was marked by stunned silence and unexpected restraint – not only regarding Israel-Iran, but also in the view of the Syrian civil war. This is possibly the result of a complete U-turn of former President Bush’s aggressive Middle East policy, but also a result of the on-going economic crisis.
The economic crisis is also the reason why the EU is not taking over a mediator role in the conflict – although demanded by Perthes. The EU is currently heading inside, completely leaving out its self-mandated foreign policy action enforcement. Perthes is over-estimating the European role in conflict mediation. Since Israel had several arm deals with Germany, e.g. this year’s submarine delivery, a common European Middle East Policy remains overshadowed by national actions. Any further support for Israel is purely hypothetical since the EU lacks any visible capabilities to be regarded as a serious and unified security partner. The EU proved itself to be unable to address the Libyan or the Syrian crisis with a unanimous strategy, so how might it address Israel and Iran, which might lead to an even more serious conflict with global dimensions? Also, it has to be doubted that Israel can count on assistance from European nations such as Germany, as none of them is very eager to be committed to any form of violence.
As a result of this mutual and self-limiting behaviour, there is no mediation whatsoever in the deteriorating Israeli-Iranian conflict, leading to Perthes’ assumption of a parallel development to the summer of 1914. Back then, European leaders have pushed the continent into a state in which it became impossible to prevent a war in the end. Driven by jingoism and national superiority, the European powers were forging alliances for self-protection, support in case of any attack by the other side, and by an arms race between the UK and the German Empire that turned the entire war machine into a self-sustaining mechanism. In the end, none of the European leader was able to control the machinery they have created, and they were even unwilling to control it.
Even after the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, the European leaders had a chance to stop it. They could have stopped that mechanism in which one incident led to the next incident and then to the outbreak of the catastrophe, once the imaginary “red line” was crossed. They have to be blamed for their lack of willingness and wisdom to intervene and to stop that process. In 1914, none of the European powers had the will to stop it before it got any further as a public call for war yelled over the voice of rationality and common sense.
Right now, this situation seems to repeat itself. All actors, national leaders, academics, and international organization talk about the possible prevention of a war that nobody wants, not even Iran or Israel. But if it goes any further, all you need is one little incident that ignites the fire which will lead to overall disaster, and no one would be able to stop it. It could be one little unplanned incident in the Persian Gulf, a miscommunication between the leaders or their intelligence services, one misinterpreted information, or even a targeted terrorist attack by either one of the adversaries.
Israel and Iran have to solve this conflict by their own before it erupts. The US is not in the condition to prevent the conflict, neither is the EU; and the UN is by default unable to prevent any conflict or to enforce peace in a sustainable way. That means that any mediation has to be conducted on the regional level. Saudi Arabia might have the chance for mediation, but also other foreign powers like Russia or China. As Israel and Iran are increasingly isolated, they are advised and requested to have a regional mediator to downsize a regional conflict.
There is a need for action, and it has to be done now if we don’t want history to repeat itself one more time. It led to disaster in 1914 and it led to an even bigger catastrophe in 1939. If the international community fails again, 2012 will be the beginning of an even more devastating disaster leading to Word War III.
And time is running out.
—
(This article was originally published on http://ollys-blog.blogspot.de)
The author is an independent blogger and political analyst with a main focus on security and defence, EU affairs, and German foreign policy.
—
The rise of regional nationalism – The menace of Catalonia’s independence movement
September 12th, 2012By Oliver Krumme.
While Greece might break-up form the Euro-Zone, there is another break-up candidate in the news – although not in monetary terms. Yesterday, around 1.5 million people were participating at a Catalan independence rally in Barcelona. The date for this rally was deliberately chosen: on 11 September 1714, Catalan troops were defeated by the Spanish Bourbon King Philip V. after the city of Barcelona has been sieged for 14 months. With this defeat, Catalonia lost its independent administration and was integrated into the Spanish Kingdom. Today, Catalans celebrate this day as their national public holiday – the so called “Diada”.
This rally is, however, nothing new. The Catalan independence movement was on a constant political agenda for the past decades, especially after the transition period after the death of former Spanish Caudillo Francisco Franco y Bahamonde in 1975. With an own language, an own history, an own identity, and own political parties, Catalonia has been pushed its autonomy ambitions to the public for nearly 40 years, rejuvenating it after more than 30 years of suppression under the Franco regime.
Unlike the Basque independence move, however, the Catalan efforts so far remained relatively free of violence and terrorism. While the Basque terrorist organization ETA (“Euskadi ta Askatasuna” = Basque Homeland and Freedom) and its smaller affiliated underground groups did not lead to an overall enforcement of Basque independence in Basque public, the violence free Catalan movement did increase over the past few years.
The public support for independence has been even increasing in the view of the deteriorating Spanish economic crisis. Although highly indebted itself (with a deficit of 42 billion Euros even the most indebted of all regions), Catalonia is still the economical strongest of the 17 autonomous regions in Spain. As such, Catalonia also pays the highest amounts of tax revenues to the central state’s budget. You can already imagine what the problem is: the Spanish central states subsidises the poorer regions rather than reinvesting government expenditures to Catalonia. Having a feeling that the central government in Madrid is wasting Catalan taxes the separatism movement is gaining more and more supporters. A recent poll indicates that now 51% of the 7 million Catalan people prefer independence and the re-establishing of a sovereign Catalan nation.
The Christian conservative Catalan party CiU (“Convergéncia I Unió” = Convergence and Union) and Catalan Prime Minister Artur Mas do more and more feel left out by the central government in Madrid. This is not only related to terms of identity, or a mere taxation question; it is also a new rising opposition tendency against Spanish centralism per se. In fact, Catalans regard themselves not only as an autonomous region (like the 16 other Spanish regions on an outside the Iberian Peninsula), but above all as a European nation. One of the demands for Catalan independence is also an immediate EU membership. This was one of the slogans chanted on yesterday’s rally: “Catalunya, Nou Estat d’Europa” (Catalonia, new European State) – European flags waving alongside with the red and yellow striped Catalan flag – while Spanish and French flags have been burned in public.
The problem is: even if Catalonia succeeds to achieve independence in the future, it cannot become an EU member overnight. There are no provisions in the EU treaties about a European region becoming independent or even providing the chance for a quick membership. As a result, in case of independence, Catalonia would be treated as any potential accession candidate and would have to go through the entire membership accession procedure. We all know the time consuming processes necessary to go through the accession requirements, and this is going to take years. We know that from the last accession waves in 2004 and 2007, and Croatia has been experiencing this for the past years as well – so will the other accession candidates.
