An old quote that still worries me

.

Germany has sixteen state and one federal secret service for the monitoring of domestic threats to the constitutional order. The literal translation of these agencies' names would sound like "Constitution protector".

They observe far left parties, far right parties and if I remember correctly also some sects and a bit organised crime. I really only care about the observation of extremist parties, though.

There was (admittedly, back in May) an article about the observation of the Linke, the German socialist party (which has few per cent seats in most parliaments here) and how representatives of that party decry this observation as politically motivated. The protest points at the many laws passed by mainstream party state and federal governments in Germany which didn't pass a check of the respective constitutional courts. Their conclusion; the government parties should be observed, for they violate the constitution.

Well, both sides have their point and honestly, I'd like to see whether we couldn't do without such domestic political spying.

The response of a Bavarian politician in an interview was worrying. He said

„Auch die Forderung, Deutschland solle aus der Nato austreten, beweist, dass die Beobachtung weiter sinnvoll ist.“

("The demand that Germany should leave the Nato also proves that the observation stays meaningful.")

source: Welt.de

Sorry, this is no reason for suspecting anti-constitutional tendencies at all.

The German constitution allows for the membership in such an alliance, but it doesn't demand membership in NATO and NATO is actually disposable for Germany's national security due to the Lisbon Treaty.

Germany is a sovereign country that can leave NATO if it wishes and that would not be the tiniest bit counter-constitutional.

I understand that a very right wing party's (in the German spectrum; in the U.S. political spectrum they would at most be a moderate Republicans) representative prefers a far left wing party to be labelled as possibly counter-constitutionalist, but said left-wing party has a point: The CSU itself has its own issues with the constitution, especially the federal one. The NATO-related point on the other hand was nothing but an embarrassment for its user.

Sven Ortmann

P.S.: 31 posts in a 31-day month. Don't expect me to keep this pace, I had a few free weeks this month.

.

Unfree labour phantasies in German politics

.

(I'll try to keep my distaste for certain proposals and politicians well enough in check to write this piece objectively. It's a tough challenge, for sure!)

Three debates are raging  in German national politics these days;

(1) Reform of the conscription

(2) A provocative book about migrants in Germany

(3) Extending the operating periods for nuclear power plants

I'll discuss the first one (conscription is about to become suspended apparently).

Conservatives have fought hard for conscription in the 50's. A conscription-based Bundeswehr was part of the governments' Western integration grand strategy. The Bundeswehr was meant to contribute with 12 (of a total of 26) divisions for the defence of Western Europe, in Central Europe,  effectively buying Germany a place as almost normal country in the Western World (in combination European unification and reconciliation and cooperation policies with France) shortly after WW2.

It has apparently turned into a conservative party (CDU/CSU) doctrine and ideology since then, for conservatives are the most fierce defenders of conscription in Germany.

Here's an older blog post about conscription in Germany.

The most extreme and in my opinion despicable attempt to save this kind of unfree labour is a proposal of Lower Saxony's minister of the interior, Schünemann.

Nach den Vorstellungen von [...] Schünemann könnte die Dienstpflicht nicht nur in den Streitkräften, sondern auch in der Bundespolizei oder in Zivilschutzverbänden geleistet werden.

(According to the ideas of [...] Schünemann could the service not only be done in the armed forces, but also in the federal police or in civil defence organisations.)

(source: FAZ)

This would actually be legal under our constitution, but not everything that is allowed needs to be done. The constitution allows a lot, including much that Schünemann and his party would not want at all. In fact, the constitution demands plebiscites - which his party opposes fiercely.

- - - - -

The central problem is habituation.

Humans can get used to the greatest nonsense and damages.

Lean back, relax, free your mind. Imagine a world that hasn't seen conscription for generations. You should really muster your imagination and distance yourself from what you're used to.
No major power threatens our country, in fact no real power does. All is fine.

Suddenly, a politician makes his way into newspaper headlines with the idea to force our youth into unfree labour - underpaid, of course. He also wants to strip those who serve their unfree labour period in the military of some of their free speech rights.

