Mr.Schroeder, the megaphone diplomat - 500 Beiträge pro Seite

[danatbank]

Aus der FT:

The megaphone diplomat
By Haig Simonian
Published: September 13 2002 20:03 | Last Updated: September 13 2002 20:03


A month ago, Gerhard Schröder`s campaign for re-election on September 22 was in deep trouble. Trailing badly in the opinion polls, Germany`s chancellor could not shift the focus away from unemployment, where he is most vulnerable.

In the space of a few weeks he has staged an astonishing recovery, thanks largely to his uncompromising hostility to military action in Iraq. Three opinion polls published on Friday showed Mr Schröder`s Social Democrats leading the opposition Christian Democrats by between two and three points.

The chancellor`s bold stand has earned him new support at home, but at the expense of his credibility abroad. "Incomprehension", "bafflement" and "bewilderment" are three of the politer words being used in western capitals to describe the reactions to Mr Schröder`s criticism of US policy towards Iraq.

The German chancellor is not alone in doubting the wisdom of military action to depose Saddam Hussein. French president Jacques Chirac has expressed reservations about a move whose negative repercussions in the Middle East could outweigh any benefits. But while Mr Chirac has been subtle and nuanced, Mr Schröder has been brutally outspoken.

By turning Iraq into an election issue, Mr Schröder has mobilised large sections of his SPD, formerly disenchanted by his mixed record on the economy and unemployment in particular.

"Schröder urgently needed a theme to divert attention from unemployment," says Jürgen Falter, professor of politics at Mainz university. "And he knew the postwar distaste for violence cut right across party lines."

Mr Schröder`s position on Iraq has galvanised support for the notionally pacifist Greens, his junior coalition partners. And it may have brought leftwing or anti-military SPD sympathisers back into the fold after toying with the former Communist party of Democratic Socialism, which has nibbled at the roots of both the SPD and the Greens with its uncompromising pacifism.

Electoral opportunism cannot entirely explain the chancellor`s bold stand. "It`s the sort of thing he loves," says Anne Marie Le Gloannec, head of a Franco-German social science research centre in Berlin. "He likes to be the man in the middle making waves."

Mr Schröder appears unconcerned that his independent-minded position on Iraq could strain relations with European partners. Relations with Mr Chirac have been tense because of sharp differences over European Union farm policy and institutional reform. The chancellor is aware that he is becoming a political oddity in a Europe that has shifted sharply to the right. And he makes no secret of the fact that he is not on the same political wavelength as conservatives such as Italy`s Silvio Berlusconi and Spain`s José Mara Aznar.

Recent reports of American rage appear to have encouraged Mr Schröder to be yet more assertive. "Germany has no reason to allow itself to be lectured by others," he told an enthusiastic crowd of 8,000 predominantly young supporters at a rally in the university city of Münster this week. "On the existential questions that decide German politics, the decisions are made in Berlin - in Berlin and nowhere else."

This message appears to contradict Germany`s traditionally multilateral foreign policy. In the past four years, Mr Schröder has shown unprecedented readiness to participate in peacekeeping missions, whether in Kosovo, Macedonia or Afghanistan. Each, especially the latter two, came in spite of deep misgivings in the government`s own ranks, entailing significant political risks.

"You have to distinguish," says Herfried Münkler, professor of politics at Berlin`s Humboldt university. "In the Balkans, it was a matter of re-establishing democracy in failed states that were geographically close and economically linked to Germany."

"Afghanistan was geographically and politically much more distant. But this was a reaction to the September 11 terrorist attacks and the chancellor`s promise of unlimited support for the US. In the case of Iraq, however, you`re talking about attacking a functioning sovereign state, where the moral and political balance is far less clear."

Mr Schröder evidently sees two sides to the greater international responsibilities Germany has accepted. Berlin`s willingness to take on a bigger international burden has also given it a greater right to raise its voice, he believes. In speech after speech, Mr Schröder has emphasised the fact that an essential aspect of friendship between nations includes the right to criticise. Anything else is "subservience".

Germany`s tainted history and postwar antipathy to violence, rather than plain electioneering, also explain the moralising tenor of some of Mr Schröder`s remarks. "The weird thing is, Germany not only feels more inclined to express its opinions but wants them to be respected too," says Ulrike Guérot, a specialist at the German Council on Foreign Relations. "There`s a growing sense of national pride, boosted by the passage of time and gradual erosion of wartime stigmas, combined with an increasing wish to be involved in setting international agendas."

Mr Schröder`s exploitation of the Iraq issue may help him win the elections. If re-elected he may even seek a rapprochement with Washington, perhaps through a policy reversal in the light of some "new evidence" justifying military intervention.