Catalonia was hit by the real estate crisis in the same way as any other Mediterranean Spanish region, especially alongside the holiday resorts of the Costa Brava or the Costa Dorada. Although tempting, independence will neither lead to an immediate economic relief, nor even to a consolidation of the Catalan budget. On the contrary, independence would even make things worse. An independent Catalonia will stop receiving funds from the central government, and it will even cut itself off from EU regional funds. Independence might have an ideological, cultural, or even national support. In economic terms, however, it will have devastating consequences. Catalan politics, public, and independence supporters will have to consider all impacts of a break-up from Spain.
The Spanish constitution forbids its autonomous regions to classify themselves as nations. That is in fact a provision already violated by Catalonia in 2006 when it added the term of a “self-defined nation” to its constitution. Being keen to restore its independence after the – what it calls – “violent accession” by Philip V. in 1714, the independence movement and the more than one million supporters are simply blinded by the economic disaster and assuming that a political and economic break-up from Spain would provide an easy and efficient solution for the Catalan economy. The simple matter of fact is that it will not be the case. The Catalan policy makers and the Catalan people are very well advised to re-evaluate their independence calls and take a closer look to the economic consequences. Although being just as seriously affected by the crisis as any other Spanish region, their history and their own boasted so called nationalism are no reasonable arguments for more than their current autonomous status within the Spanish nation. It is simple as that: Spain cannot do it without Catalonia; neither can Catalonia do it by itself.
This Catalan rally is also a signal to the Basques’ own separatism tendencies. The regional elections in the Basque Country will be held on 21 October 2012, and analysts already anticipate a notable vote increase for the Basque national party PNV (“Partido Nacionalista Vasco”). But even the ETA affiliated radical nationalist and separatist “Bildu” party (= Gather) might get some votes from the far right nationalists and underground separatism activists.
Separatist movements have been a Spanish problem for decades, and they are currently gaining. The central government in Madrid is seriously concerned about the mood in Catalonia and it knows very well that they could hardly do anything about it if the crisis gets more out of hand. Just before the rally on Tuesday, 82 year old Jordi Pujol, who was the Catalan Prime Minister for more than 30 years, had visited Scotland to observe the Scottish independence progress — a symbolic act though — probably even an emerging union of separatist regional movements across Europe.
The tragedy is that increasing regionalism and separatism becomes a main threat for central national integrity, as well as for overall European unity. But it is no useful solution for the far bigger European crisis at the present time at all.
(This article was originally published on http://ollys-blog.blogspot.de)
The author is an independent blogger and political analyst with a main focus on security and defence, EU affairs, and German foreign policy.
Opening the bottomless pit – Europe overruled by the ECB?
September 9th, 2012By Oliver Krumme
.
The post of the European Central Bank president (ECB) is not the most desirable at the moment. But still, Marion Draghi has to make some decisions that might decide about the future of the Euro-Zone and of the EU as a whole. Last week, such a decision was made, and the outcome is pretty much uncertain.
The ECB has decided to buy large quantities of bonds of the crisis states, so that these can get additional fresh assets for their budget reconciliation. The sheer matter of fact that the ECB President Marion Draghi more or less unilaterally decided to purchase crisis states’ bonds for an unlimited period of time makes it more or less obvious that the member states and the national central banks were respectively powerless in the view of this decision.
Most likely, this step was in particular a sign to the national central banks, and above all to the German Central Bank (“Deutsche Bundesbank”), that the ECB is not bound to any national requirements or reservations. German central bank president, Jens Weidmann, has repeatedly opposed the ECB’s plans to buy bonds in large quantities, which would lead for Germany to contribute massive financial assets into the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) – something the German government wanted to prevent from the very beginning. Basically, it was once against Germany alone in opposition against the overall European tendency to postpone the obvious deterioration of the Euro crisis within the Euro-Zone, and the imminent crash of Greece, which might in the end lead to Greece’s withdrawal from the Euro-Zone.
The German position has in fact changed a little bit. Although critics blame the very recent ECB decision as a severe risk which would lead to an even more severe fiscal and economic crash of the crisis states, the German economic expert Peter Bofinger on the other hand states that this step is a necessary “medical emergency act”. Otherwise, it would be impossible for the crisis states to fight their budget deficits in the view of high interest rates. However, he also sees the risk for a Europe wide inflation limited as the main factor for inflation – wages and salaries – do not increase, specifically not in the crisis states. Their tendency is facing in the opposite direction, and it is certainly not limited to the crisis states alone.
Other, more critical, voices state that this ECB decision is an intervention into the member states’ national fiscal affairs, and they accuse the ECB for having breached EU legislation. The ECB presents a rather unique dilemma, since there is hardly any parliamentary control over the common monetary EU institution. Also, the ECB is neither obliged to take any political responsibility to any governmental institution, nor to national governments or central banks; not even to the highest EU institutions like the Commission, the Council, or the Parliament. In a certain way, by buying “toxic assets” from the crisis states, the ECB might degenerate to a “bad bank” itself. This was in fact the term used by an economic expert of the German liberal party (FDP).
One issue is pretty clear; the ECB’s strategy to buy bonds and provide fresh assets to crisis states will not set an end to the current crisis, not even remotely. On the contrary, the simple matter of fact that the highly indebted crisis states can get fresh assets from the ECB will even lead to a massive increase of their budget deficits. Even though that these assets are linked to strict requirements, this move will in the long run lead to a bigger deficit and therefore deteriorate the already crumbling situations in the respective countries.
However, there is at least some good news: the Spanish austerity programme is running according to plan, if you want to believe the status reports from Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy – unemployment rates and the increasing brain drain prove the opposite. And our policy makers are, officially, determined to keep Greece in the Euro-Zone at all costs – with all evolving positive and negative consequences. The question is, however, if the ECB’s radical step might really help Greece, Spain, Italy and the others in their austerity and budget reconciliation programmes. The plan could easily backfire, especially as the deficits might not be significantly reduced.
Europe is desperate for useful decisions, but wrong decisions are just as devastating as no decisions at all. This ECB step has already been discussed in the past few weeks, but now it was taken rather hastily. Hastily decisions have only rarely led to efficient results, and the way it was taken will not be beneficial for the internal integrity of the European Monetary System (EMU) and the reputation of the ECB. Especially the German central bank is particularly upset of the rapid decision of the ECB’s president, and a number of members of the German Parliament (“Deutscher Bundestag”) have already announced to take legal steps against the ECB’s decision.
The odyssey is entering the next step, but without a visible end; and it is apparent that the ECB has just opened a bottomless pit. There is a say in Germany, fitting quite well in this situation, referring to the imminent collapse of Greece, and of the Euro-Zone as a whole:
“Postponement does not mean prevention.”
