Until the end of March, the federal government is planning a Bundestag decision to extend the Afghanistan operation despite an originally planned withdrawal. This project reveals the embarrassment of the intervention policy. For a long time, the federal government brought so-called progress reports about the Afghanistan war. A documentary where you wonder if the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is located in the Netherlands.
This conceptual deception is in stark contrast to Margot Käßmann’s famous quote “Nothing is good in Afghanistan”. Margot Käßmann’s assessment continues to this day. Not only the situation of the local people, but also the cold steadfastness of the military and the forces supporting them is appalling. Using the example of this war effort, which was unacceptable from the beginning, the question arises as to what still needs to happen until politics understands that wars do not end in peace.
The” Foreign and security policy " elevates the bourgeois parties to a litmus test for the question whether the Left Party can also be included in the calculation for a possible participation in the government. The NATO question and foreign and war operations are the biggest toads that the Greens have swallowed for a long time. A propaganda tool is the de-legitimization of pacifism as naive and dangerous. In the logic of this argument, the Bundeswehr is chosen as a peace power.
The coalition agreement between the CDU/CSU and the SPD postulates that the Bundeswehr is committed to peace and security worldwide within a networked approach; foreign or war operations “always take place within the framework of a political concept that is subject to continuous evaluation,” states the section “Adapting current foreign operations to the Bundeswehr”.
The militarisation of world politics through interventions and wars led to a situation that the FAZ described in 2016 as follows:”… Europe in the middle of a belt of rubble: Ukraine, Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia and Algeria. All around Europe, apart from Morocco, there are only countries that are becoming more fragile and are completely devastated as a result of wars and internal conflicts.“The worsening of the situation is also visible in the fact that the UN Refugee Aid lists Syria, Afghanistan, South Sudan and Sudan, Somalia and Eritrea as countries with the highest numbers of refugees in 2021. In the face of this devastating development, the question arises as to what needs to happen before those responsible for this are brought to justice, so that they can no longer pour oil into the fire.
The conflict over the (Un)possibility of forcing peace with military force is old. In 1983 Heiner Geißler countered the first green member of the Bundestag, who at that time was classified as left-wing and inclined towards the peace movement, that the pacifism of the 1930s had “made Auschwitz possible in the first place”. On October 18, 2014, journalist Albrecht von Lucke wrote in the taz: “As long as such a’ UN police' remains a mere utopia, however, it will always be necessary to demand a robust UN military mandate in individual cases in order to legitimately end the killing… "
With such an orientation, the possible red-green coalition SPD comes to an ultimate conclusion: “SPD leader Walter-Borjans warns the left: Without a yes to Bundeswehr operations no government participation.”
The concern that her party is not able to form a coalition, since she represents positions in foreign policy that exclude her from the outset as a coalition partner, has already led to discussions in the Left Party for years. A radical pacifism, which sees no means of ending violence in violence, meets here efforts to soften the principled peace policy. Here is an exemplary quote from 2013: “Does not an absolutisation of the prohibition of interference reach a moral and legal limit when it comes to genocide or genocide? Mass murder?” according to “Zeit”, it is stated in an anthology Linke Außenpolitik – Reformperspektiven. “With the initiative, the politicians also wanted to lower the hurdles for a red-red-green alliance in the federation. Until now, the Left was not considered capable of forming a coalition for the SPD, especially because of its strict rejection of foreign missions by the Bundeswehr.”
At the moment of violent developments, the question arises, which reaction minimizes violence? Nonviolent actions, arms embargoes, non-cooperation with the perpetrators or counter-violence. But in the context of military strategies, representatives of power are only superficially concerned with avoiding suffering. They want Germany, which has now become bigger, to be back on the world stage, as the triad of Steinmeier, von der Leyen and Gauck expressed it at the Munich Security Conference.
CDU member of the Bundestag Ingo Gädechens declared in 2015 on the occasion of 60 years of the Bundeswehr: “Our armed forces have grown up…. Over the past six decades, the Bundeswehr has had to adapt to new security situations and cope with a wide range of tasks. She has the change … from a purely defensive army … to the army in use and proven internationally.”
