portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary global

imperialism & war

Germany: Green Party attacks peace marches

Reinhard Bütikofer, who along with Claudia Roth is co-leader of the Greens, expressly defended Germany's international military missions. The world would be "far more uncertain" without the deployment of German troops in Afghanistan or in the Lebanon, he told the media.
German peace groups recently organized their traditional "Easter March" against war and militarism. This year, the protests were centred on the Iraq war and the expansion of the German military mission in Afghanistan Leading Green Party politicians, whose parliamentary group had voted for the deployment of the Luftwaffe (Air Force) in the south of Afghanistan, have now attacked those organising the Easter Marches.

Green Party leader Claudia Roth accused the organizers of the anti-war protests of having only a "black-and-white view" According to Roth, their statements said "notoriously little" about how such international crises could be countered. Too often, she said, the view of those on the Easter Marches was limited to a narrow "rejection of the military" option, while the United Nations did not even rate a mention in the calls for the demonstrations. This was a "failure of peace politics." Instead, some of the appeals to support the demonstrations gave the impression that the US government, the European Union and the German political establishment were "a single axis of evil," Roth said.

Franziska Eichstädt-Bohlig, the leader of the Green Party parliamentary group in the Berlin city legislature, derided the Easter Marches as "not a contemporary form of anti-war protest." The peace marches have decayed into "a ritual," which was only directed against war, but offered no "differentiated and positive answers" to complex and contradictory situations. World conflicts could not be solved by "disarmament alone" The world was more complicated than just "for or against peace," said Eichstädt-Bohlig.

Reinhard Bütikofer, who along with Claudia Roth is co-leader of the Greens, expressly defended Germany's international military missions. The world would be "far more uncertain" without the deployment of German troops in Afghanistan or in the Lebanon, he told the media.

In a press interview, Bütikofer opined regarding the peace role of the German Armed Forces: "Without the necessary civilian construction of the country in Afghanistan and also protecting the important democratic impulse militarily, nothing could succeed."

This is pure war propaganda. In reality, the NATO troops in Afghanistan provide just as little protection for "democracy" as the American troops that are occupying Iraq They are protecting the puppet regime of Hamid Karzai, who came to power through the US military and is subservient to the imperialist powers. Karzai's influence does not extend beyond Kabul, and popular resistance to his regime is constantly growing.

In order to support Karzai, the German Armed Forces are working in the north of the country with local warlords and drug barons. The warlords' trade in weapons and drugs is tolerated, and in return, the warlords agree not to undertake any action against the weak central government. Last year in Afghanistan, more opium was produced than ever before.

In the south, the suppression of the resistance takes on ever more brutal forms. Thousands of civilians are falling victim to what is euphemistically called "the fight against the Taliban." In the meantime, the occupation troops are deeply hated throughout the population.

As with the war against Iraq, the great powers are also pursuing imperialist goals in the occupation of Afghanistan. In their struggle for control of energy sources and for geo-strategic interests, Afghanistan takes on an extraordinarily important position, with its borders on Iran, Pakistan and the former Soviet republics of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.

The open attack by the Greens on the pacifists organizing the Easter Marches (the Network of Peace-cooperatives) marks a new stage in the party's turn to the right.

Since they entered the German government in 1998 and Green leader Joschka Fischer took over responsibility for foreign policy, the Greens have abandoned their former pacifist views and become enthusiastic proponents of international military deployments. But they had always tried to retain the pacifists within their ranks, at least by making various verbal concessions. That is no longer the case. Now, the Greens are attacking the peace movement in a way that in the past would have been expected only from the Christian Democrats. There are essentially two reasons for this.

First, the time has passed in which German foreign policy could be disguised with pacifist clichés. Washington's aggressive foreign policy and the American debacle in Iraq have also forced Germany to defend its international interests with increasing aggressiveness and with military means.

Former Green Party Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer expressed this clearly in a speech at Berlin's Humboldt University in mid-March. He began his speech with the question, "Are we Europeans prepared to solve the problems that have resulted from the self-weakening of the United States as a result of their policy of unilateralism, and which led them into the disaster of the Iraq war?" And he ended the speech with the demand for a "new foreign and security policy responsibility" for Europe under German leadership.