Intellectual gyrations are nothing new for the chancellor, whether in foreign or domestic affairs. At the rally in Münster, part of the coal-producing state of North Rhine-Westphalia, for example, he managed in one breath to link massive state subsidies for unprofitable German coalmines with the development of a high-technology coal industry.

Even if he is forced into a U-turn, it is unlikely to throw Mr Schröder for long. The chancellor is famously thick skinned. And, with re-election behind him, he would probably have the confidence to bluff or bulldoze his way through any crises ahead. Even so, if Mr Schröder is re-elected next weekend, he will have to put a stop to the megaphone diplomacy if he is to end Germany`s isolation and patch up relations with Washington.

Kommentar:
Ich schäme mich für die Deutschen. So muß das Ausland die Meinung bekommen, die Deutschen seien zu doof, die billige Bauernfängerei Schröders zu durchschauen. Das entscheidende Thema muß sein, wie das Wirtschafssystem so reformiert werden kann, daß der Sozialstaat nicht total kollabiert. Statt sich aber um die wichtigen Fragen zu kümmern, wird mit dem Thema Irak außenpolitisch Porzellan zerschlagen, aus der Verantwortung, für den Irak eine Lösung zu finden, zieht man sich ganz zurück, und das ganze nur wegen ein paar schäbiger Wählerstimmmen mehr. Pfui Teufel.

[megalomaniac]

die Deutschen sind zu doof

Deshalb wohne ich nicht mehr in einem Land, dass sich seit Jahren nur mit Selbstblockade beschaeftigt.

[insti]

Recht hast du!

Was mich am meisten ärgert ist die Tatsache, dass fast sämtliche medialen Klugscheisser bei diesem Bauernbluff mitspielen und sich aufgrund ihrer erneut bewiesenen Allmachtins Fäustchen lachen.

Die sollten endlich mal Verantwortung zeigen.

mfg

[wecbenji]

ich denke, dass es bisher keinen bundeskanzler vor schröder gab, der die aussenpolitik so missbraucht hat und den inmmensen schaden breitwillig in kauf nimmt.

ich denke was ihm (schröder) in dieser frage hilft, ist der weitverbeitete antiamerikanismus in ostdeutschland.

[Cole_T]

ihr solltet euch was schämen.
ihr könnt den deutschen bundeskanzler vielleicht im inneren
kritisieren. ihn aber nach aussen hin nicht zu unterstützen,
grenzt schon an verrat am vaterland.

[danatbank]

Verrat am Vaterland - du kennst Wörter...

Vielleicht wäre es mal angebracht, daß Schröder sich zunächst um die Interessen Deutschlands und dann erst um seine Wiederwahl kümmert. Das ist der wahre Verrat.

[Neonjaeger]

Nach dem 2. Weltkrieg wollten die Sieger den Deutschen den Militarismus und Krieg austreiben. Das ist ihnen so gründlich gelungen, dass in Deutschland heute die Mehrheit keinen Bock auf Krieg hat. Also soll sich im Ausland niemand beschweren, sie haben bekommen was sie wollten. Warum sollten wir Verantwortung übernehmen in Konflikten die wir nicht zuverantworten haben? Die meisten Konlikte gehen auf die Kappe der ständigen Mitglieder im sicherheitsrat, die Völker koloniesierten oder gegeneinander Ausspielten. Und wenn sich einige Aufregen, dass dieses Thema im Wahlkampf eine Rolle spielt, sollte nicht vergessen, das Bush mit seinem Kriegsgeschrei selber eine Wahl dieses Jahr gewinnen will, da sein Popularität nach Enron und Co. doch stark gelitten hat.

Neonjaeger

[danatbank]

@Neonjaeger

Lt.CNN sind 80% der Amerikaner gegen einen Irak-Angriff.
Ich vermute von daher, daß Bush eher Getriebener der
Meinung seiner Berater im Pentagon als des Wahlvolkes ist.
Hussein ist schließlich kein unbeschriebenes Blatt, sondern
ständiger Mittelpunkt des Krisenherds:
1.Iran, 2.Kuwait, 3.die schiitischen und kurdischen
Minderheiten (insg.2 Mio.Tote).
Zudem unterstützt Hussein Terroristen (Z.B. erhalten
die Angehörigen von Selbstmordattentätern 25.00$ pro Person.).
Deshalb muß gefragt werden, wie Hussein in seine Schranken
gewiesen werden kann. Dies ist für Deutschland insofer von
Bedeutung, als D zum einen stark von Ölimporten abhängig ist,
zum anderen, wenn Hussein nicht unter Kontrolle gehalten
wird, dies sehr weitreichende weltpolitische Folgen haben
kann. Dies bedeutet nicht, daß es unabdingbar ist, in
den Irak einzumarschieren, jedoch den Irak und den Nahen
Osten sich völlig selbst zu überlassen, wie Schröder es
vorhat, ist falsch.