Article

2003-07-17 International

Stephen Den Beste on German FM Fischerâs US Visit

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by PD 2003-07-17 8:36:11 AM|| || Front Page|| [11134 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 "We're all americans now" and NAto invoking article V were just ways to constrain the US? I dont think so - I think Den BEste (who is sometimes insightful) is here taking his Jacksonianism too far.

In particular he hasnt explained how Fischers goals contradict US goals - in fact he hasnt made clear his goals at all - is rapprochment an end in itself - well no. Is keeping America chained an end in itself - presumably its not. Even for Chirac keeping america chained is onlya means to the goal of keeping France a great power on the world stage. As far as i can tell, the French alliance is for Germany merely a means to the development of the EU on economic and political terms desirable for Germany (possibly including the economic domination of eastern europe) Keeping America chained is primarily a means to retaining the French alliance, and secondarily perhaps reassuring Russia while a German dominated EU expands.

Are these different from US goals - certainly - do they contradict US goals - not necessarily - not if we can provide Germany ways of assisting US goals that dont so set Germany against France as to undermine Germanys strategy in Europe. Can we adopt a common grand strategy - probably not, our goals are too different, this isnt the cold war. Can we adopt a common strategy for speficic situations - very likely. can we adopt a common strategy for dealing with the middle east - maybe.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-7-17 11:34:18 AM|| 2003-7-17 11:34:18 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 That's a very Joycian post, LH! Stream o' consciousness.

I don't think you ended all that far from Den Beste. Our goals should reflect what we believe, what we think is in the US's best interests. Period, full stop. And stop apologizing for it.

We should not develop our goals, Foggy Bottom style, as an imaginary global village jigsaw puzzle with pieces of ours and everyone else's tossed together - then worry off the corners of our pieces to make them fit with those of other countries - i.e. multilateralism.

Nor should we allow ANYONE to tell us what our fair share (recognize that little gem of BS?) is - ever again. I believe we're doing that for the last time right now - in the ME.

If the pieces fit - great, we offer to cooperate, as in coalitions of the willing. If they don't, then we go our own way. That's it. Those that disagree may do so - and have as many litters of press kittens as they like. They will rant and rave and take turns dropping their load at the UN. Fine. Yawn.

I'm glad you brought up the ME as a possibility.
The ME is a classic case of the US having taken the lead everyone insists we must take (our fair share), only to be undercut and undermined by either the Zeros or the Pals - over and over and over again.

The current case has the Zeropean dicks visiting and flattering and elevating Arafish - an obvious roadblock to any sort of peace - to the level of a human.

Voila - Den Beste's point is made: the Zeropeans are undermining Mazen / Abbas - and wasting Bush's / our time and burning what little goodwill we have left in Arabia. No one, including the Arabs and Zeros (well, maybe a Swede or Norweegie or two), believe this will work. Bush does the heavy lifting while they sit back and snipe.

When the levee breaks, and it will, in this lost cause, Bush will have done more than enough. Israel will have done more than enough. What will this exercise have accomplished, other than setting too many Israeli's up for killing when the "hudna" is discarded in a coordinated attack?

Nothing. That's what multilateralism gets us.

Posted by PD 2003-7-17 12:48:39 PM|| 2003-7-17 12:48:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 "We're all americans now" and NATO invoking article V were just ways to constrain the US? I dont think so - I think Den Beste (who is sometimes insightful) is here taking his Jacksonianism too far.

Not at all. When NATO invoked Article V I was heartened that our allies in Europe would show such support for America in her time of need. When it became patently obvious that Brussels, France and Germany only approved the invocation of Article V so they might control the scope and depth of our response I felt totally betrayed. And as someone whose job requires frequent contact with counterparts in France, Spain and Germany let me just say that "We're all americans now" doesn't mean the same thing to them as it does to us, it might be better translates as "Now you know what it's like, eh buddy?"

I am confused as to how you cannot see the way in which Fischer's main goals of rapprochement and common strategy with the U.S. are not inherently contradictory in themselves. For rapprochement to work Germany must genuinely want to help the U.S. in achieving it's main foreign policy goal - elimination of the islamo-fascist threat (i.e. terrorism). Yet common strategy is not possible with a Germany that overtly opposes American attempts to combat ME terrorists and the regimes that support them, while simultaneously covertly supporting those same regimes.

Let me remind you that rapprochement is necessary only because Germany, via Joschka Fischer and Gerhard SchrÃ¶eder, made a concerted effort to distance themselves from us. Who made Anti-Americanism the cornerstone of their re-election strategy? Who gave aide and comfort to our Saddam Hussein? Who helped derail the second resolution in the U.N.? Those were in fact the results of German policy executed by Fischer and SchrÃ¶eder.