(This article was originally published for http://ollys-blog.blogspot.de)
The author is an independent blogger and political analyst with a main focus on security and defence, EU affairs, and German foreign policy.
The need for nuclear sharing, or how Germany learnt to live with the bomb
September 5th, 2012By Oliver Kr
It is no secret that Germany actually has nuclear weapons, although it does not own them. There are in fact around 20 U.S. nuclear warheads permanently stationed at the German air force base in Büchel (in the middle of the Eifel region), and they are part of the NATO nuclear sharing strategy. Originally purposed for its use in case of an armed confrontation between the East and the West, the German government has agreed with the U.S. government to keep the U.S. nuclear stock pile in Germany as a nuclear sharing obligation.
While the broad majority of German public opinion calls for a withdrawal of the bombs out of Germany, the centre-right government has recently decided to keep the warheads in German bases. With this move, the government dropped its original plan to abandon the NATO’s nuclear sharing strategy. It was above all the idea of the liberal party FDP to abandon the sharing policy and to convince the U.S. to pull back its WMDs. In addition, the German government has announced to invest up to 250 million Euros for a modernization of the carrying systems, namely of its own Tornado fighter jets. Originally subject for decommission and to be replaced by the modern Eurofighter Typhoon jet, the Tornados will now be kept operational until 2024.
The nuclear sharing policy has been an essential strategy used by NATO to ensure an effective deterrence and retaliation strategy in the Cold War. The original plan for nuclear warheads stationed in Germany or other NATO members was to deploy them in case of an attack by Warsaw Pact forces. Once the order was given, U.S. and German fighter jets would have carried the warheads to the battle zones and dropped them on advancing enemy units. In such a scenario these nuclear bombs would have been dropped on Warsaw Pact troops that had already moved deep into West German territory. Basically, most of West Germany would have become a nuclear waste land.
The nuclear bombs stationed at Büchel Air Force Base are 170kt Type B61 bombs. A modernized type – the B61-12 – is currently in development process with an estimated cost range of about four billion US-$ and shall be installed in Europe by 2019. Each one of the current B-61 bombs equals the Hiroshima bomb by factor thirteen. Certainly, Germany is not the only NATO member in the nuclear sharing plan. Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy and Turkey also have stored a number of U.S. nuclear weapons, between 180 and 200 in total. For NATO a nuclear share and collective deterrence was a vital defence strategy during the Cold War, also for strategic purposes in case that the WMDs in one member would have been destroyed in the event of an enemy attack. Nowadays, although the public sees no use for nuclear sharing or for nuclear weapons per se, collective security requires a strong and sustainable first and second strike capability. The German air force maintains a training schedule with nuclear bombs, combined with American support and assistance, so the collective deterrence is still alive and working very well.
After the Cold War, many NATO members agreed on keeping a limited amount of nuclear warheads in Europe in order to maintain the collective striking capability. It was essential for NATO to ensure the security framework through a sharing strategy intact rather than concentrating nuclear striking capabilities on a single member, namely the U.S. Although there is no longer a single adversary as was the case during the Cold War (namely the Soviet Union), collective security remains just as important as it was before the fall of the Iron Curtain. Through the sharing strategy the member states are intensively committed into the collective security system, and the burden share strengthens each member’s responsibility to security – inside and outside the alliance.
In contemporary times, post-Cold-War society has gotten used to the fact that a total nuclear disarmament was a fairy tale that rose from the euphoria after the sudden and unexpected collapse of the East-West antagonism. From a military perspective, nations and collective security alliances are very well advised to sustain a minimum striking capacity and to use the strategy of redundancy. That means that several alliance members are obliged to provide a minimum striking capability with a minimum strength in ground, air, and naval forces in the first stages of an armed confrontation. Nuclear weapons are part of this strategic and tactical redundancy. If one member is unable to fulfil its military obligations within the alliance – for whatever reasons – others have to provide them.
In the Cold War, Germany has been a front-line state and a potential battle field in case of World War III. Most likely, it would have also become the first country for nuclear weapons to be used in combat. As already mentioned, Germany would have been the first one to be hit by nuclear destruction on a full scale. With the very recent policy change in collective nuclear sharing strategy, Germany has finally admitted that it has to be part of the nuclear deterrence strategy, no matter if critics might blame this policy as old-fashioned or useless. As long as it is required by the alliance, it will have to be kept alive.
Furthermore, despite the apparent lack of “obvious” threats, Germany cannot and must neither opt out of the collective security system, nor the nuclear sharing strategy. In terms of collective security, every single alliance member will have to be part of the security system and has to do its job within its own military capacity range. However, in a permanent economic crisis, the public states that the defence budget has to be the first one to be cut for overall budget reconciliation. This is in fact a dangerous and not feasible demand. A serious budget cut in defence will jeopardize the alliance member’s ability to sustainably contribute to the overall collective security framework. In the end, it also downsizes its responsibilities to the alliance, and its own national defence and security capabilities.
Germany was a main carrier for nuclear weapons, and it will go on being one. The threat of a full scale nuclear exchange might be negligible now, but the world is still a highly dangerous place, and there is a need for a strong and effective deterrence. Nuclear weapons are part of the armed forces, and Germany has finally learnt to live with the bomb. Even in case of a need for their use, it is up to the President of the United States to give the order to deploy these weapons. Germany has trained to take care of them, and they will do it in compliance with the alliance.
(This article was originally published on http://ollys-blog.blogspot.de)
The author is an independent blogger and political analyst with a main focus on security and defence, EU affairs, and German foreign policy
Yes, we can? Not really – A review on foreign policy under the Obama Administration
September 1st, 2012By Oliver Krumme.
With Mitt Romney officially nominated as Republican Presidential candidate for the U.S. Presidential elections in November 2012, the election campaign has now officially begun. While Romney addressed the concept of strong leadership during his nomination speech on the Republican nomination convention in Tampa, Florida a few days ago, scholars and policy analysts start to evaluate the implications of U.S. foreign policy for the next few years.
When Obama was elected President in 2008, it was above all a relieved Europe that anticipated the Transatlantic Relations to be restored to a normal state again, after the hick-ups under the former George W. Bush administration. Everyone was not only expecting that the U.S. would regard Europe as an equal partner, but also that the Obama Administration would reject the interventionist foreign policy approach chosen by his Republican predecessor. Europe, and above all Germany, was significantly rejecting the neoconservative interventional approach in the framework of the anti-terror strategy.
