„Wenn man von mir in Deutschland als ‘Russenversteher’ spricht, nehme ich das als Kompliment und bedanke mich dafür, denn wenn man nicht zumindest versucht, andere Kulturen, andere Denkweisen, andere Interessen zu verstehen, dann hat man in einer internationalen Organisation mit 206 Nationalen Olympischen Komitees nichts zu suchen, geschweige denn, dass man sie führen könnte“, so der IOC-Präsident im Welt-Interview.
11. Juli 2016
Belgien & Luxemburg für Dialog mit Russland
.
Belgien ruft Nato zur Revision der Position zu Russland auf
Laut dem belgischen Außenminister Didier Reynders soll die Nato die Möglichkeit erwägen, die Position zu Russland zu überdenken, falls die Minsker Abkommen erfüllt werden.
.
Luxemburger Premier: „Die Zeit ist gekommen, mit Russland zu sprechen“
Der jetzige Nato-Gipfel ist nicht gegen Russland gerichtet, die Allianz soll einen Dialog mit Moskau aufnehmen, teilte der Premier von Luxemburg, Xavier Bettel, am zweiten Tag des Forums in Warschau mit.
11. Juli 2016
Gorbatschow wartet auf Kriegserklärung der NATO
Nach Ansicht von Michael Gorbatschow zeugen die Beschlüsse der NATO in Warschau davon, dass man sich in der Organisation auf den Übergang vom Kalten Krieg zu einem realen Krieg vorbereite. Die gesamte Rhetorik in Warschau zeuge von diesen Absichten – so Gorbatschow. Gerade die beruhigenden Worte der NATO, das alle eingeleiteten Maßnahmen nicht so schlimm sind, sollten Anlass zu höchster Wachsamkeit sein.
10. Juli 2016
An der russischen Grenze (NATO-Gipfel in Warschau) German Foreign Policy
Mit erneuten Aufrüstungsbeschlüssen ist am Samstag der NATO-Gipfel in Warschau zu Ende gegangen. Im Mittelpunkt standen dabei Maßnahmen, die das westliche Kriegsbündnis gegen Russland in Stellung bringen sollen. So werden in Polen und den baltischen Staaten vier NATO-„Battle Groups“ in Bataillonsstärke stationiert, von denen eine von Deutschland geführt werden soll. Darüber hinaus unterstützt die NATO die Streitkräfte der Ukraine und verstärkt ihre Präsenz am Schwarzen Meer. Propagandistisch orientiert sich das westliche Kriegsbündnis weiterhin am Kalten Krieg und skizziert vorgebliche Bedrohungsszenarien, die damaligen Modellen nachempfunden sind. So heißt es in Anklang an das „Fulda Gap“ („Lücke von Fulda“), es gebe heute eine „Lücke von Suwałki“ in Nordostpolen und Südlitauen, in der mit einem Vorstoß russischer Truppen aus Belarus nach Kaliningrad zu rechnen sei; die NATO sei dagegen „hilflos“. Statistiken zeigen, dass die „hilflose“ NATO rund dreizehnmal so viel Geld ins Militär investiert wie Russland. Während die EU ihre Zusammenarbeit mit dem westlichen Kriegsbündnis stärkt, spitzen die USA den nächsten Großkonflikt mit der Stationierung eines Raketenabwehrsystems in Asien zu – den drohenden Großkonflikt mit China.
10. Juli 2016
Bittere Jahrestage Palästinenser erinnern an Beginn der Bombardierung Gazas vor zwei Jahren (junge Welt)
. 2004 gefälltes Urteil gegen Israels Mauer bis heute ignoriert
Von Karin Leukefeld
Zwei Jahrestage haben die Palästinenser am Wochenende genutzt, um auf die seit 50 Jahren andauernde Besatzung ihres Landes durch Israel und das damit verbundene Unrecht hinzuweisen. Am 8. Juli 2014 hatte die israelische Armee begonnen, aus der Luft, vom Land und von See her ihre mörderischen Waffen auf das »größte Gefängnis der Welt«, wie die Einwohner des Gazastreifens sagen, abzufeuern. 51 Tage dauerte das Morden für die Palästinenser in einem Gebiet, aus dem niemand fliehen konnte und in dem es keine Luftschutzbunker gab. Das Schrecken erlebten auch die ebenfalls von Raketen bedrohten Israelis jenseits der Grenze.
weiterlesen
10. Juli 2016
NATO Marches Toward Destruction – By John V. Walsh (consortiumnews.net)
As the West’s elites growl about “Russian aggression” – as they once did about Iraq’s WMD – NATO leaders meet in Poland to plan a costly and dangerous new Cold War, while shunning the few voices of dissent, John V. Walsh warns.
By John V. Walsh
German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier’s cry of distress is that of a man watching a tidal wave of destruction gathering force, similar to ones that have engulfed his country twice in the Twentieth Century.
read more
10. Juli 2016
Nato-Beschluss: Deutsche Soldaten werden in Syrien kämpfen
Die Nato verstärkt ihren Kampfeinsatz in Syrien. Das Ziel ist der Kampf gegen den IS. Auch deutsche Soldaten werden involviert sein, zunächst mit den AWACS-Einsätzen. Das Problem: Niemand weiß eigentlich genau, wer hinter dem IS steckt. In Syrien wechseln die internationalen Söldner häufig die Fronten. Sogar die Russen haben erhebliche Probleme, den Kampf gegen die diversen Islamisten und ihre Finanziers zu gewinnen.
Zum Abschluss des Nato-Gipfels hat das Bündnis den Vorgaben der Amerikaner Folge geleistet und beschlossen, die USA im Kampf gegen den Islamischen Staat zu unterstützen. Auch deutsche Soldaten werden beteiligt sein. Die 28 Staats- und Regierungschefs der Bündnisstaaten gaben zum Abschluss ihres Gipfels in Warschau am Samstag endgültig grünes Licht für den Einsatz von Awacs-Aufklärungsflugzeugen im Kampf gegen die Terrormiliz Islamischer Staat (IS). Auch die Bundeswehr ist an den Plänen beteiligt. Das Bündnis kehrt zudem für eine Trainingsmission in den Irak zurück und verlängert sein Engagement in Afghanistan.
«Wir haben heute beschlossen, unsere Partner zu stärken und Stabilität außerhalb unserer Grenzen zu gewährleisten», sagte Generalsekretär Jens Stoltenberg. Bundeskanzlerin Angela Merkel sprach von einem «sehr wichtigen Nato-Gipfel», der viele konkrete Ergebnisse gebracht habe.
Der polnische Präsident Andrzej Duda bezeichnete die Entscheidungen als historisch. US-Präsident Barack Obama erklärte: «In nahezu 70 Jahren war die Nato nicht mit einer solchen Bandbreite von Herausforderungen auf einmal konfrontiert. (…) Die Allianz ist geeint und auf die Zukunft ausgerichtet.»
Mit dem Einsatz der Awacs kommen die Verbündeten einem Wunsch der USA nach. Vor allem das Auswärtige Amt in Berlin hatte sich lange klar gegen die Beteiligung am Kampf gegen den IS ausgesprochen. Nun dürften auch deutsche Soldaten in den Kampf mit dem IS ziehen.
Die Bedenken des Auswärtigen Amts kommen nicht von ungefähr: Die US-geführte Koalition hat bisher keine wesentlichen Erfolge gegen den IS erzielt. Erst das Eingreifen der russischen Luftwaffe hat den IS in die Defensive gedrängt. Doch auch die Russen tun sich schwer: Immer wieder wechseln die Söldnertruppen und Islamisten die Fronten oder operieren verdeckt. Zwar koordinieren die Präsidenten Obama und Putin die Aktionen, aber ein Ende des Krieges ist nicht abzusehen. Vor allem aber fehlt Syrien die Perspektive für danach: Die meisten Söldner-Truppen agieren auf Geheiß von Regionalmächten wie Saudi-Arabien, Katar oder der Türkei.
Der Beschluss sieht vor, dass die mit moderner Radar- und Kommunikationstechnik ausgestatteten Flugzeuge von der Türkei und internationalen Gewässern im Mittelmeer aus den Luftraum über Syrien und dem Irak überwachen.
Wenn der Einsatz wie geplant nach dem Sommer beginnt, werden sich voraussichtlich auch deutsche Soldaten beteiligen. Die Bundeswehr stellt nach eigenen Angaben rund ein Drittel der Besatzungsmitglieder für die aus 16 Flugzeugen bestehende Awacs-Flotte.
Die Nato will ferner irakische Militärs künftig nicht mehr nur im Ausland, sondern auch im Irak selbst ausbilden. Das aktuelle Trainingsprogramm war vergangenen Sommer beschlossen worden. In seinem Rahmen bildeten Nato-Soldaten mehrere hundert irakische Offiziere in Jordanien aus. Eine Nato-Ausbildungsmission für irakische Truppen in dem Land selbst hatte es zuletzt zwischen 2004 und 2011 gegeben. Nato-Kreisen zufolge könnte der neue Trainingseinsatz Anfang kommenden Jahres starten. Im Gespräch ist, in einem ersten Schritt 20 bis 30 Ausbilder in den Irak zu schicken.
Um die EU-Operation «Sophia» vor der libyschen Küste unterstützen zu können, wurde der mögliche Aufgabenbereich für den aktuellen Einsatz im Mittelmeer deutlich erweitert. Die Nato-Schiffe sollen künftig auch am Kampf gegen illegale Migration beteiligt werden können.
Die Operation im Mittelmeer heißt dann «Sea Guardian» (Meereswächter). Sie geht aus dem Einsatz «Active Endeavour» hervor, der nach den Terroranschlägen vom 11. September 2001 gestartet worden war. Das Mandat für «Active Endeavour» erlaubte bislang nur die Überwachung des zivilen Seeverkehrs im Mittelmeer.
Der Beschluss des Bündnisses zu Afghanistan sieht die Fortführung der Nato-Trainingsmission Resolute Support (RS) über 2016 hinaus vor sowie die Finanzierung der afghanischen Streitkräfte bis Ende 2020.
Die Finanzierung der afghanischen Truppen beläuft sich auf etwa fünf Milliarden US-Dollar jährlich – die Summe soll auch in den nächsten Jahren in etwa gleich bleiben. Resolute Support hatte Anfang 2015 die langjährige Vorgängermission ISAF abgelöst.
10. Juli 2016
USA and NATO Are Preparing for a Major War With Russia (The Nation)
For the first time in a quarter-century, the prospect of war—real war, war between the major powers—will be on the agenda of Western leaders when they meet at the NATO Summit in Warsaw, Poland, on July 8 and 9. Dominating the agenda in Warsaw (aside, of course, from the “Brexit” vote in the UK) will be discussion of plans to reinforce NATO’s “eastern flank”—the arc of former Soviet partners stretching from the Baltic states to the Black Sea that are now allied with the West but fear military assault by Moscow. Until recently, the prospect of such an attack was given little credence in strategic circles, but now many in NATO believe a major war is possible and that robust defensive measures are required.
In what is likely to be its most significant move, the Warsaw summit is expected to give formal approval to a plan to deploy four multinational battalions along the eastern flank—one each in Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. Although not deemed sufficient to stop a determined Russian assault, the four battalions would act as a “tripwire,” thrusting soldiers from numerous NATO countries into the line of fire and so ensuring a full-scale, alliance-wide response. This, it is claimed, will deter Russia from undertaking such a move in the first place or ensure its defeat should it be foolhardy enough to start a war.
ADVERTISING
The United States, of course, is deeply involved in these initiatives. Not only will it supply many of the troops for the four multinational battalions, but it is also taking many steps of its own to bolster NATO’s eastern flank. Spending on the Pentagon’s “European Reassurance Initiative” will quadruple, climbing from $789 million in 2016 to $3.4 billion in 2017. Much of this additional funding will go to the deployment, on a rotating basis, of an additional armored-brigade combat team in northern Europe.
As a further indication of US and NATO determination to prepare for a possible war with Russia, the alliance recently conducted the largest war games in Eastern Europe since the end of the Cold War. Known as Anakonda 2016, the exercise involved some 31,000 troops (about half of them Americans) and thousands of combat vehicles from 24 nations in simulated battle maneuvers across the breadth of Poland. A parallel naval exercise, BALTOPS 16, simulated “high-end maritime warfighting” in the Baltic Sea, including in waters near Kaliningrad, a heavily defended Russian enclave wedged between Poland and Lithuania.
All of this—the aggressive exercises, the NATO buildup, the added US troop deployments—reflects a new and dangerous strategic outlook in Washington. Whereas previously the strategic focus had been on terrorism and counterinsurgency, it has now shifted to conventional warfare among the major powers. “Today’s security environment is dramatically different than the one we’ve been engaged in for the last 25 years,” observed Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter on February 2, when unveiling the Pentagon’s $583 billion budget for fiscal year 2017. Until recently, he explained, American forces had largely been primed to defeat insurgent and irregular forces, such as the Taliban in Afghanistan. Now, however, the Pentagon was being readied for “a return to great-power competition,” including the possibility of all-out combat with “high-end enemies” like Russia and China.
By preparing for war, Washington and NATO are setting in motion forces that could achieve precisely that outcome.
The budgetary and force-deployment implications of this are enormous in their own right, but so is this embrace of “great-power competition” as a guiding star for US strategy. During the Cold War, it was widely assumed that the principal task of the US military was to prepare for all-out combat with the Soviet Union, and that such preparation must envision the likelihood of nuclear escalation. Since then, American forces have seen much horrible fighting in the Middle East and Afghanistan, but none of that has involved combat with another major power, and none entailed the risk of nuclear escalation—for which we should all be thankful. Now, however, Secretary Carter and his aides are seriously thinking about—and planning for—conflicts that would involve another major power and could escalate to the nuclear realm.
It’s hard to know where to begin when commenting on all this, given the atmosphere of Cold War hysteria. There is, first of all, the question of proportionality: are US and NATO moves on the eastern flank in keeping with the magnitude of the threat posed by Russia? Russian intervention in Crimea and eastern Ukraine is certainly provocative and repugnant, but cannot unequivocally be deemed a direct threat to NATO. Other Russian moves in the region, such as incursions by Russian ships and planes into the airspace and coastal waters of NATO members, are more worrisome, but appear to be more political messaging than a prelude to invasion. Basically, it’s very hard to imagine a scenario in which Russia would initiate an armed attack on NATO.
Then there is the matter of self-fulfilling prophecies. By announcing the return of great-power competition and preparing for a war with Russia, the United States and NATO are setting in motion forces that could, in the end, achieve precisely that outcome. This is not to say that Moscow is guiltless regarding the troubled environment along the eastern front, but surely Vladimir Putin has reason to claim that the NATO initiatives pose a substantially heightened threat to Russian security and so justify a corresponding Russian buildup. Any such moves will, of course, invite yet additional NATO deployments, followed by complementary Russian moves, and so on—until we’re right back in a Cold War–like situation.
Finally, there is the risk of accident, miscalculation, and escalation. This arises with particular severity in the case of US/NATO exercises on the edge of Russian territory, especially Kaliningrad. In all such actions, there is a constant danger that one side or the other will overreact to a perceived threat and take steps leading to combat and, conceivably, all-out war. When two Russian fighters flew within 30 feet of a US destroyer sailing in the Baltic Sea this past April, Secretary of State John Kerry told CNN that under US rules of engagement, the planes could have been shot down. Imagine where that could have led. Fortunately, the captain of the destroyer chose to exercise restraint and a serious incident was averted. But as more US and NATO forces are deployed on the edge of Russian territory and both sides engage in provocative military maneuvers, dangerous encounters of this sort are sure to increase in frequency, and the risk of their ending badly will only grow.
No doubt the NATO summit in Warsaw will be overshadowed to some degree by the UK’s Brexit vote and ensuing political turmoil in Europe. But as Western leaders settle down to business, they must not allow their inclination to “demonstrate unity” and “act resolutely” lead them to approve military moves that are inherently destabilizing. Surely it is possible to reassure the Baltic states and Poland without deploying many thousands of additional troops there and inviting an additional military buildup on the Russian side.
