Logo
Cover

Germany in turmoil

“Looking for Easter eggs,” it used to be said, when the peace activists demonstrated in Büchel every Easter. These were the atomic bombs stored in underground Silos at Büchel air base in the Eifel region. The small village in the Cochem-Zell district is half an hour’s drive from the place on the Moselle where I was born and grew up. There are about 20 nuclear warheads of the type B-61, each with an explosive force of about 50 kilotons. This is about four times the explosive power of the bomb that the US dropped on Hiroshima.

In Germany,” from whose soil only peace will proceed”, as promised in the two-plus-four treaty when it merged with the former GDR, nuclear weapons are stored, and this is called” nuclear participation”.

“You have your own laundry, you wash it sometimes. You don’t have your own words, and you never wash them,” Bert Brecht wrote in his diary in 1920, two years after the end of the first World War. The worst thing is when things get encrusted in words, he said. The words should be " incited, skinned, made nasty.“You have to"feed them and lure them out from under the shell”.

Participation is active, part passive

“Nuclear participation” is one such term to be skinned. It comes from the communications specialists of the think tanks of NATO and refers to the fact that US nuclear weapons are stationed on German territory, over which the German government has no power at all. In the so-called” alliance case”, these weapons are to be dropped by German fighter jets over a country that is regarded by NATO as an” enemy attacker”, i.e. according to the current state of the scripts, for example Russia or China.

Germany should therefore participate in a possible nuclear war and the corresponding planning, but the Wording spread by the NATO bureaucrats does not mean “participation”, but “participation”. In this subtle exchange of two letters alone, it is revealed that five-star generals also cook at Five-Star level in propaganda cuisine.

Participation is active, which means: I do something. Participation, on the other hand, is rather passive, which means: I have something to get, I am entitled to something. The semantic conveyor belt of the word participation transports all kinds of Positives: from participation, participation to codetermination and Integration. Participation, on the other hand, can trigger positive, but also negative associations; at the end of the association chain, for example, is the well-known saying: caught, hung along.

In comparison with participation, participation is simply pure relaxation: the word takes us to the wellness area of “partnership for peace”, “alliance solidarity” and “protective shield”.

“Who determines the meaning of words determines the discourse”

“Whoever has the language has the power,” historian Volker Reinhardt recently wrote in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung. Because: “whoever determines the meaning of words determines the discourse. And whoever dominates the discourse, dominates opinions and emotions (…) the most powerful and assertive is language power, when it launches new terms, writes down their meaning and thus constructs chains of words, even downright prisons of words. In this way, not only new terms but also entire value systems are imposed on the public.”

Such a value system includes “nuclear participation”. Namely, the Cold War doctrine of nuclear deterrence. Broken down into vulgar psychology: if the club of Hans is just as thick as that of Heiri, then they will not go at each other.

In the midst of the Corona crisis, leading Social Democrats in Germany are now speaking out, once again questioning this principle: “nuclear weapons do not increase our security,” SPD group leader Rolf Mützenich told Berlin’s Tagesspiegel newspaper. And the SPD chairman Norbert Walter-Borjans wrote to the “Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung”: “I represent a clear Position against stationing, disposing and even more so the use of nuclear weapons.

Now there is fire in the roof. As expected, sharp rejection comes from the coalition partner CDU. The topic is “non-negotiable”, explained Johann Wadephul, deputy chairman of the CDU/CSU parliamentary group. It sounds similar from the FDP. It is feared that the SPD, the Greens and the left could use the enormous debt burden imposed by the state with the corona crisis as an Argument for austerity exercises on the military budget.

Loss warning in the military industry

Among other things, it is about a large arms business with the USA. Defense Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer had announced that she wanted to buy 45 F-18 fighter aircraft in the USA in order to partially replace the old German Tornado fleet. The F-18 are then ordered to bring the nuclear weapons to the target in an emergency.

In military industry circles, the plague has triggered peace alarms and sharpest loss warnings in recent months. The fact is that in the Pandemic, there are people speaking out among political elites worldwide who say that enough money has now been spent on weapons and that in the face of crisis and debt, they must focus on health and education. UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres called for an immediate ceasefire in all areas of conflict: “stop the plague called war and fight the plague that is ravaging our world.

If there has been something astonishing in world politics in recent months, it has not been the pandemic. Chinese scientists, in cooperation with their Western colleagues, had been warning for years in medical journals about the occurrence of such a Virus type.

Transparent accusations against China

For observers with a distance of more than two meters, the striking thing was something completely different: namely, to observe how the corona crisis had to serve within a very short time as an initial spark for a bitter debate about enemy threat and the need for rearmament. It was the hour of the ideologues. They reacted reflexively to the emergency with their own kind of prevention: upgrading as a remedy against any loss of control.

From the accusation that China is conducting a " global disinformation campaign “and has concealed the outbreak of the plague in order to harm the west, to dark insinuations that the Virus comes from a Chinese laboratory, to the demand that China must now be” held accountable, " every Argument was heard and read. The fact that such depictions often came not from confused citizens, but from the likes of Mike Pompeo, Donald Trump, and the possible, probable, secret, but inescapable “findings of Western intelligence agencies” hardly caused any discontent in most media. One registered it shrugging and was otherwise busy with the Daily Corona statistics.