Now explain to me how there can be both rapprochement and a common strategy with Germany as long as those two are executing German policy? Contradictory indeed.

Posted by Robert Modean 2003-7-17 12:53:26 PM|| 2003-7-17 12:53:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 Don't forget when you talk about Joschka Fischer, you're talking about the head of a political party in a colilation government. Fischer has dreams of being head of government himself, someday. He can be expected to advance his own party's goals as much as possible withint the current structure.

And... Fischer is an ex-street thug. His background in street politics is remarkably similar to Saddam's. As I've said before, I would not be surprised to see his name on the list of Stasi informants the CIA sent over to Berlin a while ago.

Hope this provides an additional perspective.

Posted by Chuck 2003-7-17 1:25:25 PM|| [http://blog.simmins.org] 2003-7-17 1:25:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 RM - i dont see rapprochement with the US or undermining the US as goals from the German POV -those are means to achieve some goal. Just as for the US acting unilaterally or multilaterally, invading Iraq, or giving foreign aid to africa are not goals. Our goals are to reduce terrorism and elimanate the salafist threat to our security, maintain broadly our position without creating a hostile coalition against us, and continue to expand trade such as to strenghten the US economy. Acting unilaterally or multilaterally, going to war or extending foreign aid, are merely means to achieve those goals. I dont think the ultimate goals that Germany has are incompatible with US goals, though they are not identical, and that working out elements of a common strategy is therefore not impossible, though by no means simple.

And, BTW, I was using Mideast here in its somewhat more traditional usage - IE the entire sweep from Iran to Egypt - not just Israel and Palestine. I presume thats the goal here - not a common global strategy between Germany and the US - but something broader than a common strategy on the Road map, or on Iraq.

Germany supporting pro-terrorist regimes - well im sure TGA will jump in here - let me say that the US has an issue now with ALL the Europeans, including the UK, regarding how to deal with Iran. That is one place where we need a common strategy, since the Euros may have more leverage there than we do. And there may be reason to link some of these issues together. The euros fear a US victory (not necesssarily military) in Iran and Israel/Palestine would combined with Iraq lead to US hegemony cross the mideast. We fear that UN/Euro interference in Iraq would steal the fruit of victory, the ability to use Iraq to influence the rest of the region. A grand compromise naturally suggests itself - the euros get behind us on change in Iran and Palestine,in return we open up Iraq to their influence and economic penetration. Im not sure thats where we end up, but things like that are worth thinking through and discussing. Which it seemed that Den Beste precluded, although perhaps i was misreading him.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-7-17 1:28:18 PM|| 2003-7-17 1:28:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 --A grand compromise naturally suggests itself - the euros get behind us on change in Iran and Palestine,in return we open up Iraq to their influence and economic penetration. Im not sure thats where we end up, but things like that are worth thinking through and discussing.--

We can jaw-jaw all they want, but they're not only going to want a piece of Iraq, they're going to want Iran and whatever ends up next to Israel.

And they're going to want US to do the heavy lifting, usual, while they collect the bennies.

Posted by Anonymous 2003-7-17 2:03:06 PM|| 2003-7-17 2:03:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 the bennie for us is draining the swamp, not keeping the newly drained land.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-7-17 2:18:39 PM|| 2003-7-17 2:18:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 LH - I don't see this as very complicated.

Assuming you're correct that Germany's actions were not "goals" in and of themselves, so what? It matters not and I can't help but see the argument as moot. German actions were specifically designed to thwart the US from achieving one of its goals - one that we were very serious about and willing to spend blood and treasure to secure. What were Germany's goals? What were their motives? Why do they like strudel? We know some of it, but in the final analysis, who cares? We differed and parted ways.

Now, eyeing the spoils - and maybe some of the pain that comes from the loss of US business, troop-basing, etc, they (Shroeder & Fischer - not sure about the public) wanna be buddies, again. How, uh, convenient. How obvious does it need to be?

The joke buried in this little debate is thinking that we were bound, heart, hand and foot, to them and that it is somehow wrong for us to pursue our interests & policies - but right for them to do so.

As Den Beste concludes: "Simply put, if you want to be our friend so that you can use that friendship against us, you arenât a friend and wonât be treated as one."