9. Juli 2016
The German Parliament voted on creating security collective to replace NATO and include Russia
Sputnik News, Wednesday, June 8, 2016
The German parliament is likely to vote on a resolution that stipulates the establishment of a security collective “from Lisbon to Vladivostok” instead of NATO on July 7, a member of the parliamentary defense committee told Sputnik on Wednesday.
According to Alexander Neu, some left-wing members of the Bundestag are planning to travel to Warsaw ahead of the NATO summit, which will take place on July 8-9, to protest against the alliance.
“The idea of this resolution: We do not need NATO; we need security collective from Lisbon to Vladivostok instead of NATO. This week we will make it formal.
“The discussion of this resolution in Bundestag, most probably, will take place on July 7 on the eve of the NATO Summit. The discussion will be followed by a vote,” Neu said.
The resolution [text below] was drafted earlier this month. It calls on Germany to “choose the course in foreign policy aimed at dissolution of NATO and replacing it with a system of mutual collective security in Europe that will include the Russian Federation.”
The document denounces the practice of military interventionism and urges to stop threatening Russia militarily, which is “not only politically required but also urgent.”
It urges Berlin to convince other NATO member states at the bloc’s July summit in Warsaw to abolish missile defense in Europe, oppose Montenegro joining NATO, make it clear that Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia will never be accepted as members of the bloc and “make a stand against stationing U.S. troops in Eastern Europe because that threatens the NATO-Russian acts.”
Die Linke [The Left party] believes that the alliance is systematically violating basic rights guaranteed in Germany “especially the right to life and physical integrity and the right to information self-determination,” and demands withdrawal of U.S. nuclear weapons from the German territory.
Since 2014, the NATO alliance has been building up its military presence in Europe, especially in Eastern European countries neighboring Russia, using alleged Russian interference in the eastern Ukraine conflict as a pretext.
Replacing NATO with a collective system for peace and security in Europe which includes Russia
Motion tabled by Die Linke in the German Bundestag, June 2, 2016 (weblink here)
Motion tabled by the Members of the Bundestag: Wolfgang Gehrcke, Dr Alexander Neu, Jan van Aken, Christine Buchholz, Sevim Dagdelen, Dr Diether Dehm, Annette Groth, Heike Hänsel, Inge Höger, Andrej Hunko, Katrin Kunert, Stefan Liebich, Niema Movassat, Alexander Ulrich and the Left Party parliamentary group
The Bundestag is requested to adopt the following motion:
I. The German Bundestag notes:
1. The political reality in the run-up to the Warsaw NATO Summit shows that the North Atlantic military alliance has only one response to the world’s escalating conflicts – namely, pressing on even further in the wrong direction. Its self-imposed function of ensuring the NATO member countries’ defence against “armed attack” (Article 3 of the NATO Treaty) has been turned completely on its head since the 1990s. The new dawn offered by détente, which was joined in 1990 by the end of clash of systems, the idea of a common European home and the Charter of Paris, has given way to the global restoration of a military logic, primarily as a result of the actions of the NATO countries and the NATO administration. Today, this is significantly helping to undermine the trust between countries within the system of international relations. The war which NATO waged against Yugoslavia in contravention of international law was an early manifestation of the principle that was subsequently enshrined in NATO’s Strategic Concepts of 1999 and 2010 by means of a “broader concept of security”: the globalisation of the use of military force. Since then, the spirit and the letter of the UN Charter have been undermined by more and more countries, following the example of “might is right”.
NATO’s eastward expansion – the result of its “open door policy” towards central and eastern European countries – has the aim of securing stability in Europe, according to NATO. The opposite is true: the Ukraine crisis and the long-simmering Georgia conflict are part of an underlying conflict between Russia and the West over geopolitics in Europe, and at the same time a conflict between two different political strategies for dealing with this. One is NATO’s expansion strategy, while the other is the inclusive strategy favoured in 1990, in which real mutual security is ensured with the involvement of all European countries – i.e. including Russia – with the result that security becomes indivisible. NATO’s further build-up of military personnel and materiel along Russia’s western border, its ongoing and continuous manoeuvres, its initial moves to establish a NATO Black Sea fleet, and its dogged adherence to the construction of the so-called anti-missile shield are exacerbating military tensions and thus increasing the danger of an armed conflict with Russia in the medium term. Nothing remains of the idea, still prevalent in the mid-1990s, of a “soft power Europe” which would work within NATO to promote détente. Instead, nationalist-chauvinist hysteria and Russophobia in eastern Europe, above all in Poland and the Baltic states, are receiving strong support in the form of martial military gestures such as tank parades in front of Russian border posts or marches through these countries by U.S. units. For its part, Russia is reacting to such provocations with unacceptable military posturing. Even the halting revival of the NATO-Russia Council does not fundamentally change the situation, as NATO has often proved quick to suspend it again when there are tensions. A spiral of escalation is developing in relations with Russia, one which poses a new level of potential danger – even a nuclear danger – and which will be difficult to remedy given the long-term nature of the measures. Turkey’s aggressive actions on NATO’s south-eastern flank, especially in Syria, also pose dangers, as was shown by the recent shooting down of a Russian strike bomber. Yet Germany and other NATO allies are continuing to pay court to the Erdogan government out of political expediency. In addition, NATO is continuing to play a leading role in conflicts in the Global South due to its approach of seeking to resolve conflicts by military means – a brutal war is being waged against the Taliban by proxies in Afghanistan, partnership initiatives are under way to train other proxy armies, and NATO is participating in the anti-refugee measures in the Aegean. NATO as an organisation is – both in Europe and globally – visibly unwilling and unable to pursue a political strategy of sustainable, non-military conflict resolution.
2. The Federal Government is a central stakeholder in the military build-up in Europe. Rather than openly criticising the escalation agenda pursued by the United States or various eastern European countries, it is busily driving forward the process of bolstering its own military. The Bundeswehr took on a central leadership and coordination role in the establishment of NATO’s “spearhead force” (VJTF) and the restructuring of NATO Headquarters Multinational Corps Northeast in Szczecin. Assuming leadership in Framework Nations projects is a win-win situation for Germany in both military and arms-policy terms: it can bind other countries to it logistically and at the same time support the arms industry in line with Germany’s own interests. NATO’s nuclear sharing strategy, i.e. the storage of U.S. nuclear weapons in Germany and their potential use by German combat aircraft, was rightly regarded with scepticism by former Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs Guido Westerwelle during his time in office (see Die Zeit, 16 February 2010). Now, however, German security-policy think tanks with close links to the government, together with CDU hardliners, are setting the tone for a revival of the doctrine of nuclear deterrence in Warsaw. In 2012, the Federal Republic of Germany already voluntarily made itself dependent on the nuclear hardliners in NATO when it supported the agreement that only the North Atlantic Council can decide on the potential withdrawal of nuclear weapons from a member state, not the country itself. All of these developments are now to be driven forward by a significant further increase in defence spending by the European NATO members. Already, NATO countries’ military spending, which SIPRI data puts at just under 900 billion dollars, represents well over half of the world’s total military expenditure (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, 2015). The Wales agreements, under which defence spending by NATO members is to be raised even further, to two per cent of each country’s GDP, are now to be affirmed in Warsaw (A. Vershbow, NATO Deputy Secretary General, 8 April 2016). The recent plans set out by the Federal Minister of Defence for increased defence procurements over the next 15 years mean that there is a clear roadmap for Germany, too, to conform to these NATO directives.
3. Fundamental legal rights in Germany continue to be violated by NATO military and intelligence structures and installations, especially the right to life and physical integrity, and the right of the individual to determine the use of his or her data. Firstly, military structures in Germany are, under NATO rules, still being used to wage the so-called “war on terror”. NATO provides support from German soil for “targeted killings”, for example by enabling the United States to use the U.S. base in Ramstein to carry out drone attacks in contravention of international law in African countries and the countries of the Arabian Peninsula, with no possibility of criminal prosecution (Cologne Administrative Court, judgment of 27 May 2015 – 3 K 5625/14). The provisions of the NATO Status of Forces Agreement and its Supplementary Agreement pave the way for de facto impunity, as they give the sending NATO member states the right to decide whether German legal institutions can launch investigations (Article 17 of the Supplementary Agreement to the NATO Status of Forces Agreement). According to NGOs, the U.S. “drone war” has cost several thousand people their lives, with attacks predominantly resulting in civilian victims. The German intelligence services’ involvement in passing on electronic data for NATO’s Joint Prioritised Effects List, which is the basis for clandestine operations by NATO countries’ special forces, gives rise to a strong suspicion that they too are part of the machinery of these killings. This illegal practice has never been publicly criticised by the Federal Government, let alone sanctioned by the North Atlantic Council. There is effectively no real oversight of NATO military structures by the Bundestag or the NATO Parliamentary Assembly regarding actions which contravene international law, for example.
“Targeted killings” are only the most drastic evidence of the organised illegality in the actions of NATO countries’ “military-information complex” (Glen Greenwald) as part of the so-called “war on terror”. Secondly, since as early as 2001, the extent to which U.S., British and German intelligence services access the electronic data of citizens in Germany has expanded to the point of being uncontrollable. Here too, the Supplementary Agreement to the NATO Status of Forces Agreement (especially Articles 3, 38 and 60) forms the basis for the services’ activities, e.g. those of the NSA at the Dagger Complex in Darmstadt, Hesse. The administrative agreements restricting the privacy of correspondence, described by one expert as an “attack on the free democratic basic order of the Federal Republic of Germany” (J. Foschepoth, Süddeutsche Zeitung of 12 July 2014), may since have been terminated – but the legal means by which spying on millions of people can be legalised, which formed the basis of these agreements, remain in force. Various NGOs and journalists believe that the electronic spying is still taking place.
Both of these issues show that, due to the legal status of NATO’s military structures in Germany, these structures not only enable systematic breaches of international law, but also ongoing, sweeping violations of German citizens’ fundamental rights. By its own admission, the Federal Government has been attempting for years to persuade the U.S. government to change course on both issues – without success. The (absence of) court decisions on both of these issues also shows that Germany’s institutions are – in the current legal circumstances – seemingly incapable of stopping these violations of rights and the law.
4. Violations of international law and fundamental rights in Germany, wars of intervention in the South, further institutional expansion, and military, even nuclear, muscle-flexing directed at the East – more and more people in Germany are criticising NATO’s fundamental approach and turning away from it. Today, only 55 per cent of German citizens still believe that NATO ensures their security, with this figure falling below 50 per cent in eastern Germany (Pew Research Center, 10 June 2015).