Expectations and hopes were high, and Europe was caught by an overall euphoria for the new President Barack Obama not only to make significant and sustainable changes on the national, but also on the international level. Now, four years after the “Yes, we can!” move, we have to admit that the changes we expected did not really occur; at least not in a constructive way to reinforce the Transatlantic bridge.
Compared with the foreign policy of his unpopular predecessor, Obama’s foreign policy approach was rather weak. In terms of foreign intervention in the view of George W. Bush’s anti-terror strategy, Obama was keen to withdraw U.S. troops from the crisis regions in question, but without achieving greater success, except from the assassination of Osama bin Laden in May 2011. Compared to his predecessors (George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, or George Bush Sr.), Obama’s foreign policy was marked by a – possibly unintended – self-limitation, despite the potential to implement strong and overall soft policy potential, specifically in terms of global warming, alternative energy sources, or development aid.
However, even these fields remained remarkably poorly addressed in the view of the on-going economic crisis in the U.S. Inner affairs predominantly marked the Obama presidency, leaving foreign policy action – the possibly strongest policy field after World War II – on the side line. The U.S. pulls out of Iraq and Afghanistan, leaving both countries in a dangerous and unstable turmoil, without sustainable stability or remotely strong good governance structures. Also, in further security implementation, the U.S. remained conspicuously restrained, especially regarding the Middle East conflict. Neither did the State Department under Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton, successfully promote a collective security policy for the Syria question, nor did it significantly progress the peace-negotiations in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Also, the U.S. is reluctant to moderate the boiling Iranian-Israeli conflict, which is on the brink of eruption. Obviously, the U.S. is not eager to join Israel in a potential war against Iran – that might have been different if George W. Bush was still in office.
Above all, the transatlantic cooperation remained on a low level, with important security policy agendas and strategies in NATO unresolved. More or less outside the collective NATO framework, the Obama administration is about to complete the plans of his predecessor to install a missile defence system in Poland; ironic, since Obama originally planned to perform an antagonistic foreign and security policy approach.
It is possibly Obama’s preliminary wish you do a complete U-turn in foreign policy, by waving goodbye to Bush’s interventionist foreign and security policy agenda, and to rekindle international cooperation. However, it turns out that Obama’s “changing” policy did not lead to a closer international cooperation. In fact, the U.S. foreign policy was considerably non-interventionist, lacking clear and strong policy settings which would have been strongly required in Iraq and Afghanistan. The failures of Bush’s interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the failures to implement strong post-war reconstruction and political stability reconciliation in Iraq were not revised by Obama. Aside from the U.S.’ withdrawal – which remembers of its “escape” from Vietnam back in April 1975 – further contribution to Iraqi of Afghan stabilization is questionable, and its downsized scale will certainly be not beneficial for long-term peace-keeping or even peace-enforcement.
Also, specifically on the transatlantic arena international cooperation remained weak. The European allies are disappointed of this “change” in U.S. foreign policy, and it was certainly not what European foreign policy makers had in mind. On the other hand, even the EU failed to set up a closer cooperation, since both sides – the U.S. and the EU – were predominantly focusing on their own economic and financial problems. However, rather than cooperating, both sides of the Atlantic accuse each other for addressing the crisis in the wrong manner. There is no doubt that the current economic crisis was caused in the U.S. through the subprime mortgage meltdown and the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy in 2008, but the current epicentre is located in Europe, and everyone in Europe and in the U.S. is waiting for the other either to start a helpful counter-measure, or to cause the next economic set back.
Foreign policy will definitely be an agenda point for both candidates during the campaign rallies, for Obama as well as for Romney. Romney, however, blames Obama for having lost the U.S.’ leadership position in global politics. He has a point since the U.S. lost some of its leadership potential in the past four years, but on the other hand, Obama was sensitive enough not to push the U.S. as the sole global leader in a more and more dependent and vulnerably networked world. From a European perspective, the transatlantic bridge will go on being a difficult construct – but possibly more with a Republican President back in the White House.
The outcome is still open, and it is most likely to be a close run for the ballot boxes again. Both candidates, however, must bring foreign policy and the transatlantic cooperation back on top of the agenda. If they fail to do so, then the U.S.’ credibility and responsibility will be challenged by another rising global actor. And these actors are already queuing.
(This article was originally published on: http://ollys-blog.blogspot.de)
The Ghosts we are calling, again – How the world drops into a new depression
August 28th, 2012By Oliver Krumme.
“Depression” – It is a word that seemed to be forgotten over the past decades, but it is coming back now. While everyone in the free market economy was certain that such an economic disaster that happened in the late 1920ies would never come back, we have to be aware that we are on the brink of a new global depression.
The signs for that are obvious: a worldwide constant economic downturn (especially in the Western world), increasing budget deficits, the uncertainty of the future of the European Monetary Union, a global increase of unemployment, exploding costs for water, food, and electricity, and an increasing poverty all over the world. The essential key factors for a new depression are given, and this one will probably be more severe than the one that started on the 24th of October 1929.
However, there are a number of differences between the “new depression” and the old depression that started on that so called “Black Friday” (this term was wrong per se, as it actually happened on a Thursday). Back in 1929, it was the collapse of the New York Stock Exchange that unleashed the global depression, leading to economic devastation all over the world. Our “new depression” – if you want to call it that way – started in 2008 with the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers. Back in the late 20ies, it took the world many years to recover, with a notable help of World War II, which in fact helped the U.S. economy to recover through a massive investment in arms production and war efforts – and in a certain way also through Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal Policy. In our time, the world is still suffering from the long-term effects of the Lehman Brothers crash and the U.S. subprime mortgage meltdown. In fact global economy did not really recover from this macroeconomic shock.
The Lehman Brothers Crash – the “big bang” for the new depression – did cause the downturns in economically vulnerable countries, specifically in Southern Europe. But even presumably “stable” countries like Iceland out of a sudden felt the full impact of the highly sensible threads between countries and private banks, which were supposed to be “too big to fall”. Lehman Brothers proved, however, that no one is too big to fall – not even the U.S., if it gets from bad to worse. In the contemporary crisis, more countries are facing a fiscal collapse than ever before. Global economy has reached such a dense interdependence that nearly none of the national economics remains remotely unaffected by macro- or microeconomic shocks of another actor – state, bank, or any other economic actor. And once again, nearly every national economy is closely dependent on the well-being or the non-well-being of the U.S. economy. It was the case in 1929, and it was definitely right in September 2008.