Keep in mind; the military can easily make do without unfree labour, the federal police has never employed unfree labourers and the civil defence organisations don't need that either.

What would our reaction be?

My guess:

* We would draw parallels with the Nazis one year forced labour which they imposed on all young men. Many wouldn't hold back and call him a Nazi.

* We would point out that there's absolutely no necessity for unfree labour.

* We would point out that we want and have a free society, and unnecessary unfree labour is an assault on our civil liberties.

* We would protest as much as necessary to get this irresponsible politician gets fired from office.

Why doesn't this happen?

Simple: Germans got used to the abhorrent concept of conscription. They got used enough to it that many even tolerate it in times of no real threat whatsoever. Myths and lies have been formed and spread around conscription to defend it, the fact that almost only German-speaking country retain conscription in Europe isn't well-represented in news at all.

- - - - -

The German society is increasingly under burden of the long-term consequences of political decisions made in the 50's and 60's (and myths created in that period). This was a period of almost exclusive conservative-liberal governance and thus the conservatives stem against some reforms that would address these problems. Some problems aren't on the to-do list of any party because their roots have become so self-evident and unquestioned that  no party has an internal majority in favour of facing the issue. The export orientation and trade balance surplus is such a problem that has been turned into a strength in federal German mythology.

Conscription on the other hand is a legacy of the early Cold War and the Western integration grand strategy that keeps haunting and hurting us for no other reason than the fact that the party which fought for its introduction fights against its suspension, too.

Sven Ortmann
.

Cracking down on corporate spying ! (?)

.

Germany had in the past few years a row of scandals with an identical theme: Corporations became bold enough to behave as if they were entitled to treat their employees like subjects. This concerned especially the spying on subjects, err, employees at work and in general.

This behaviour did fit well to the seemingly ever-increasing desire of the state itself to spy on the citizens.

This latter trend was stopped when the liberals joined the new federal government as junior partner. The coalition treaty between conservatives and liberals already pointed at this, and the new Minister of Justice was a strong signal that the liberals were serious (the same minister had resigned in the 90's from the same office in protest against a then new wire-tapping law).

The wait was long, but now the government even seems to attempt to turn back the trend a bit. The brazenness of the corporations was an easy target for this. The BMJ (Ministry of Justice) developed a bill to restrict such spying and surveillance.

BMJ speech transcript here.

This is good news, of course. There are some open questions, though.

I) Will this attempt to roll back extend to executive powers or will it be limited to corporate rights?

II) Will the discussion about Google Streetview discredit and distract those who fight for protection against spying too much? It looks like an utterly irrelevant and childish discussion to me.

III) Will the Merkel cabinet be able to act decisively on anything?

IV) Some laws of the aforementioned trend were enacted when conservatives were in power. Can they back-paddle?



Sven Ortmann
.

Guttenberg's five proposals

.

(Disclosure: My opinion on conscription.)

The German Minister of Defence v.Guttenberg has offered five proposals in the discussion about the conscription. He's expected to face the most resistance from his own party (the Bavarian CSU) - in part because of party politics (he's a rising star of the party and a threat to its chairman) and in part due to the dogmatic pro-conscription stance of the CDU/CSU.

Said conscription has turned into a farce because only a few ten thousand young men serve annually - and only so for six months due to the influence of the anti-conscription junior federal government coalition party (FDP, liberals).

Here are Guttenberg's five proposals:

Modell eins sieht einen Gesamtumfang von 205.000 Soldaten vor. Die Zahl der Berufs- und Zeitsoldaten wird in zwei Schritten bis 2012 auf 155.000 reduziert. Es bleibt bei 25.000 Grundwehrdienstleistenden W6 und 25.000 FWDL.
Modell zwei wäre die Radikalverkleinerung in drei Schritten bis 2013 auf 150.000 Berufs- und Zeitsoldaten. Keine Wehrpflichtigen, keine Kurzdiener. Die Einberufungen enden 2011.