At a certain point, however, the matter became all too transparent. Even the Neue Zürcher Zeitung, which is hardly accused of contagious Chinophilia, headlined: “China becomes America’s scapegoat for everything.

Donald Trump fears the Virus could cost him election victory. The US left attributes the crisis to its initial hesitation. She already calls Trump “Murderer in Chief” and never celebrates the daily statistics of deaths without pointing out that the president has"blood on his hands.”

Against such a loss of popularity, the warning of a threat from outside was still an effective remedy: it is not the failure to save the health system that is to blame for the disaster, but Chinese Xi Jinping.

“Exit from nuclear deterrence”

The PR people of NATO hit the same mark. They are currently using their access to the major Western media with diligence to recite the litany, which is about to mutate into a kind of Corona doctrine: NATO must now show strength if we do not want China to fall into the power vacuum. Because the USA, the “Leader of the Free world”, has become weak, as CDU politician Friedrich Merz notes. The world situation remains threatening, says the Süddeutsche Zeitung, because “Putin’s soldiers are war-tested (..) In addition, China is pushing for the world stage and challenging the USA.”

Michael Rühe, head of the Nato unit “hybrid challenges” warned last Saturday in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung of a Worst case scenario, should Germany abandon “nuclear participation”: “for many, who demand Germany’s exit from participation, it is probably not about turning to an alternative nuclear Option in the European framework anyway. It is rather about the final exit from nuclear deterrence par excellence.”

Germany nuclear-weapon-free? According to Rühe, this would of course be something like the downfall of the Occident. Little mention is made of all this: Germany’s “nuclear participation” in military reality is limited to a relationship of command and obedience. The Federal Republic of Germany has no sovereignty over the military operations of the United States.

The airbase Ramstein is the largest military base of the US Air Force outside the USA. There, the air and Space Operations Center manages the operations of combat drones in the Middle East. The use of German airports for military or intelligence purposes, the surveillance of Telecommunications by US intelligence services such as the NSA or the so-called “Updating” of the nuclear arsenal: the German government has no say in all this. A complex network of treaties concluded with Germany by the Allied occupying powers after 1945 limits Germany’s ability to act on security issues, and this is still the case today.

In 2011, the parliamentary group of the Left demanded information from the German federal government about this problem. The small request states, among other things: “to date, there is no comprehensive regular information to the federal government about the residence and activities of foreign armed forces in Germany as well as about the granted special rights.”

Elsewhere, it says: “over the last 10 years, the US armed forces in particular have demonstrated the extent of the shortcomings in the transparency and control of the activities of the foreign armed forces. The use of German airspace by the US for the illegal abduction of terrorists and the postponement of troops for the attack on Iraq without a mandate from the United Nations, the ambiguity regarding the amount of nuclear weapons stationed in Germany, the establishment and operation of leadership staffs for unilateral US military interventions” (…).

On 14 April 2011, the federal government responded to the approximately 40 points of the request with a statement consisting of references to paragraphs of contracts. Those who torment themselves through the 20 pages with the hope of Information usually fail in their attempt to decipher legal German. Time and again, however, one comes across phrases such as this: “there is no contractual reporting obligation of the foreign armed forces.“Or:” due to the regulations for the storage of written material, the following information (…) must remain without guarantee.”

However, it is stressed that the German government is " working closely with the authorities of the stationing forces.“There is therefore no cause for concern under international law. Everything is fine.

This has been the case since the end of the Second World War, that is, since the occupation statute of 1949, the troop statute of 1951 and the residence agreement of 1954. any attempt to clarify or restore limited German sovereignty is blocked or ends in security-relevant secrecy. All attempts by the Legislature to make Germany nuclear - weapon – free-most recently in 2010 with the consent of all parties-have obviously failed due to the Veto of the USA, however this Veto was officially plastered with legal Brimborium.

Under President Obama, at the instigation of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a program for the “modernization” of US nuclear weapons in the amount of 1.3 trillion dollars (engl. 1.3 Trillion) for the next 30 years without major discussions by the Congress. A huge economic development programme that set in motion a new international arms spiral. China and Russia felt compelled to follow suit. Under President Trump, Washington pulled out of the Treaty on the disarmament of land-based intermediate-range nuclear weapons (INF). As justification, it was stated that Russia violated the agreement with its system of medium-range missiles. Russia subsequently also left the INF Treaty.

“A screaming attack”

The legendary US journalist and peace activist Norman Cousins published his book “The Pathology of Power"in 1987. In the preface, the US Diplomat George F. Kennan wrote:

“If the Soviet Union were to sink into the ocean tomorrow, the US military-industrial complex would have to remain unchanged until another enemy was invented. Anything else would be an unacceptable shock to American industry.”

At the end of November 2019, Pope Francis visited Hiroshima. In his speech, he said::

“Peace and international stability are incompatible with any attempt to build them on the fear of mutual destruction.”

The arms race wastes valuable resources that could be used for the development of peoples and Environmental Protection. And more:

“In today’s world, where millions of children and families live in inhumane conditions, spending money and making fortunes on the production, modernization, preservation and sale of weapons with ever greater destructive power is a blatant attack.”