The Great Depression not only led to a global economic crisis, in the long-term it also led to the biggest catastrophe of the 20th century: namely World War II. A logical implication, since a widespread economic crisis is nearly always followed by a massive political and humanitarian disaster with devastating consequences. But this does neither mean that the current crisis we are experiencing will automatically lead to another global war or a wide scale armed confrontation, nor that there is any automatism leading to a war in general – either on a regional or a global scale. The risk for that – however – is given, and the current security vulnerability in some regions might lead to the same deduction as it was the case in the late 1920ies and 30ies.
Ever since “9/15” (September 15, 2008: the date of the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy), the world is stuck in a permanent financial crisis, without a real recovery or at least a tailing off. The dangerous matter, however, is the fact that we have accepted the crisis as a permanent state and that we do not expect the crisis from easing off, but to deteriorate instead. Everyone seems to wait for the next evil tidings to arrive. Evidently, Europe is in particular looking at Greece for the final big crash. But rather than ending the Greek odyssey with a Greek bankruptcy and an exit of the Euro-Zone, which might possibly lead to a limitation of the full effects and possibly make the final U-turn out of the recession, some European policy makes – and above all Greece – desperately attempt to win some extra time, to prevent the opening of the Pandora’s Box. Since no one can predict the full dimension of such a “Grexit” (neither on a European, nor on a global scale), the new policy in Europe seems to be: prevent, postpone, but don’t let it happen. Anyway, Germany is not interested in another postponement of Greek obligations for austerity.
Everyone is waiting for the next big bang to arrive, the big bang that will throw our world from a global recession to the next global depression. It is most certain to happen; the question is just, when exactly. No one wants to imagine the consequences, since many people are already struggling to get along, especially when they are caught in a crisis state.
Another question remains: which day of the week will be the next one to be classified as “black”?
In 30 days to Armageddon – How an Israeli-Iranian war can lead to World War III
August 19th, 2012By Oliver Krumme.
It seems to be a decided fact that Israel is determined to launch an attack on Iran. Being driven by paranoia and the collectively spread fear that Iran might attack Israel with nuclear weapons or even develop nuclear capabilities, Israel is keen to set an example against its main adversary and conduct a – what it calls – “30 days war”.
According to information by Matan Vilnai, the Israeli Home Front and Civil Defence Minister, Israel is prepared for an armed confrontation as it has never been before. Despite the readiness, he admits that the Israeli casualties would exceed at least 500. The plans for a limited 30 days operation not only include the destruction of Iranian nuclear facilities, but especially war essential communication and transport infrastructures. The method for such attacks will be a combination of conventional and cyber warfare.
Harsh and exaggerated sabre-rattling again, or serious pre-war preparations and a final warning to Tehran? Even if a 30 days war was seriously considered, it would become obsolete after the first bullet shot. No war did actually follow 100 % according to plan – this is a simple fact of military reality, and no matter how well the Israeli army might be prepared for such a military operation, the consequences would get out of hand in a fraction of a minute. In fact, the 30 days war could last much longer – a simple and likely matter of modern warfare.
Western experts are seriously concerned about the outcome of a potential war between Israel and Iran. Although both countries are relatively isolated in political terms, the potential to drag more countries (neighbouring and greater powers) into the conflict is almost certain. The question however is, what consequences will occur in the case that Israel attacks Iran on a full scale.
As I have mentioned in an earlier blog post (http://ollys-blog.blogspot.de/2012/06/countdown-for-nuclear-war-arms-race-in.html ), Israel is anticipating Iran to have already crossed an imaginary border line to achieve own nuclear capabilities. With Israel as the only nuclear power in the Middle East, it won’t accept another nuclear power in its immediate neighbourhood. Being nearly entirely surrounded by enemies, Israel will on the one hand be determined to maintain its nuclear monopoly in the region and fight any threat arising at the nuclear horizon. But on the other hand, Israel cannot be sure to gain any ally for this war. The potentially only ally for Israel – the USA – is reluctant to join Israel in a military adventure. With the U.S. entering the main stage of presidential election campaigning, it is highly questionable if the U.S. will be ready and willing to join Israel. Any war commitment or participation – directly indirectly – is a classic election killer, and none of the competitors – neither incumbent President Barack Obama, nor his Republican opponent Mitt Romney – would be thrilled by another military operation in the Middle East, especially not after the disaster in Iraq.
According to a German Middle East expert, Israel is anticipating that the U.S. might assist Israel before the presidential elections, since it assumes that President Obama cannot ignore the powerful Israeli lobby in the U.S. But will the Obama administration take the risk of a military support for a few more votes? For Israel, this pre-election period is possibly the only occasion to gain the big brother USA for a war, after the elections it might be even harder, no matter if Obama will go into a second term, or if Romney succeeds. Also, Israel presumably elaborates the current moment as a best possible time for an attack. The reason for this is simple: Iran is stuck in an economic crisis, and Tehran’s long-year partner in the Middle East Syria under Assad is crumbling and drowning in a civil war. As a result Iran is more isolated in the Middle East region than ever before.
But no matter if Israel succeeds to gain the U.S. as a comrade in arms or not, the Israeli leadership is blinded by its own paranoid behaviourism of desperate pre-emptive, self-defence measures. The long-term consequences of a war against Iran will not be limited to the region alone, and we are not just talking about economic consequences. Despite the simple matter of exploding oil prices all over the world and a destabilization of the Middle East region; a new potential crisis it will erupt into a global crisis with all major global powers being involved.
Israel will call for its American and European allies for support while Iran is likely to be backed up by China and Russia. As a strategic target the Strait of Hormuz will be the main goal number one for naval blockades. A blocked Strait of Hormuz will not only bring the maritime trade to a halt and lead to economic downturns all over the oil dependent world; it will also be the epicentre for a naval confrontation between the global naval powers. In short, a regional crisis would deteriorate into a global challenge of the existing global power USA against its old adversary Russia and the emerging military power China: a highly dangerous and explosive constellation.
Despite the global consequences of a “30 days war”, Israel would have no chance to win a war against Iran. A war against Iran is utter madness; a statement not only by Middle East experts, but also by any reasonable policy maker. In terms of tactical forces the Iranian army is superior in numbers regarding man power and conventional arms, whereas the Israeli forces have strategic and technological superiority. However, the civilian casualties on the Israeli side will outnumber the estimated 500 military casualties by far. Even the Israeli population is reluctant towards a war against Iran, and Israeli international relations academics are aware of the global impact of an uprising conflict. Additionally, in terms of international law “Estoppel” provisions, Israel cannot force Iran to respect the international nuclear arms regime, if Israel does not respect it either. With Israel as the only nuclear power in the Middle East, the Israeli government uses its nuclear capabilities to blackmail its neighbourhood and also any potentially rising rival.
