In several problematic contributions, actors of the Greens and the LEFT have expressed themselves on peace policy-details follow below.
The criticism of the military-industrial complex (MiK) – that is, of the war companies and their political counterparts-is a survival requirement, because NATO‘intelligence management’, which is nothing but pre-war propaganda and ‘psychological warfare', poisons the brains of people in the sense of the military. NATO has set up a ‘Strategic Communication’ centre in Riga for this purpose. Quote from the Website:
“Strategic communication is an integral part of our efforts to achieve the Alliance’s political and military objectives.”
NATO manipulation catches up with Greens and Leftists
The successes of NATO manipulation are evident in many words and deeds on the part of social Democratic and green party-goers. And even with the Left Party’s expert on ‘security policy’, Matthias Höhn, the manipulation of the militarists works, as media report.
On the part of the Greens, a paper with the cooperation of the Heinrich Böll Foundation, for which Heinrich Böll should turn around in his grave, is a new highlight in this fatal sense. Under the title “For a new agreement between Germany and America” it is about a ‘world power role’, about the nuclear war strategy of the USA called ‘nuclear protection commitment’ and about the ‘nuclear participation’ of Germany as well as about the further increase of military expenditure as ‘burden sharing’ also for the intensification of NATO activities up to the ‘Indo-Pacific’.
The paper triggers debates in the Green Party: “' More … Responsibility is often urgently needed and will cost money. But it is wrong and dangerous, that only militarily … to understand’, says security expert Brugger” the süddeutsche Zeitung. Ms. Brugger’s contradiction is debunking because inconsistent. Their answer does not represent a rejection, but only emphasizes the intertwining of military force and political paths that NATO also wants. The points of the paper, also supported by right green, and those of the LEFT Matthias Höhn show striking similarities in the approach and in some details.
On the individual points of the paper by Matthias Höhn (LEFT)
Matthias Höhn writes that there are diverging lines in the party; this is especially true by its positioning, which, however, by no means stands for a line known to us.
He calls for the party to " get back stronger on left security and defence policy … discuss”. Wolfgang Gehrcke of the left faction in the Bundestag said: “The party has no interest in discussing a general attack on its basic positions on peace policy.“In fact, Höhn is about a departure from the peace policy of his party.
In the section‘ Munich Consensus', Höhn takes on the position of the White Paper of the German Military Ministry, which sees the incorporation of Crimea into the Russian state as a turning point that has “profound consequences for security in Europe”. This constantly repeated narrative of NATO strategic communication ignores violations of the law by NATO-friendly forces in Ukraine that preceded the Crimean crisis: at the end of February 2014, the government, which was opposed to NATO, was exchanged for a pro-NATO government in an unconstitutional act. Those who pick out the breach of law in such situations, which fits into their own calculations, engage in war propaganda. Matthias Höhn follows the NATO narrative, as did the Greens and the SPD. The “turnaround” in the arms and NATO strategy legitimized by this manipulation remains unopposed at Höhn.
In the section ‘Global Armament ' Höhn assumes an equal responsibility of NATO and Russia as well as China for the global armament. He ignores the fact that NATO spends about fifteen times the Russian expenditure on the military sector. Matthias Höhn’s statement is just as manipulative:”Important pillars of international arms control have faltered or have already been torn down.” This choice of words hides the USA as the actor of this development. Höhn said: “Both (!) Page … saw the obligations under international law only as too tight a corset.“He ignores here that the destruction of pillars of international treaties emanated from the US administration.
Höhn demands that ‘Europe’ should act as a ‘political actor with independent interests, goals and values’. This position is reminiscent of that of EU High Representative Federica Mogherini, who already issued this vision in 2016 in her strategy paper “Common Vision, joint Action-a stronger Europe”: “Systematically encourage cooperation in defence matters and create a powerful European defence industry, which is crucial for Europe to decide and act independently.“While NATO and the EU continue to promote the militarization of world politics, Höhn argues in the spirit of the militarists. Andrej Hunko, member of the left group in the Bundestag, says: “It is strange that this paper appears at a time when an EU arms fund worth billions is being introduced. (…) The parliamentary group has unanimously decided to file a complaint against this so-called defence fund, because the financing of defence projects from the EU budget is prohibited even under the EU treaties.”
In the section‘ Bundeswehr ‘Höhn identifies them as “bled out”. Since 2000, however, expenditure has risen from around € 42.2 billion to over € 50 billion. With the word’ bled out’, Höhn supports NATO’s demands for increased armament, which are at the expense of services of general interest, including ecology and education.
In the section ‘Left Perspectives‘ Höhn, like forces in the other red-red-green Bundestag parties, demands more ‘responsibility’, which means nothing more than worldwide military operations, which is also demanded by the paper supported by Ellen Ueberschär (Heinrich Böll Foundation). Höhn supposes that the NATO representation, according to which Russia is certainly using nerve agent in its own country, is already a fact verified by the court. In this section, Höhn also stresses that leaving NATO means the opposite of stabilizing security structures; it ignores the fact that NATO is the state alliance from whose territory most and most massive violations of international law have taken place since the end of the system competition. Whole regions of the world have since collapsed.
In the section‘ Organising security in Europe ' Höhn pleads for an EU army, in which he also sees a potential for savings in the EU budget. This is reminiscent of the statement ‘I am a man because I am a woman’. With Orwell, that means ‘War is peace'.
In the section‘ Enforcing the United Nations monopoly on violence', M. Höhn overlooks the fatal effects of violent attempts to force peace through foreign missions of the Bundeswehr within the framework of the UN, which have already failed bitterly in Africa or Afghanistan. Wars do not lead to peace. Security through negotiations, through reconciliation and cooperation is peace. The way to peace is the way of peace.
LEFT-Board dissociates itself
Fortunately, on 23 January, the Executive Board of the Left Party distanced itself from Höhn’s paper with clear positions on peace policy:
“The Bundeswehr must be brought back from all foreign missions, we also reject new foreign missions, regardless of which organization they take place under.
THE LEFT is committed to a gradual disarmament of the Bundeswehr, the most war-capable parts are to be dismantled first. Disarmament must be accompanied by conversion programmes for workers in arms production, for soldiers and for the properties of the Bundeswehr. Our goal remains a Germany, a Europe, a world without wars and armies.
Approval of upgrade projects is accordingly incompatible with the Left.
We demand the dissolution of NATO and its replacement by a collective security system with the participation of Russia, which has disarmament as a central objective.
A European army and other projects of militarization do not lead to more security for the people of Europe, but only secure corporate interests militarily.
Our goal remains a peaceful world, a world in which money is spent on education, social affairs, health, development aid and research, not on the military.”
Also union and science against armor
The softening and abandonment of peace-political demands described in this article is also confronted with an increasingly peace-political consequence in statements and positions from the trade union. The union’s commitment to peace is clearly reflected in the Frankfurter Appell, the active members of the peace movement, the ecology movement and officials of the DGB and the IG Metall:
“We demand a new peace and détente policy, a system of common security and controlled disarmament. … We want a nuclear-weapon-free Germany and advocate a worldwide ban on autonomous weapons systems.”
The warning of the critical nuclear scientists, who have set their clock to 100 seconds before midnight to warn of nuclear war, shows how urgent this demand is. On 27 January, the scientists will publish their latest hazard assessment.
The peace movement and the Left have the task of clarifying the media sovereignty of the corporations and their lobby with facts. This becomes clear already with the term ‘security’, because it is abused by NATO for high armament, danger escalation and for war preparation disguised as ‘deterrence’.