In view of this, there is an urgent political need for a shift away from military interventionism in dealing with conflicts in the South and an end to the military posturing directed at Russia. Instead, the system of international relations must return to being based on respect for international law and the UN Charter, as the prerequisite for the creation of an international community of real solidarity and cooperation for the purpose of global justice. Europe needs resolute action to set in motion a process to create a peaceful order guided by the principles and structures of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and the Helsinki Final Act – a structure in whose favour NATO must be dissolved. A new start for comprehensive arms control and the disarmament of offensive military capabilities throughout Europe must be part of this process. The interconnected nature of security today and the reservations in Europe about the possibility of the Federal Republic of Germany going it alone, rooted in the fascist world war, mean that Germany’s political integration within Europe, and in particular with its neighbours, should be ensured at all times. This cannot, however, be achieved within NATO’s military structures: from Afghanistan and Iraq to Libya and Ukraine, the collective military logic of NATO’s command structure has regularly put pressure on Germany in support of, and not against, war and military escalation. Finally, a situation can no longer be accepted in which there are entities in the Federal Republic of Germany, in the form of NATO’s military structures, which are suspected of breaching international law and violating fundamental rights by continuing to provide assistance for the remote-controlled killing of human beings and by continuing to spy on millions of German citizens, and which are openly opposing the rule of law, because NATO’s rules enable them to prevent investigations and prosecution.
II. The German Bundestag calls on the Federal Government:
- to embark on a foreign-policy path which aims to dissolve NATO and replace it with a system of mutual collective security in Europe which includes the Russian Federation;
- to take the decision, as a first step on this path, to withdraw from NATO’s military and command structures (similarly to France’s partial withdrawal in 1966);
- to consequently terminate the NATO Status of Forces Agreement, and to reach agreement with the U.S., the UK and France on the withdrawal of their troops, and also and in particular all of their intelligence installations, from the Federal Republic of Germany;
- to launch a diplomatic offensive, in the framework of Germany’s OSCE Chairmanship, to reinstitutionalise the political dialogue with Russia and to create the conditions for confidence-building measures relating to arms control and disarmament;
- to withdraw the Bundeswehr from all missions abroad;
- to cancel the Federal Government’s plans to raise spending on defence procurement in the next 15 years and replace them with plans for a steady five per cent reduction in military expenditure in the defence budget each year for the next 15 years, with the financial resources this frees up being earmarked for solidarity-based development cooperation with the countries of the Global South;
- furthermore, at the Warsaw NATO Summit,
- to call on the other member countries, in the interests of de‑escalation and confidence-building in Europe, to forgo completing the so-called anti-missile shield (BMS), and in particular to refrain from stationing tactical missiles in Redzikowo (Poland);
- to propose, in view of the potential danger of a renewed nuclear arms race, that the Summit issue a declaration stating that NATO and its member countries will under no circumstances make first use of nuclear weapons;
- to propose that the doctrine of nuclear sharing be ended and that the modernisation of the tactical nuclear weapons stored in Büchel be stopped, and to reach agreement with the United States, unilaterally if necessary, on the withdrawal of the U.S. nuclear weapons stored in Germany;
- to oppose, in any event, a new Readiness Action Plan (RAP 2.0);
- to propose that NATO voice its opposition to the stationing of U.S. troops in eastern Europe under bilateral agreements, as these endanger the validity of the NATO-Russia Founding Act;
- to withhold consent for Montenegro’s accession to NATO and thus block its admittance;
- to make clear that Germany will not consent, now or in the future, to the admittance of further eastern European countries to NATO, such as Ukraine, Moldova or Georgia;
- to present a substantial proposal for the additional military expenditure planned by NATO in the form of its 2% target to be used to develop and deliver a civilian and humanitarian infrastructure (e.g. in the form of a civilian crisis response corps).
Berlin, 1 June 2016
Dr Sahra Wagenknecht, Dr Dietmar Bartsch and parliamentary group
9. Juli 2016
Dokumentation des Ukraine-Fachgesprächs zu Minsk II am 8. Juni 2016 im Bundestag
Videomitschnitt zum Fachgespräch Minsk II, das am 8. Juni 2016 im Bundestag auf Initiative des europapolitischen Sprechers der Linksfraktion, Andrej Hunko, mit Gernot Erler, Wolfgang Gehrcke sowie Gästen aus der Ukraine und Russland stattfand.
Teil 1 (Vorträge)
Teil 2 (Diskussion)
Auf der Seite von Andrej Hunko: http://andrej-hunko.de/26-videos/3175-dokumentation-fachgespraech-minsk-ii
Die einzelnen Beiträge:
Wolfgang Gehrcke
Gernot Erler
Yevgen Kopatko
Dmytri Dzhangirov
Oleg Bondarenko
Andrej Hunko (in Teil 2)
Einzelne Redebeiträge in der Diskussion (Teil 2) finden Sie in der Beschreibung des Videos.
8. Juli 2016
Frankreichs Regierung hat Arbeitsmarktreform am Dienstag erneut ohne Abstimmung durchs Parlament gedrückt.
Premierminister Valls griff dazu in der Nationalversammlung auf eine Sonderregel in der Verfassung zurück.
Nächste Station für die Reform ist erneut der Senat als zweite Kammer des französischen Parlaments.
