Logo
Cover

The hypocrite's green fight

Parallel to the party congress of Bündnis 90/Die Grünen, the G7 summit took place from 11 to 13 June in Carbis Bay, England, and a little later the NATO Summit in Brussels. Both in Carbis Bay and in Brussels, participants agreed on a more aggressive course against Russia and China. NATO, as US President Joe Biden put it, would face “new challenges” in dealing with these two countries since both “did not act as we hoped”.

Having removed the irritations caused by his predecessor, the aim is now to reunite the forces in order to defend Western supremacy in the world by all means. “We’re in a 21st century race,” Biden said at the G7 meeting, “and the starting gun has been fired.“The Greens made it clear at their party congress that they fully support such a course and that, as the ruling party, they would be a reliable partner both for transatlantic-oriented German capital and for the USA. Her guest speakers, former Siemens CEO Joe Kaeser and former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, underlined this impressively. The title of their election program for the upcoming Bundestag election “Germany. Everything is in it.“sounds downright threatening in this context.

The Greens are masters of the double standard

According to the zeitgeist, which the Greens serve like no other German party, the tones in the election program are moderate. Central to foreign policy should be the priority of “human rights” and the “strengthening of multilateral cooperation”, especially with the USA.Their “foreign and security policy “aims” to prevent conflicts “and therefore relies on” foresight “and"sustainable development”. There is also talk of “civilian crisis prevention”, “conflict prevention” and “peacebuilding”. In general, the Greens like to present themselves as the party that has committed itself to freedom, democracy and human rights, and develop an almost missionary zeal. But what is striking is that their approach is very selective. In the first place, only countries that do not belong to the circle of allies come into their focus. A typical example was the very different reactions regarding the action of Chinese security forces against the riots in Hong Kong in 2019 and their French counterpart against simultaneous demonstrations of the “yellow vests”. Although the protests in Hong Kong, where u. a. In France, Chinese police violence led to parliamentary motions and demands for sanctions against China, while criticism of the hardly less violent police violence in France is sought in vain. Moreover, we are only talking about civil rights. The only yardstick for the development of a country is the liberal, market-based, bourgeois-parliamentary social order established in the West, which increases in the debate about other social approaches to the” Western value system wird. In the extent to which social human rights apply in the countries targeted does not matter. What does it mean that China has lifted 800 million people out of extreme poverty in recent decades, that Syria was a developed country until 2011, in which a variety of peoples and religions lived together relatively peacefully, or that the Libyans enjoyed the highest standard of living in all of Africa under Gaddafi?All this does not count if you do not follow the customs, norms and interests dictated by the west.

“Leadership of the USA and Europe”

The human rights rhetoric also serves the economic and geostrategic interests of the Greens, who are declared to be firmly on the side of the US in foreign policy. As a guest speaker, Madeleine Albright made it unmistakably clear what the ruling transatlantic circles are all about. First, the leadership of the US and Europe, including Germany, should be restored. After all,” no other group of nations “has” both the historical identification with freedom and the geographical reach to inspire and strengthen democratic institutions in each region.“Thus, the “grande dame” of US foreign policy obviously alluded to the possibilities of the US and the EU states, directly or indirectly via NGOs close to the government, to build up allied forces in opposing countries and to use them to put pressure on unwelcome governments or even to overthrow them through “colourful revolutions”. Of course, all countries that do not want to submit to the leadership are directly in the way of the hegemony to be restored and must be treated as opponents, first of all the most potent troublemakers, Russia and China.