Fischer expressly endorsed a stronger military commitment. Of the German deployment to the Lebanon, he said the present situation was no longer acceptable in which the German navy is limited to the Lebanese coast, keeping the "extraordinarily dangerous Armada of the Hezbollah" in check, while other allies are "pulling the chestnuts out of the fire" in the country itself.

Second, since the Greens failed to secure a majority together with the Social Democratic Party (SPD), they are aspiring to a coalition with the Christian Democrats. A coalition of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and Christian Social Union (CSU), the Liberal Democrats (FDP) and the Greens would enjoy a numerical majority in the Bundestag (federal parliament) and could replace the grand coalition of the CDU/CSU and SPD, which is running into increasing problems. Fischer's Humboldt speech reads like a renewed application for the post of the foreign minister. It contained nothing that CDU Chancellor Angela Merkel could not accept.

Party chief Bütikofer has stressed repeatedly in the past months that his party is aiming at closer co-operation on different levels with the CDU/CSU.

And for some time in the Berlin city legislature, which is presently ruled by a coalition of the SPD and Left Party, the CDU chairman Friedbert Pflüger has been striving to establish good relations with the Greens. He has made no secret of the fact that he considers a coalition of the two parties desirable. The Berlin Greens are flattered and for their part stress the increasing political common ground with the CDU. A Christian Democratic-Green Party coalition in the German capital would set a precedent for federal politics.

 http://www.iraq-war.ru/article/124990

actual ritual is fielding informal parties into same corrupt formal democracy 18.Apr.2007 13:00

biostate

The actual ritual is believing that a single party regardless of its proclaimed "promised ideology," is going to aid us moving toward sustainability when we worldwide mostly live in broken formal institutional framework of democracys run by massive corruption. Corruption and environmental degradation go hand in hand, just as more representative democracy and sustainability go hand in hand.

Only a more competitive party framework in general will innately let the ecological self-interest of the massive supermajority of voters who hold to "green values" work itself out (in health, ecology, and economic policies--from polls both in the UK, US, and internationally it seems now). Then any and all parties will sort themselves out based on this supermajority instead of a gatekept framework of corruption, lies, and degradation--human and environmental.

The aim of third/fourth parties should be concentrating on formal institutional changes to make a more competitive arrangement for democracy among parties--and a whole lot else. Not obviously simply justifying the ongoing corruption of democracy as the "German Greens" seem quite confident in doing. They should concentrate on creating a more competitive democracy formally and one more in-sync with reflecting voter concerns from particular environmental areas.

 http://biostate.blogspot.com/

US Greens oppose war - PERIOD! 18.Apr.2007 20:10

Brian the Green

I'm really suprised by the information coming out of Germany and not really sure if I should trust it. The Green Party is founded on the principle of peace. That doesn't mean some nut jobs aren't going to go astray but the US Greens, elected reps and the entire domestic leadership has been universal in its condemnation of this war and the militarization of this country.

The US Green Party is the peace party.

Interesting that you attack people who should be your allies 19.Apr.2007 09:51

Brian the Green

Elected Greens in the US have done an admirable job and have provided leadership on electoral reform, gay rights, peace, social justice and the environment. You offer no independent support for your attacks.

The GP is a party of principle and I believe Greens would be the first to toss anyone who went against our basic principles. Please show me two examples in the US where we didn't.

The GP elected our first state rep less than 10 years ago and with little funds and NO corporate support, it is hard to be as far along and as fully developed as all of us would like. However, we do have clear principles which we have worked to implement and uphold.

While I believe most Greens recognize capitalism is ONE of the problems, that system WILL NOT be changed at the ballot box.

The GP DOES side with workers. The GP sides with Coops. The GP sides with not-for-profits. The GP supports local businesses. The GP opposes globalization. The GP opposes the enormous disparity of wealth in the US.

For independent people reading this and interested in more information, search the web, do some research and come to your own conclusion. There is a small but vocal group out there who hate the GP for a variety of reasons. If you wish to join us, I do think you'll find a group of dedicated, spirited and thoughtful activists who desprately want to see a vastly different world then the one we currently live in.