8. Juli 2016
Bürgermeister von 1.400 US-Städten verurteilen Kriegstreiber im Weißen Haus (RTdeutsch)
https://deutsch.rt.com/gesellschaft/39343-burgermeister-von-1400-us-stadten/
Amerikanische Lokalpolitiker protestieren gegen weitere Rüstungsprojekte der Regierung. Im Mittelpunkt ihrer Kritik steht die nukleare Aufrüstung der USA. Die finanziellen Ressourcen sollten besser zur Reparatur der „sich verschlechternden“ und „zerbröckelnden“ zivilen Infrastruktur eingesetzt werden, so die Kommunalpolitiker.
von Rainer Rupp
In der letzten Woche verabschiedeten Bürgermeister von 1407 US-amerikanischen Städten eine Resolution an das Weiße Haus. Darin verurteilen sie, die militärischen und politischen Provokationen der Regierung. Im Rahmen der NATO würde die US-Außenpolitik einen Atomkrieg mit Russland riskieren, werfen die Bürgermeister der Regierung vor.
Kurz vor dem NATO-Gipfel in Warschau, auf dem die nicht existente „russische Aggression“ an die Wand gemalt wird, kommt der Botschaft der Bürgermeister ein starkes Zeichen aus der amerikanischen Innenpolitik.
In einem einstimmigen Beschluss auf ihrer 84. Jahrestagung verabschiedete die Konferenz der Bürgermeister der Vereinigten Staaten (USCM) eine Resolution, in der sie die Entscheidung von Präsident Barack Obama scharf verurteilen, in den nächsten 30 Jahren insgesamt eine Billion Dollar – also eintausend Milliarden – für weitere Rüstungsprojekte auszugeben.
Im Mittelpunkt der Kritik stehen dabei die „Instandhaltung und Modernisierung von Atomsprengköpfen“. Die von der Obama-Regierung „verewigten Kriegsmanöver und ihre Nuklearpolitik“ befeuerten „die wachsenden Spannungen“ mit Russland und riskierten, die Welt in einem nuklearen Feuer zu vernichten, heißt es in der offiziellen Stellungnahme der überparteiliche Organisation.
Die dort organisierten US-Bürgermeister vertreten Städte mit mindestens 30.000 Einwohnern. Die Organisation repräsentiert also mindestens 42 Millionen Einwohner. Da auch etliche Millionenstädte darunter sind, dürfte die Anzahl insgesamt sehr viel höher liegen.
Die Bürgermeister werfen dem US-Präsidenten vor, dass sie zu wenig getan hat, um „das US-Atomwaffenarsenal zu reduzieren“, heißt es in der in Indianapolis am 27. Juni verabschiedeten Resolution. Auch bezüglich des jüngsten NATO-Großmanövers „Anaconda 2016“ in Osteuropa zeigen sich die Unterzeichner besorgt, dass sich das Verhältnis zwischen den beiden nuklearen Supermächten zuspitzt:
„Die größten NATO-Kriegsspiele in Jahrzehnten, an denen 14.000 US-Truppen beteiligt waren, und die Aktivierung der US-Raketenabwehr in Osteuropa schüren wachsende Spannungen zwischen den atomar bewaffneten Riesen.“
Anbetracht dessen, dass 94 Prozent der mehr als 15.000 Atomwaffen in der Welt in den Arsenalen der USA und Russland lagern – und dass die meisten von ihnen größere Vernichtungskraft haben als „die Hiroshima und Nagasaki Bomben“, drängt die USCM auf eine unbedingte weitere Reduzierung der Atomwaffen „auf das erforderliche Minimum“.
Die Stadtväter fordern die US-Regierung auf, die finanziellen Ressourcen besser zur Reparatur der „sich verschlechternden“ und „zerbröckelnden“ zivilen Infrastruktur der USA einzusetzen. Die Kommunen benötigen dringend mehr Bundesmittel, „um bezahlbaren Wohnraum zu bauen, Arbeitsplätze zu schaffen mit Löhnen, von denen man auch leben kann, und für die Verbesserung der öffentlichen Verkehrsmittel und der Entwicklung nachhaltiger Energiequellen“ verlangen die US-Bürgermeister in ihrer Resolution.
Die „United States Conference of Mayors“ ist assoziiert mit der internationalen Organisation „Bürgermeister für den Frieden“ (Mayors for Peace), die im Jahr 1991 von den Bürgermeistern von Hiroshima und Nagasaki gegründet wurde. Derzeit hat sie 5.500 Mitgliedsstädte und ihr Ziel ist es, bis zum Jahr 2020 diese Zahl auf 10.000 aufzustocken.
Die Organisation „fordert alle Städte auf, sich gemeinsam für die Abschaffung von Atomwaffen und den Weltfrieden einzusetzen“. Angesichts des Zündelns der NATO an den EU-Grenzen in Osteuropa und der inzwischen auch für Deutschland geforderten nuklearen Aufrüstung wäre es dringend geboten, dass sich auch deutsche Bürgermeister verstärkt in dieser Organisation engagieren.
8. Juli 2016
Die Neue Seidenstraße (II) (Chinesische Investitionen in Südosteuropa stellen deutsche Hegemonialansprüche in Frage) German Foreign Policy
Strategische Investitionen der Volksrepublik China in Südosteuropa stellen die deutschen Hegemonialansprüche dort in Frage. Zu Wochenbeginn hat der griechische Ministerpräsident Alexis Tsipras in Beijing über neue chinesische Wirtschaftsvorhaben in Griechenland verhandelt. Kernstück ist der Hafen in Piräus bei Athen, der zu zwei Dritteln von einem chinesischen Großkonzern übernommen wird. Beijing baut ihn zum Endpunkt des maritimen Teils der „Neuen Seidenstraße“ aus, eines billionenschweren Infrastrukturprojekts, das China ökonomisch enger mit Europa verbinden soll. Piräus steigt damit zu einem zentralen Hafen des europäischen Chinahandels auf; das verbessert die griechische Position in der EU. Beijing ergänzt dies um aufwendige Maßnahmen zum Ausbau der Infrastruktur in den Nicht-EU-Ländern Südosteuropas. Berlin beginnt gegenzusteuern und hat am Montag mit einem „Westbalkangipfel“ seinen Einfluss auf die dortigen Staaten zu sichern versucht. Das Treffen richtete sich auch gegen Bemühungen Russlands, seine Positionen in Südosteuropa zu verbessern.