The Bundeswehr, which is no longer focused on defence, has “grown up”as an army in action. The use of force, which is always a failure of reason and understanding, is here stylized to maturity. But intelligent conflict resolution focuses instead on the consideration of the interests of all sides in the context of negotiations, for example under UN mediation.
The dispute between forces of the peace movement and proponents of bringing about peace by force and war has ignited in the Left Party in new sharpness; the Greens and the SPD are already in the line of the Bundeswehr and NATO on this question. A close look at the position of the proponents of interventions reveals that their position is based on imperial interests and interests of the military-industrial complex: the Federal Foreign Office declares on its website on the so - called ‘Common Foreign and Security Policy’: Within the framework of a ' Global Strategy on the Foreign and Security Policy of the EU … based on a joint threat analysis the strategic objectives of the EU in the field of security and defence” use “civilian, police and military instruments” in order to act “within the framework of the Global Strategy on Foreign and Security Policy” and that “as complementary as possible to NATO”.
After a forced peace, it can be assumed that the defeated side will continue to look for new ways to assert its interests even after a defeat. A peace thus brought about is a Pyrrhic peace on feet of clay. An end of direct violence brought about by force is not peace, but an element in a cycle of violence, revenge, retaliation, counter-violence,,, up to the common downfall. Only a solution that is fair to all sides leads to peace.
When Gerhard Schröder expressed unconditional solidarity with the USA after September 11, 2001 and asserted his participation in the war in Afghanistan with the pressure of the question of trust in the Bundestag, the peace movement criticized that this conflict could not be resolved with the military. The internationally renowned peace researcher Johan Galtung declared at the time as one of the world’s best-known representatives of the peace movement: “I hold it … for naïve to want to bring about change by force. Terrorism can only be fought with dialogue and the will for reconciliation. The Americans have failed to negotiate with the Taliban. The latter were even willing to extradite Osama Bin Laden to another Islamic state. The United States has rejected this, started a war and thus attracted even more hatred. The West must turn away from its violent policies.“Johan Galtung should be right. Today, almost two decades after the beginning of the Afghanistan occupation, which a defense minister suddenly called colloquially war, the country is closer to disintegration than to a prospect of peace.
In order to assess the results of the foreign operations of the Bundeswehr, the previously declared goals of fighting violence must be compared with the achieved effect. The first out-of-NATO-area deployment of the Bundeswehr was in Somalia (beginning in 1993). On his balance sheet it can be stated: “In Somalia the situation did not improve after the UN operation, the country is torn to this day, the people depend on international help, the clans quarreled – and Islamist terrorism has been added as a problem. However, an evaluation, an evaluation of the first mission in Somalia has never been correct.”
First aid for evaluation: The deployment of Afghanistan under the term ‘Resolute support’, which is manipulative in the sense of militarism, had begun with the formulation of the goal that the “assumption of complete security responsibility in Afghanistan by the local government should be sought … to enable them to fulfil their security responsibility themselves.“Although the goals of resolute support have reached an unachievable vastness even after almost two decades, the military continue undeterred with their long-ago failed strategy of money, suffering, resources, destruction.
The so-called anti-IS operation took place with the objective stated by the federal government to “secure the stabilization of the region, prevent the re-emergence of the Islamic State (IS) and promote reconciliation”.
Reconciliation through war this is Orwellian language confusion. The billions spent on military force have not been invested in the development of living conditions, they have helped and are helping in the destruction of living conditions and are significantly involved in the military destruction of the ecological future of humanity. A possible government participation of no matter which party must not be tied to the ignorance of the inhumanity of military madness in favor of the military-industrial complex, whose courses are skyrocketing. The main buyers of German weapons of war are Turkey and Kuwait, i.e. states that have their share in the disintegration of the structures of societies in the conflict and war zones.
Without the further development of the weight and activities of the peace movement neither a peace policy from a federal government is to be expected, nor a social-ecological turn in the direction of a consistent peace-ecological policy, which will not exist without massive disarmament and use of released means for the ecological requirements and the satisfaction of the needs of the people. The Easter March is the next opportunity. It has been developing pressure in the direction of a peace ecological policy for decades, even in 2020, when it took place digitally. The network Peace Cooperative publishes the dates and details on its website.