Against the rise of China

It is therefore easy to see behind the aggressive attitude of the Greens towards China the concern about the enormous successes and the growing influence of the giant country. Thus, Chancellor candidate Annalena Baerbock warns against his large investment project of the"New Silk Road”. Above all, the nature of its economic policy poses a danger. The People’s Republic would try to create dependencies with other countries, for example by investing in infrastructure. Of course, this should still be reserved for the West. Together with co-party leader Robert Habeck and other leading politicians of the party, she tirelessly attacks the German government’s China policy aimed at expanding economic relations. The leading Greens are also strictly against the EU-China investment agreement. The Green MEP Reinhard Bütikofer is particularly aggressive at EU level. Together with anti-Chinese hardliners from the USA, such as the neoconservative Senator Marco Rubio, he played a leading role in the founding of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC), an anti-China alliance of transatlantic parliamentarians from 16 countries. Bütikofer and the Green member of the Bundestag Margarete Bause serve as co-chairmen of this pressure group, which is otherwise predominantly formed of right-wing and liberal members of parliament for tougher sanctions. IPAC’s stated goal is to promote a “coordinated response” to China’s rise. In parallel, leading Greens have also built a network against Russia. Leading here are the former Green member of Parliament Marie-Luise Beck and her husband, the former mayor of Bremen, Ralf Fücks, one of the many ex-Maoists among the prominent Greens. For this purpose, the two founded the think tank “Zentrum Liberale Moderne”, which, among other things, advocates tougher coercive measures against Russia and directly supports the opposition in Russia and Belarus.

Washington’s Hopefuls

By campaigning to subordinate national economic interests to the fight against Russia and the rise of China, the Greens are boosting hopes in Washington for the post-Merkel era. They are a “pragmatic party with a determined approach to foreign policy” that is “committed to German membership in NATO and a strong transatlantic alliance,” she recently praised the New York Times. With the vehemence of the way they attack Russia and China for democracy and human rights, they are less a “vegetarian faction of the Christian Democrats”, as some think, than a counterpart of the Neocons in the US. Since the Greens are more focused on multinational approaches, the UN, etc., their positions are more in line with those of the hawks in the Democratic Party, such as former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and their human rights imperialism.

Spearhead in the new “Cold War”

When the party was founded, the German Greens committed themselves to an end to the Cold War and condemned the enemy images with which Germany’s former enemies were considered. Today, they are among the most vehement enemies against Russia and other states. They fuel aggressive policies against opposing countries and governments by supporting the narratives of the pro-Western oppositionists there and by offensively spreading even the crudest conspiracy theories, such as the alleged poison attack on Navalny ordered by Moscow.” They have brought it to a true mastery to claim morality for themselves, " said the member of the Bundestag Alexander Neu (Die Linke), “to bring about regime change in Moscow and Minsk on the model of Kiev." The left inner-party critic of the Greens, Antje Vollmer, complains that “many leaders in politics and the media” in “the liberal democracies of Western cut” would “live in their own bubble, with their own values” and inner-European conflicts, “whether with Greece and Italy, whether with Hungary and Poland or even with Russia” would “usually be fought out by the high horse of a moral imperialism”. This criticism is probably directed not least at the leadership of your party, whose moral superiority thinking likes to come in the guise of “European values”. This is especially true when Vollmer criticizes the “lack of empathy towards the gigantic problems of Russia”, as well as the ignorance towards the social successes of the PRC, which apparently knows how to cope with the “big world and existence problems more effectively than its own leadership. “As you know, the Greens have long said goodbye to their peace policy approaches. At the party congress, they also left the no to combat drones behind. What remains in the programme is the rejection of nuclear weapons. However, their no to “nuclear participation” and their yes to the ban on nuclear weapons contradict their clear and unqualified commitment to NATO. The new election program is now trying to gain time by saying that “intermediate steps” and “talks in alliance” are necessary for a departure from the German nuclear weapons policy. Your party foundation is already further here. In a call published for the inauguration of US President Joe Biden, the Heinrich Böll Foundation demands, in addition to a further “substantial increase” in the German military budget and an expansion of NATO, that “Germany must adhere to nuclear participation and implement necessary modernization steps”. Signatories and presumably co-authors are also two high-ranking generals of the Bundeswehr. One of them, retired Lieutenant General. Heinrich Brauß was NATO’s Assistant Secretary General for Defence Policy and Force Planning from October 2013 to July 2018 and as such was responsible for the realignment of NATO against Russia in 2014.