Posted by PD 2003-7-17 2:27:30 PM|| 2003-7-17 2:27:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 They opposed us for their own interests - and now they want to join with us for their own interests - so why shouldnt we move forward.
You wnat to be our friend so you can use that friendship against us - is rather different from - you want to be our friend for your own benefit, and so lets see where we can cut a deal for mutual benefit. In fact this talk about friends is a tad naive in international relations. We have,at most, allies - not friends. Nations that work together out of mutual interest, not pals. A betrayal on one issue should lower our trust of them, but shouldnt end our cooperation. Should we bound heart, hand and foot to them? well of course not, but that should have been obvious on 9/10/2001. And it should be obvious today, with regard to any state. If thats what Den Beste is saying, hes attacking a straw man. If OTOH hes saying that we should not cooperate with Germany moving forward (beyond some reasonable punishment - er consequences) then he is being foolish. The US cant bind itself hand, heart and foot to other countries (or to international organizations for that matter) but neither can we pretend to go it alone (and dont bring up UK and the Coalition of the willing - if we're too spiteful toward the weasels we'll lose UK and the others as well)

shifting coalitions - well thats basically what multilateralism IS - you use whatever works - an ad hoc coaltion - a bilateral temporary allinance - a long term alliance like NATO - or even, heaven help us, an international body like the UN to advance those goals. And i rather think thats what most of the folks at Foggy Bottom think as well - contrary to what you may have heard, most US foreign service types are not members of Greanpeace or PETA, and their daily bread and butter is watching out for US interests on items from trade to treaty interpretation. They have a professional bias towards keeping good relations with the countries they deal with - since that helps them get stuff on the minutae of trade deals and treaties and so forth - much as a salesman want the best price for the company he works for, but doesnt want to lose the customer. They may not alway make good grand strategists (i think theyve been failing abysmally lately, because of changed circumstances) but the idea that they are a bunch of transnational progressives who just want to share the pie equally with everyone is misguided. Of course in some situations you DO need to share things out, or youre not going to get a deal. If you can afford to walk away from the deal thats ok, but thats generally a decision for the Pres, and the NSA, and Sec of State, not the State Dept bureaucrats.

You certainly cant reach for your gun all the time. You cant treat everyone as your enemy, and always resort to your superior strength in negotiations. Over time you'll find yourself increasingly isolated, even from states that have an interest in your grand strategic goals. Unless you think you have most of the hard power on the planet, this is most unwise.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-7-17 3:40:47 PM|| 2003-7-17 3:40:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 I'm somewhat puzzled and to a certain extent saddened by this discussion as it shows how deep the Atlantic rift has become between the Bush administration (I dare not say America) and Germany (as a part of Europe). Yet it is not Europe (or Germany) that has redefined the transatlantic relations, it's the United States.

Of course 9/11 did change America. The European solidarity shown after 9/11 was genuine and heartfelt, at least on the German side. And it was Fischer who strongly backed the U.S. action in Afghanistan, clashing with his own party (and winning most of them over).

Europe may not like the wording "War on Terror" because our ideas of war might be a little more traditional than yours. But that doesn't mean that we don't clearly recognize the danger and most of us are fully aware that Islamist terror will strike here as well (and has already). Whether this means a poison attack in a subway or a plane crashing into the Reichstag, I don't know. We all have to work together to prevent this from happening.

Most of us think that war(s) in the Middle East will not prevent terrorism but encourage it. Iraq never seemed to fit into the War (or Fight) against Terror picture. While nobody was ignoring the brutatility of the Saddam regime, we didn't buy into the WMD meet terrorists idea, at least not in "controlled" Iraq. Germany did never break the UN sanctions against Iraq and/or helped Saddam after 1989. Some German businesses broke the law and are prosecuted. Quite a few ended up with lengthy jail sentences (apply German standards).

What were our goals for Iraq? Simply speaking, we didn't want to get involved in the first place. Bad diplomatic handling on both sides (put more of the blame on the German side if you want) pushed Germany in a corner with France without an exit strategy. While Schroeder's mediocrity and incompetence (which tied Fischer's hands) certainly did a lot to strain ties between Germany in the USA, most of German concerns about Iraq were genuine and not anti-American. We rather felt that the U.S. was making a mistake and would get bogged down into a guerilla war in Iraq which would just destabilize the Middle East further. Well, we have a leading U.S. general talking about "guerilla war" now and Iraq is anything but pacified (yet). It will take very costly U.S. efforts to succeed in Iraq. Germany feared it would get involved in Iraq exactly because of this. Our economic interest have never been as high as France's or Russia's.

Many Germans were also taken aback by the cavalier approach of the U.S. at the UN. We all know that this war was decided (at least) a year before it was led and there was never any room for negotiations. Europeans felt that anything they would have to say (or warn about) would be disregarded. And so it happened.