8. Juli 2016
Time to rethink NATO By Medea Benjamin and Alice Slater (The Hill)
Donald Trump angered the D.C. establishment when he said that NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance, may be obsolete and the U.S. should reassess its spending on the alliance. Hillary Clinton has used Trump’s comments as another example that he is a dangerous, loose cannon. But Trump has brought up an issue worth exploring and this month, when NATO will hold its Annual Summit in Warsaw, Poland on July 8-9, is an excellent opportunity to do so. Indeed, activists are planning to show up on in Warsaw during the Summit and in New York City there will be a demonstration on July 9 in Times Square.
Formed in the early years of the Cold War, 1949, with the United States, Canada, Portugal, Italy, UK, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, and France, by 1952 this post-WWII alliance included Greece and Turkey, and had rejected the Soviet Union’s request to join. In 1956, when West Germany was admitted to NATO membership, the USSR formed the Warsaw Pact in response and the Cold War was then on, full-blown. Missiles and nuclear weapons from each side pointed menacingly at each other, with the United States parking nuclear weapons in five NATO countries (Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Italy and Turkey), where they remain to this day. NATO doctrine provides that nuclear weapons will be used if necessary, at will, on behalf of all its members.
After the Berlin wall fell in 1989 and Gorbachev miraculously let go of all the Soviet-occupied Eastern European countries, dissolving the Warsaw Pact without a shot, the U.S. promised Gorbachev that if he didn’t object to East Germany’s inclusion in NATO, we would never expand NATO further eastward. Russia had lost 27 million people to the Nazi onslaught during World War II and had good cause to fear a military alliance on its borders. Despite U.S. assurances to Gorbachev, today NATO has expanded to include twelve new countries in eastern and central Europe, including Hungary, the Czech Republic, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, Albania and Croatia. NATO now extends right up to Russia’s border, and has even been discussing membership with Georgia and the Ukraine.
One can only imagine what the response would be in the United States if Russia were to invite Canada and Mexico into its military alliance. Let us not forget how close we came to war when the Soviet Union put missiles in Cuba. And part of the deal President Kennedy made with President Khrushchev for their removal was to take US missiles out of Turkey. Then George W. Bush turned around and put the missiles back in Turkey in 1991, and they were only removed this year after huge objections from Russia.
Meanwhile, in 1991 the U.S. government withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty we had signed with the Soviets in 1972 and put new missile bases in Poland and Romania. Although NATO took no military action during the Cold War, during the first Gulf War it deployed forces for the first time, and then acted unlawfully when it bombed Yugoslavia without UN authorization. The UN Charter, devoted to preventing “the scourge of war,” allows nations to the use force only in self-defense when under threat of imminent attack, or when authorized by the Security Council, neither of which had occurred when NATO bombed Yugoslavia in the 1999 Kosovo war. Since then NATO has taken part in many military actions, including in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. But this year it has been particularly aggressive and provocative, conducting massive military maneuvers on Russia’s borders.
It is totally unacceptable to be taking these provocative measures when the U.S. and Russia have nearly 2,000 nuclear warheads on hair trigger alert, loaded on missiles, submarines and airplanes, poised and ready to fire in minutes. Next year, the Pentagon plans to quadruple military spending in Europe to $3.4 billion and begin rotating an armored brigade through Eastern Europe—in addition to extra NATO forces to be deployed to Poland and the Baltics. The U.S., the main force behind NATO, is already in a deadly proxy war in eastern Ukraine.
In June NATO launched the largest war games since the Cold War, involving hundreds of tanks and jets, as well as 31,000 troops from 24 countries. The war games in Poland included air-ground assaults and electronic warfare scenarios. Airborne units, infantrymen, medics, military police and aviation units have operated jointly throughout the exercise, which culminated in a massive live-fire event led by the U.S. military. A naval exercise involving NATO forces has just begun in Finland. Meanwhile, there is an ongoing “Saber Strike” operation in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.
One can only wonder how, 25 years after the end of the Cold War, we find ourselves rattling our sabers, nuclear and conventional, in this untenable dilemma. Surely President Eisenhower’s prescient warning way back in 1961 that “we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex” is a potent warning for today, more than half a century later. The time has come to spread the word about the dangerous mischief NATO is causing on Russia’s border. With the recent breakup of the old paradigm after the UK just left the European Union, there may be a new opening for change. It has been reported that Germany and France have been talking about ending the sanctions on Russia imposed after the Ukraine events and are now recommending a less aggressive posture for NATO. America too, could do its share to make good on the UN promise to “end the scourge of war” by ratcheting down the hostilities towards Russia and working for the abolition of NATO. You don’t have to be a Donald Trump supporter to recognize that it is time to rethink NATO.
Medea Benjamin is the cofounder of the peace group CODEPINK. Alice Slater is the New York Director of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.
CO-OP NEWS 