The question remains: will Israel take the risk to attack Iran, or not? Basically, Israel can only lose such a war – not only in military terms. And it will not just be Israel to lose this war, but the entire region, and the world as well. The economic costs would be disastrous, the global war potential is massive, and it would also lead to a vast credibility loss for the western community, if it commits itself to such an unpredictable and unreasonable military adventure. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his Minister of Defence Ehud Barak are very well advised to take all consequences into consideration if they are seriously willing to drag the Middle East into an unlimited crisis and a full scale war. The only way the western community could possibly convince Israel not to attack Iran would be through mere diplomatic action – by suspending all diplomatic relations with Israel and expelling all Israeli diplomats from their territories: a harsh measure in terms of international diplomacy, but probably not enough to prevent a war. From a German perspective this would possibly not even happen, since Germany is keen to support Israel by all diplomatic means or through indirect military aid by arms sales (as proven by submarine sales in the past months).
An Israeli attack would be a breach of international law, and it is certain that the international community cannot tolerate such a violation. On the other hand no one can be really cured from his own madness just by words or powerless action. In any way, the gates to Armageddon are about to be pushed wide open. Volker Perthes, director of the German foreign and security policy think tank SWP (“Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik”) states that a war between Israel and Iran will have the potential to initiate World War III.
Evidently, the very moment when Israel really launches an attack on Iran, we can start the countdown to World War III.
Do the Europeans need a new elation for Europe? Rising EU scepticism
August 11th, 2012By Oliver Krumme.
Greece almost dead, Spain on a continuous decline, increasing anti-EU tendencies all over Europe. The German weekly news magazine “Spiegel” recently published a list of “Europe’s most dangerous politicians”, with high ranked European personalities from different member states either attacking one of the crisis states, the Euro, or the EU as a whole; not lacking aggressive rhetoric and polemic statements which are close to xenophobia.
While German Markus Söder (State Finance Secretary of the Federal State of Bavaria) is eager to throw Greece out of the Euro-Zone in order to make an example, to scare off the other crisis states to go down the same road as Greece has been doing for years and forcing them to adopt the austerity programmes by the EU and the IMF. In the meantime, Greek Alexis Tsipras of the leftist Syriza Party rejects any on-going negotiations with the Troika, specifically firing at Germany as the what he says “main cause” for Greece’s crash. But it is above all notorious and reckless EU-basher Nigel Farage from the UK Independence Party and Member of the European Parliament, who does not miss any opportunity to use the plenary sessions of the European Parliament for his personal attacks either against blame the European Commission, Germany, France, or any other policy making institution of the EU as a “fascist construct” to control all of Europe and its citizens.
These are just a few names representing the increasing group of EU sceptics. In the view of an imminent failure of the monetary union, EU sceptics regard this as an obvious proof for a future collapse of the European Union as an institutional construct as a whole. The general public blames the lack of transparency of centralized EU regulations and their decision making processes, the apparently greedy Eurocrats earning high salaries while the general wages and salaries are on the decline, and the economic downturn for which the Euro is being blamed for, leading to an overall distrust of the European population against the EU – even despite its integration successes. Because of the repeatedly stated accusation that the European Union is a non-democratic construct, the voices for a Europe wide plebiscite regarding a highly discussed political union are getting louder. Even the German government is now seriously considering a referendum in Germany about the future of Europe.
It is currently en vogue to blame the EU and above all the Euro for all economic misery spreading on the continent. The question is: will Europe’s decline be accelerated through the public distrust? And how can politics, society, and economy rekindle the Europeans’ enthusiasm for Europe?
Evidently, mass media is having a significant contribution to the anti-EU tendencies through a distorted coverage of EU policies. They were showing a presumably empty plenary in Strasbourg or Brussels, MEPs signing in for plenary or committee sessions to receive further session payments – without actually attending them, a blurred correspondence about EU decisions and regulations made on the European level and implemented to the national level, and the obvious inability of European policy makers to control the scale of the economic crisis. This disturbed image makes it hardly possible to win a broad public support for a European identity and a common feeling that the EU did more for the overall benefit of the modern European society than any political and economic system before, especially more than on an exclusively national level, as history has proven many times.
One of the main blames from public has to be found, however, in the EU’s administrative and bureaucratic monstrosity, which – even for scholars of European Studies – is hard to comprehend in detail. EU sceptics accuse the EU bureaucratic mechanisms to have lifted national bureaucracies to a level in which it is no longer clear which regulations and directives still have a national or even a regional relevance, and especially how it affects a citizen’s individual life. In individual policy fields such as local administration the European principle of subsidiarity is lacking national, regional, and local support. The citizens are not being sufficiently informed about the European legal framework affecting national, regional, and local legislation, resulting in a general opinion of top down administrative policy implementation from Brussels. Some “evil voices” might even state that Europe has turned into a Brussel-Eurocrats controlled “dictatorship” as they are intellectually not capable or willing to comprehend the complexity of a Europe wide legal and political framework leading to provisions that are applicable in all EU member states. The mass media controlled general public replies to this complexity with a notorious “we don’t understand it, so we oppose it” attitude. In the long-term, this attitude leads to a “don’t bother me with that” mentality and an overall Europe apathy and accepted ignorance.
This approach leads to a severe withdrawal of general public support, not only from the European institutions, but from Europe as a whole. A European Union that cannot longer rely on a general public support will lack democratic legitimacy, which in fact is already suffering from a plunging public bias, not only through the already low European election turnouts. The European institutions and the national governments will have to address this rising “EU fatigue” by pointing out the overall achievements despite the economic crisis. The citizens have to be made aware of their consequences of continuous disenchantment for European politics and they have to be re-involved in active European affairs. The recent plans of national governments to involve the European citizens in a referendum about the future of the Euro as the common currency has the potential to rekindle European awareness in public, but it could also backfire. If the turnout at a referendum remains at such a low level as for European parliamentary elections, the entire democratic legitimacy of the European integration project will be questioned. However, even if the turnout is high, the result could be just as severe as non-participation, assuming that the people vote against the Euro and in favour of a break-up of the Euro-Zone. In both cases the political elite will have to decide whether the referendum is politically and legally binding or not.
Maybe it is redundant to paraphrase former US President John F. Kennedy’s famous words: “Ask not what Europe can do for you, ask what you can do for Europe!” Turning the backs to Europe means that all the integration successes of the past decades will be wasted in vain. But above all, a failure of the Euro and the EU will mean that the clocks of history will be turned backwards, to a time without a common currency, without generally applicable consumer protection laws, without the chance to live, study, and work in another European country without extra permissions, and with border controls which will set an end to free travel inside Europe. Everyone criticising Europe and its overall structures and successes for a peaceful reconciliation of the European continent will have to ask himself, if he really wants to turn back the wheels of time and ditch all the freedoms and liberties he has been taking for granted for the past decades. If you do so, you are very well advised to rethink your decision one more time. Everyone rejecting the European idea is free to leave the system.
In the end, it is our choice. And no matter how the result might look like, we will have to take all the resulting consequences. We will have to pay a high price, for sure. But it will be much higher if we decide to set and end to Europe.
(This article was also published on http://ollys-blog.blogspot.de)
Falling down – How a dropping flag represents Spain
August 2nd, 2012By Oliver Krumme.
This noon, the giant Spanish flag at Madrid’s Plaza de Colón fell down from its 50 metres flagpole. A broken suspension and a worn rope were responsible for the 294 square metres flag to drop on the square that was named after Christopher Columbus, right in the middle of Madrid City. With a length of 21 metres, a width of 14 metres, and a total weight of 25 kilograms, this flag is the biggest of all Spanish flags in the world and holds the record for all Spanish flags in the Guinness Book of World Records.
This flag’s sudden and unexpected drop is symptomatic for the whole Spanish situation, although Spain’s decline was neither unexpected, nor sudden. With a notorious decline of its economic performance, a constant rise of unemployment, and an increasing brain drain out of Spain, it seems that it is only a matter of time until the biggest country on the Iberian peninsula will suffer the same disastrous long-term effects of unlimited debts, permanent recession and deteriorating welfare system as Greece has been experiencing for years.
Spain is desperately seeking for more and fresh assets in order to rescue its economy, and it is having high hopes that the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) will receive additional funds through the European Central Bank (ECB). The very recent plans of buying bonds from crisis countries (such as Spanish bonds) at low interest rates in order to receive fresh assets from the ECB might give Spain the possibility to borrow money for very low interest rates. The ECB’s decision to lower the prime rate down to 0.75% in July 2012 makes it possible to get new loans for very little money. As a result, Spain would be able to refund the most urgent sectors, and support the government’s austerity plans.
It is in fact the current conservative government and Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy that are struggling to implement their strict and vigorous austerity programme. With severe and painful cuts in the public sector, this austerity programmes are having horrific consequences on the labour market, the health care system, and the entire welfare system. Spain’s unemployment rate has nearly reached 25%, nearly 50% of the young people. Although highly qualified and trained for every high level job sector, an entire generation of young professionals is being wasted and forced either to work on very little pay and on limited contracts, or to seek new chances and challenges outside Spain. Spain is not only ruining and losing its academic and technical offspring and young professionals, it is also losing its potential to find a way out of the crisis by its own.
Desperation in Spanish public is enormous. Of those Spanish high potentials who escaped the misery in order to seek for new happiness abroad, their voices scream out a high level of personal disappointment, desperation, and resignation. But above all, it is a massive disgust about the own government’s austerity plans and against Germany – which they claim to be the main cause for the on-going economic downturn. Especially Spanish emigrants blame the German government’s strict Europe wide austerity “decree” which – as they say – not only keeps on ruining Spain and Europe, but also their own personal prospects.
The reasons for Spain’s long and deep fall are manifold, but still have a relatively easy cause: it started with the real estate collapse by 2008, nearly identical to the US mortgage crash the same year, to which the Spanish real estate market was highly dependent. The Spaniards have heavily invested in real estates by large credit finances. There was no region in Spain that was not under wide scaled construction in terms of house building – one construction site after another, especially alongside the Mediterranean coast lines. Now, with the construction sector nearly non-existent, thousands of empty and unfinished apartments marking the landscapes, and thousands of people drowning in their own mortgages and debts (also because they cannot sell their houses and apartments without suffering painful losses), the entire Spanish economy was dragged down by the collapsed real estate and construction sector, with horrific consequences on all the other sectors. Also, similar to Greece, the Spanish public sector was overfunded for years, so was the agricultural sector through EU subsidies.
Spanish public is discussing how to rescue the Spanish economy and the labour market before the crisis gets from bad to worse. The Greek Sword of Damocles is hanging over Spain on a very thin string, and Madrid is desperately yelling for a European solution and aids from the Frankfurt based ECB. However, it is questionable how quickly and to which extent the ECB and above all the EU Member States are willing to grant more funds to Spain. Evidently, the current ESM budget of 700 billion Euros does not seem enough for all crisis candidates, and the others (Italy, Portugal, and Cyprus) are already calling for more funds – not mentioning Greece, by the way.
The flag at the Plaza de Colón was recovered by a group of the armed forces (strictly according to protocoled rules) and was hoisted back to its majestic place the same day, now waving again above the city of Madrid. However, Spain cannot be re-hoisted that easily, it only knows one direction: downwards. And the perspectives remain bleak.
*This article was also published on http://ollys-blog.blogspot.de*
Increasing panic in the EU – Saving the Euro at all costs?
August 1st, 2012By Oliver Krumme.
There is a very simple psychological effect when you are in serious trouble. If the situation becomes bleak and you don’t find a way out, you might start to panic at a certain point. And as soon as someone starts panicking you cannot expect reasonable and rational solutions or outcomes, you start to do very stupid things. And then, everything gets from bad to worse.
This effect is currently occurring in the Euro-Zone. With a total amount of around 700 billion Euros, the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) is already bursting all imaginable amounts of funds, and still it doesn’t seem enough. With Greece facing its fiscal and economic death, the voices for an unlimited ESM fund are echoing louder and louder. The European Central Bank (ECB) already lowered the interest rates to such a low level, that it seriously affects national pension funds and life insurance payments in a way that their return on investment value will be nearly nullified.
According to plans of supporters of the ESM – such as France and Italy – the ESM shall buy big amounts of crisis states’ bonds from states like Italy and Spain. Then, the ESM deposits these bonds as collateral security at the ECB and receives fresh assets in order to stabilize the crisis states. In short, this strategy would open an unlimited access to low interest rate bonds and a permanent funding of the crisis states.
Endless money supply? It looks like a bottomless pit, and it actually is one. Although the release of additional assets might be a temporary solution for short-term budget reconciliation, in the long-term such an infinite loan will increases the overall budget deficit. The outcome is pretty obvious, the crisis states’ collapse will only be postponed, but not avoided; and the awakening will be even harsher, the collapse will be far more severe, with even more horrific consequences for the country’s population and the entire economic performance of the Euro-Zone, with the European Monetary Union (EMU) to fall apart rapidly.
In order to save the Euro as the common European currency, the top policy makers are considering any wicked possibility to protect the Euro-Zone from any possible break-up, or at least to postpone the break-up of single Euro-Zone countries such as Greece. According to recent reports, the amount of available cash money reserves in Greece nearly equals zero. Being terrified to death by the unpredictable short-term and long-term consequences of a single break-up or a Greek bankruptcy, and the Pandora’s Box to be opened and to unleash all evil falling down on Europe, none of the political decision makers seem to see the obvious impossibility to maintain the current economic and monetary system in Europe. The imminent Greek collapse and the deteriorating Spanish situation are a dead giveaway of the EMU’s failure, and the failure of the national central bank system to be replaced by a centralized monetary system.
The most imminent danger of such an endless ESM fund is inflation. Unlimited money supply and low interest rates massively increase the inflation threat, and this will heavily affect the real economy and the citizens’ own financial assets. The ECB attempts to reduce the inflation hazard by a massive increase of its own reserves. Also, the inflation risk keeps rising if the banks grant big quantities of loans – something that will not occur in a full range recession. Still, the fear for massive cost rise is latent, especially in Germany which has witnessed the effects of hyperinflation in the 1920s and still is terrified of any potential inflation menace.
Again, it is the German government heavily opposing the idea of the unlimited funds accesses. For obvious reasons, because the ESM could even withdraw financial assets from Germany to support the crisis countries and Germany would not even be able to veto this decision. But it is not the matter of fact that Germany will once again be the main financial contributor to the ESM (with probably up to additional 80 billion Euros), it is mainly a matter of rationality against massively increasing panic reactions.
Some may argue that it would be more beneficial to remove some pressure form the crisis countries in order to give them a chance for a slight recovery or a short break to reconsider the austerity programmes. However, under very special circumstances it is more effective to set them actually under pressure. This rule especially applies to European history, and Europe has once again reached this point.
On the last EU Summit in Brussels in June 2012, ECB President Mario Draghi announced to do anything necessary to preserve the Euro-Zone and to avoid a break-up of any member state. The plans to expand the ESM funds certainly work with this statement. However, Draghi’s comment sounds fatalistic and martial, and he was using terms we are usually used to a situation when imminent failure is nigh and inevitable. Evidently, we are facing such a situation again, and Draghi was obviously panicking already.
*This article was published on http://ollys-blog.blogspot.de*
Change of Paradigms – German Arms Sales Replacing Active Military Missions?
July 31st, 2012By Oliver Krumme.
Arms sales are not a completely new trade; it is probably one of the oldest businesses of mankind. With Germany as one of the leading arms exporters in the world, the numbers of sold weapon systems keep continuously growing. Now, these sales seem to increase in the Middle East, with Qatar as a potentially new key market for German weapon producers.
Analysts interpret the increasing German arms sales as a change of contemporary German foreign and security policy, which is undergoing a thorough and profound evaluation and re-structuring process. The list of German arms customers is long, starting with more than 200 sold Leopard-2 tanks to Saudi Arabia last year, including 100 more tanks to Indonesia, and now with Qatar in the potential customer line.
This “new deal” is part of a complete change in German foreign policy, intending to reduce all running out of area military missions in Afghanistan and at the Horn of Africa to a lower level and replacing it with increasing arms sales instead. The reasons for this are obvious: arms sales are far more beneficial than direct military missions in crisis regions, eliminating any risks for own soldiers and civil servants deployed to the respective regions, and provide the chance for allies to defend themselves rather than deploying own troops to the region in question. This was the same strategy the Nixon-Administration has adopted after the failure in Vietnam.
Regarding the obviously failed nation-building efforts in Afghanistan, the on-going and deteriorating financial crisis in Europe, and the overall reform of the German armed forces, the Merkel-Administration finds itself in a delicate situation, struggling to reduce costs on security and defence on the one hand, and trying to maintain enough striking capabilities in all regions where Germany has deployed troops – above all in Afghanistan and at the naval “Operation Atalanta” at the Horn of Africa – on the other hand. Although the German contingent to Afghanistan is the third biggest of all ISAF contributing countries and the Germans suffered far less casualties than other nations (e.g. the US, the UK, or Canada), public support for the mission has plunged, and any out of area mission of the Germany army is being widely questioned.
So, the question is: does an increasing export of German weapons and increasing arms sales to partner nations contribute to global security in a same way and with the same amount of efficiency like the mere contribution of troops in a crisis region?
This question sounds redundant, because there are various flaws in this simplified assumption.
First – and obviously, just selling war material to a country does not imply that they are going to use them for crisis prevention, peace enforcement, or even peace keeping measures. A reasonable and responsible arms trade has to ensure that the sold weapon systems are supposed to be used for pure self-defence measures. However, the term “self-defence” is very vague in many cases, and the international monitoring instruments are rather faint, or they are not sufficiently and consequently implicated.
Secondly, looking at the payrolls of German arms sales, you find states which are known for not being the most democratic ones, especially Saudi Arabia. This case is an indication for a linkage of arms sales with significant and visible good governance principles, combined with an internationally confirmed statement by the international community that there is a necessary need for arms sales in terms of exclusive self-defence purposes.
Thirdly, if the policy that arms sales would be more useful than direct military action in the crisis region, then Germany will have to sell arms to Afghanistan. The reason why it is not the case is simple: Afghanistan is not able to pay for modern German weapons, nor even able to operate them without proper and professional instruction.
Germany will have to rethink its foreign and security policy strategy, especially regarding the imminent withdrawal from Afghanistan within the next two years, the withdrawal from Bosnia & Herzegovina, and the on-going reform process of the armed forces. It is highly questionable if the Bundeswehr will still be able to fulfil its global security tasks by adopting this strategy. With the current foreign policy implementations, Germany will not be able to efficiently implement security enforcing measures. The plans to withdraw the nearly 5,000 soldiers out from Afghanistan not only provides a negative signal to the overall ISAF mission and all other countries based in Afghanistan, it also leaves the Afghan security forces – the ANA and the ANP – in a pure insecurity environment. Even arms sales will be totally insufficient in the Afghan case, or even in any other crisis region in the world.
The German army remained mainly inactive during the Cold War regarding out of area missions. Now, more than 20 years after the end of the Cold War and with several past and currently running mission around the world, it appears that Germany feels itself uncomfortable on this international arena. Avoidance, however, and outsourcing international commitments to arms sales, is the absolute wrong signal, with a severe risk of international credibility loss.
Germany has the choice: being a strong international security actor, or just an arms trader without further active military missions. Combining both would be an ideal option. But, is Germany ready for it? Unfortunately, it does not seem so.