Modell drei: Ebenfalls vom kommenden Jahr an keine Einberufungen mehr, Abschmelzen in sechs Schritten bis 2016 auf 156.000 Berufs- und Zeitsoldaten.
Modell vier: 156.000 Berufs- und Zeitsoldaten (in sechs Schritten bis 2016) plus Freiwilligenkomponente von 7500 Kurzdienern. Guttenberg hat bereits deutlich gemacht, dass er sich auch vorstellen könne, diese Komponente auf bis zu 15.000 aufzustocken, wenn das Parlament das wünsche – ein Hinweis mit Appellcharakter an den Haushaltsausschuss.
Modell fünf mit insgesamt 210.000 Mann ähnelt Modell eins: 180.000 Berufs- und Zeitsoldaten plus 30.000 Grundwehrdienstleistende. Hier kursiert die Bewertung, dieser Ansatz wäre um zwei Milliarden Euro teurer als Modell 4.

(source: FAZ)

translation:

Model one envisions a total strength of 205,000 soldiers. The count of professional and volunteer soldiers will be reduced in two steps to 155,000 till 2012. It remains at 25,000 conscripts W6 (six months) and 25,000 extended term conscripts (conscripts who volunteered toe extend their service to up to 23 months).

Model two would be a radical shrinking in three steps  till 2013 down to 150,000 professional and volunteer soldiers. No conscripts, no short-service soldiers. The Bundeswehr would stop calling  conscripts in 2011.

Model three: Likewise no calls of conscripts beginning in 2011, reduction in six steps till 2016 down to 156,000 professional and volunteer soldiers.

Model four: 156,000 professional and volunteer soldiers (in six steps till 2016) plus volunteer component of 7,500 short service soldiers. Guttenberg has already expressed that he could expand this to 15,000 if the parliament wants it - a hint at the treasury committee.

Model five with a total of 210,000 men resembles model one: 180,000 professional and volunteer soldiers plus 30,000 conscripts. This is rumoured to be two billion Euros more expensive than model four.

(Explanation: I called those volunteers who volunteered for four (enlisted), eight (junior NCOs) or twelve  (junior officers) years. "Professional soldiers" was my translation for those NCOs and officers who either stayed in the Bundeswehr after that volunteer period or joined afterwards with needed civilian skills (such as doctors) - these continue to serve till retirement.)

It's big news that a debate about the Bundeswehr has made it into the first slot of evening TV news. Such discussions are rather rare.

The five models don't look promising, and it's most likely a waste of time to discuss them in detail for lack of detail and because they're just starting points for a discussion that's expected to last for months because Chancellor Merkel is incapable of quick decision-making (she prefers to play party politics instead of addressing issues).

The savings will likely be disappointing (model five's description already hints at it) and the impact on force structure may very well be disadvantageous. There was an expectation that new infantry units if not formations would be raised/reactivated because the parallel overseas missions have exposed the lack of light troops. This is extremely unlikely to happen in all five models.

I personally don't oppose all personnel or budget cuts for the Bundeswehr or frequent structural reforms.

Instead I'm all for doing it right: Cut the fat, reorganise to an efficient force optimised for its constitutional mission with the very low medium term level of threat and very strong alliances in mind. I fail to recognise this in the whole discussion.

Sven Ortmann
 
(photo: Bienert)

.

Bavaria creates anecdotical evidence for democracy

.

A good amount of evidence, arguments, interests and pressure led to several laws in Germany regarding bans on public indoor smoking.

Bavaria created at first a rather strict version of such a law (still with a loophole, though). The Bavarians are used to single party state governments and more than average rhetoric and political action in their state.

The tobacco and pub lobbies striked back and scored a success after a new election; the Bavarian law was watered down to irrelevance.

Yesterday, the Bavarians had a plebiscite on the whole topic and it looks as if 61% of the votes are in favour of a really strict version (no exemptions whatsoever). The initiative behind this plebiscite had a budget of 70,000 € while the opposing initiative was mostly financed by tobacco industry and the association of pub owners with 600,000 €.