"No role for Europe or UN" I heard a lot of Rantburgers say. Just months later the Senate wants Europe involved because the whole thing gets too expensive. Yet we see no "draining of swamps" as LH claims, we see a new swamp opening up in which we don't want to venture. And what would we have to gain? A few subcontracts? The Saddamites (and we haven't talked about the Shiites yet) will shoot German soldiers as gladly as U.S. troops. And how will our government explain to us that we fiercely opposed the war and now we should send troops?

Germany has no interest in "obstructing the U.S. fight against terrorists" (that would be extremly dumb), Germany may prefer a United States that is not a completely "unchecked" megapower, a "free floating" nation that makes up it's own rules without adhering to anything else, a nation that does anything to liberate itsself from treaties or contracts. But that's dangerous. Why do nations sign treaties and agree to be bound by terms? To establish mutual trust. Companies do the same, even very big companies will sign contracts with small ones. Of course every treaty, every contract is mutually binding and restricts your sovereignty a little bit. The bigger nation may dislike that fact more than the smaller, but that's the price to pay. "Just trust us" won't do unfortunately, neither in business nor in politics.

Nobody in Germany wanted or wants to "use that friendship against you" as Den Beste claims. If Robert Modean says that "for rapprochement to work Germany must genuinely want to help the U.S. in achieving it's main foreign policy goal - elimination of the islamo-fascist threat (i.e. terrorism)" he is right and why would any intelligent person disagree? But we do differ when it comes to the means of achieving this goal. Has post Saddam Iraq made the world any safer (yet)? The Syrians might back down a little, but how impressed are the mullahs? Kimmie? The Pakland nutbags? How secure is Afghanistan?
We are only at the beginning. But if Iraq already strains U.S. ressources to a point that has the Senate worried, then I doubt that the "clean sweep" of ME nutbag nations is an option for now. The United States may occupy Syria in a week and Iran in a month. And then? Two more guerilla wars?
You said that the U.S. and Europe need a common strategy for Iran. I agree. But I don't really know what the U.S. strategy is. And Iran is certainly more than nuke loving mullahs.

Last point: Is Den Beste news or opinion? (I guess Fred's rules need to be stretchable, right?)

Posted by True German Ally 2003-7-17 4:24:02 PM|| 2003-7-17 4:24:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Germany want's rapprochment and common stratigy with th U.S.,fine.Here is my proposal:
Germany's constitution forbids sending troops to foriegn wars,ok I can live with that.

Form an alliance with the U.S. declareing war on all terrorists world wide,start taking down terrorists,state sponsors of terrorisam,and thier financial supporters(both private and state).
Since Germany can not(by law)provide combat troops they can provide material,baseing,and monetary support.In addition they can provide peacekepping,policeing,and support units.
Lets start with the PLA and Yasser,stop all support to the Palistinians and Yasser,sieze/freeze all moneys and properties owned/control by Yasser,the PLA,and thier supporters and cronnies.
How long do you think it would take the Palistinians to cry enough?

Posted by raptor 2003-7-17 4:52:55 PM|| 2003-7-17 4:52:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 most of us are fully aware that Islamist terror will strike here as well

TGA, on this I respectfully disagree. Europe is now seen by the Islamists as a potential ally against America. The clapping and cheering during De Villepin's speech at the UNSC I think epitomized this very well. Even before 9-11 Europe was relatively safe, inasmuch as any bombs going off would be against American targets.
You say that the decision to war with Iraq was made earlier on, and I agree. I think what comes into play here, and where our respective views diverge, is precisely that it is not Europe's head that the whole world wants on a platter. It is America, that is the root of all evil, right? As a non-American, I don't blame my American cousins one bit for seeing Iraq as a direct threat, in this world climate of a pathological hatred of everything American. I don't think Europeans are in a position to understand (or maybe they do but are just guarding their positions).

Posted by Rafael 2003-7-17 9:00:36 PM|| 2003-7-17 9:00:36 PM|| Front Page Top

23:05 Jabba the Nutt
22:45 Jabba the Nutt
21:39 Denny
21:00 Rafael
20:45 Steve
20:35 Don
20:07 Douglas De Bono
20:03 Douglas De Bono
19:51 Chuck
19:36 Alaska Paul
19:19 Alaska Paul
16:59 Michael
16:52 raptor
16:37 Ernest Brown
16:27 Alaska Paul
16:25 11A5S
16:24 True German Ally
16:24 BJD (The Dignified Rant)
16:20 Alaska Paul
16:17 raptor
16:04 cli
15:54 liberalhawk
15:49 liberalhawk
15:48 Aris Katsaris