“Rule-based order” versus international law

“We want to work together for global human rights protection and a rule-based world order,” the election programme says. To this end, Germany and the EU should “assume more foreign and security policy responsibility” - the common description of striving for great power through greater armament and interventions in other countries. The joint defense of the “rules-based international order”, which would be challenged by Beijing and Moscow, also permeated the statements made at the G7 and NATO summits. The term “rule-based order” has obviously been established to avoid the term international law. International law is codified law, defined in the UN Charter, UN Conventions and international treaties, supplemented by resolutions of the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly. The” rules-based order “that the NATO powers and the Greens talk about is the one they define as” the good ones " themselves. So it is due to the hegemon and has been practiced by the USA for a long time. By invoking this order, they want to be able to continue to interfere in the internal affairs of other states, to disregard their sovereignty, to strangle them with economic blockades or even to intervene militarily.The propaganda becomes downright cynical when China and Russia are accused of not complying with” the standards of the international legal order”. After all, they did not invade Yugoslavia, Iraq or Libya, and their intervention in Syria blatantly violates international law.

“Regime Change” and humanitarian interventions

As is well known, the interventionism of the Greens is not only directed against Russia and China. They also actively support the “regime change” efforts in countries such as Syria, Venezuela and Bolivia. The interests and political wishes of the majority of the population do not play a role in this, nor does it matter how little progressive and democratic the opposition forces are. No matter whether they are jihadists or arch-reactionaries, the main thing is that they promise the subordination of the respective country to Western interests. This was particularly evident in the 2014 coup in Ukraine, where leading Greens were not deterred from their active support by the leading role of right-wing radical to fascist gangs. They also supported the NATO war against Libya in 2011 and always made it clear that under a Green foreign minister there would have been no abstention in the UN Security Council on the resolution, which was used as a legitimation for the raid. Consequently, the Greens continue to advocate the concept of “responsibility to protect”, including, it is said in the election program, “using military force as a last resort”. In order to be able to legitimize such” humanitarian interventions “by a UN mandate” if the right of veto in the Security Council is abused”, they call for a reform of the UN. In this case, the General Assembly, acting in the place of the Security Council, should adopt a qualified majority decision on peacemaking measures. Overcoming a veto in the NATO - dominated Security Council by a majority of the UN sounds democratic at first. Many US vetoes, which have so far blocked most resolutions, would have wished for such a possibility. The Greens, however, have the vetoes of rivals China and Russia in mind and are counting on the West still having enough influence and leverage to secure the necessary majorities. They do not let themselves be irritated by the previous experience with military “protective interventions” of the NATO states. Whether Iraq, Yugoslavia or Libya, in all cases, the accusations used to justify the wars have proved to be false. The consequences for the people they supposedly wanted to protect are devastating to this day. Libya is the prime example of this. The NATO war to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi is finally considered the first use case of the concept of “responsibility to protect” (R2P) introduced by the UN in 2005, which was intended to replace the somewhat discredited"humanitarian intervention".

Better accepted: Economic wars

The Greens ' preferred means of getting other countries on the right track are civil coercive measures, such as trade and economic blockades, which are much more easily accepted by the public. They are therefore also behind the economic wars against Venezuela and Syria ‒ regardless of the devastating effects for the local population. They also cynically blame these on the governments of the affected countries, ignoring carefully documented reports from UN and human rights organizations. The existing Syrian sanctions of the EU and the US would not make it difficult to supply the country with medicines and food, foreign policy spokesman Omid Nouripour claimed in a press release on the “Caesar Act”, with which the US massively expanded the economic and financial blockade last June. The investigations of the UN Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures, Idriss Jazairy, who presented his findings on 31 December 2014, were published in the Official Journal of the United Nations. May 2019 at the invitation of the IPPNW and the Left faction also presented in Berlin in the House of Representatives, revealed a completely different picture. Instead of bombs, people would now suffer a “silent death”, so his gloomy conclusion. Jazairy repeatedly stressed that it is not only cynical and absurd to throw the people whose rights one supposedly wants to protect into misery by blocking them, but also blatantly violates international law. A majority in the UN sees it the same way. Alfred de Zayas, the former UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights, even demands that the International Court of Justice investigate the economic sanctions against Venezuela as a possible crime against humanity. However, the Greens are also backing the US and EU position here: as long as the Syrians or the Venezuelans do not succeed in overthrowing their government, they cannot expect an end to the blockade and no help. Your guest speaker Albright would probably not say it so openly today, but in 1996 she answered in the affirmative when asked if the Iraq embargo was worth the price of half a million children’s lives.