- - - - -

Well, what does this anecdote show?

It shows us anecdotical evidence that representative democracy can be more susceptible to special interest influences than plebiscites.

The anti-plebiscite faction still uses the old and wrong argument that the electorate is very susceptible to manipulation and that professional politicians, not the people themselves, should vote on bills.

Well, that argument was always illogical, for how could you be able enough to vote well on thousands of not even yet discussed topics at once in a general election if you aren't supposed to be able enough to vote well on a single known bill?

The anti-plebiscite faction should be exposed as anti-democracy faction; they don't believe in the voters (= the people = the sovereign in Germany!). They believe in oligarchy or worse.

Sven Ortmann

.

E-Petition about better information on the German ISAF mission

.

Sascha Stoltenow from one of the very few German MilBlogs (BendlerBlog) has initiated an e-Petition. I propose that the German readers take the time to read his proposal and think about signing the petition:

Was ist gut in Afghanistan? - Online-Petition in der Mitzeichnung

.

Köhler resigned

.

The President of the Federal Republic of Germany Horst Köhler (mostly representative head of state) has resigned because of the strong reactions to an interview he gave just a few days ago (transcript).

www.faz.net article

The interview has been interpreted as championing the aggressive use of military force to further national interests (= in my opinion a possible interpretation of his words).

The reactions pointed out that this would be way beyond the constitutional limits and that the Federal Republic of Germany has military forces for self defence, not for Banana Wars.

Federal presidents tend to have more integrity than common top politiians and it's to be respected that he resigned that quickly because he felt that he hadn't enough respect and support anymore.

I interpret his speech as the latest step of an multi-party salami tactic that was employed since about 1993 in order to increasingly get used the Germans to distant and even offensive use of military power. A normal politician would have proposed a stupid mission, got resistance and have postponed the accustomization till a later date.

I wrote in 2009/11:

(...) Then came the end of the Cold War.

German politicians proceeded with a salami slice tactic for so-called "out of area" missions of German troops, one step at a time. It began with a field hospital in Cambodia, then logistical support troops in a safe place in Northern Somalia and so on. Peacekeepers here, peacekeepers there, finally some purely anti-radar missions of Tornados in the 1999 Kosovo Air War and then more peacekeeping in Afghanistan coupled with up to 100 commando soldiers on AQ hunt.

Well, now we're in the stupid business of small wars - with a strong popular majority rejecting this policy and at the same time re-electing the conservatives for domestic policy reasons.

Sven Ortmann

photo: Roosewelt Pinheiro/Agência Brasil
.

Allensbach poll on Germans in Afghanistan

.

The Institut für Demoskopie Allensbach has published a new poll on the German ISAF mission.

www.FAZ.net article (in German)

(The article has additional interesting results for other questions.)

They asked Germans the question "Würden Sie rückblickend sagen, dass es ein Fehler war, sich an der Schutztruppe in Afghanistan zu beteiligen?"

("Would you say that, in retrospect, it was a mistake to participate in the protection force in Afghanistan?")

"Es war ein Fehler" ("It was a mistake") answered

59% of the group 'whole population'

48% among CDU (social conservatives) voters

59% among SPD (social democrats) voters

46% among FDP (liberals) voters

70% among Grüne (greens) voters

85% among Linke (socialists) voters

This confirms older polls (here and here); a majority is against the German participation.

Especially interesting and wicked is the situation for the greens; the SPD and greens were in power and led by decidedly centre/moderate top politicians (now retired) into both the Kosovo Air War and the initial Afghanistan mission.

Green party top politicians still paint the ISAF mission as a kind of women's liberation and human rights mission and dream about building schools and such. The party supports the ISAF mission.

The green voter base thinks differently; the greens were (until their loss of pacifist principles in 1998) THE German peace party. The socialists try hard to fill the gap.

Obviously, many - indeed most - green voters didn't buy into the green party leadership's delusions about the ISAF mission.

Sven Ortmann

.