So he's been criticised and ultimately resigned for pretty much telling the truth? That there's a secondary benefit to a stable Afghanistan which is our own economic prosperity? I may be misreading his comment, but that's how it sounds to me.
Part of the problem is that the Afghanistan involvement is extremely unpopular in Germany, as the majority of Germans is opposed to sending soldiers anywhere where they need to fight. Pacifism is deeply rooted, not only on the left. Most politicians don't even call what the soldiers do in Afghanistan "fighting a war" and try to get around it. It was newsworthy when the defense secretary talked about a "war". The only way to get people to at least accept the German involvement is to emphasise the security aspect, and potentially one of aiding the country we are in.
What Köhler originally said in German really makes it sound as if Germany should get used to fighting wars out of economical interest, which is a complete no-go. Also, he later tried to get out of what he said by claiming he was talking about the anti-pirate missions, which did not help at all, because it wasn't really credible that that was what he had talked about.
that a country of our size, with this orientation toward foreign trade and therefore also dependence on foreign trade, has to be aware that when in doubt in case of an emergency, military deployment is also necessary to protect our interests.
Yeah, that was the one people most strongly reacted to. It was worded just as awkwardly in German (I had to read it twice to see what he was saying). They later claimed that it was about the anti-pirate mission, not Afghanistan, but the way it came out... this sort of thing doesn't really work if you're the head of state of this of all countries. His resignation statement makes him look mostly butthurt, though.
Exactly, I mean, to my cynical mind it's nothing but the truth that wars are fought to serve economic interests, but for him to say that openly and not expect consequences with the public is pretty naive.
I figured people might not know that (or wonder why Merkel is the government leader, if they think of a US-style President), so I included a bit of explanation. :-)
Yeah, thank you - I was thinking, 'But wait, what on earth is Merkel then?!' haha. So is this a real problem for the way government works, or is it more just surprising and constitutionally confusing?
The latter - the news keep referring to clauses of the constitution that I bet they had to look up extra, because they are never used. For now, Jens Böhrnsen will sign any laws that need signing (a rather quick way to get from mayor of Bremen to head of state). But it seems they will have to elect someone within 30 days, which will be interesting, as the President is elected by a rather strangely thrown-together, not-really-elected assembly that is put together for that purpose only, and also as the office is one people usually don't campaign for, and that should not be too obviously filled by a party. So they'll need to come up with some elder states(wo)men really quick
( ... )
Comments 33
Reply
Reply
What Köhler originally said in German really makes it sound as if Germany should get used to fighting wars out of economical interest, which is a complete no-go. Also, he later tried to get out of what he said by claiming he was talking about the anti-pirate missions, which did not help at all, because it wasn't really credible that that was what he had talked about.
Reply
Reply
Reply
that a country of our size, with this orientation toward foreign trade and therefore also dependence on foreign trade, has to be aware that when in doubt in case of an emergency, military deployment is also necessary to protect our interests.
Groce.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment