|
WSWS : News
& Analysis : Europe
: Germany
Greens vs. Lefts
Germany: a revealing debate on Sudan military deployment
By Marius Heuser
31 December 2005
Use
this version to print
| Send this
link by email | Email
the author
The debate in the German Bundestag (parliament) on December
16 over the German armys (Bundeswehr) deployment in the
Sudan cast a revealing light on the role of the so-called parliamentary
opposition. While the governing coalition of the Christian Democratic
Union (CDU)/Christian Social Union (CSU) and Social Democratic
Party (SPD) constitutes 73 percent of all deputies, the three
opposition partiesthe Free Democratic Party (FDP), the Left
Party and the Greensprovide, at best, a pseudo-democratic
fig leaf.
With 487 votes for and only 39 against, the Bundestag agreed
to extend the Bundeswehrs operation in the Sudan. Up to
200 armed soldiers are to provide logistical support to the African
Unions Amis mission. The Bundeswehrs main
mission will be to transport armed forces and materiel via air
transport from the African Union to the Sudan.
Sudan holds enormous geopolitical significance for Germany.
The country occupies a strategic position between the Middle East
and Northern Africa and currently produces around 250,000 barrels
of oil per day, with output increasing.
Only the Left Party voted against the extension of the operation,
and this was only because the partys current program still
rejects any form of foreign intervention by the German armed forces.
Echoing the debates that took place in the Green Party ten
years ago, this policy has been questioned by party members. According
to the weekly news magazine Der Spiegel, in a trial vote
conducted inside the parliamentary fraction, nearly one third
of all Left Party deputies voted against rejecting foreign interventions
by the armed forces. Only 39 of the 54 deputies voted to reject
foreign interventions, with the rest voting in favour.
There can be no doubt that the Left Party will give up its
opposition completely as soon as it sniffs the chance of participating
in a federal government. Back in 1998, the Greens secured their
place in a federal coalition government with the SPD by agreeing
to support the NATO war against Yugoslavia. It is an open secret
that both of the Left Partys chairmen, Gregor Gysi and Oskar
Lafontaine, aspire to a coalition with the SPD and Greens, should
the present coalition under CDU chair Angela Merkel split up prematurely.
Those who stand in elections, explained Gysi, must
be prepared for both kinds of responsibilities: in government
and in opposition. The partys election campaign manager
Bodo Ramelow was somewhat more explicit: We have to be ready
for governmentalso on the federal level.
After representatives from all parties had spoken in parliament,
applauding one another, government representatives settled back
in their chairs while the Left Partys Norman Paech argued
his fractions case against extending the armys stay,
even though, he said, the decision was not an easy one for its
members. Significantly, the Greens were the ones who took up the
defence of the governments position and postured as the
aggressive advocates of a military-based foreign policy.
Paech said that the Party for Democratic Socialism (PDS, now
part of the Left Party) had rejected sending troops to the Sudan
a year ago because the party viewed the military operation
as ineffective as long as the economic and social causes as well
as their terrible consequences are not brought under control and
resolved. He also said that the party feared that the military
operation would be expanded and that the EU and NATO, and not
the AU, would end up leading the operation.
Paech criticised comments by the former defence minister and
current chairman of the SPD parliamentary fraction Peter Struck
that the Bundeswehr will also have to be sent to Africa soon.
He also quoted the secretary of the defence ministry, Friedbert
Pflüger: Because Europe... has to import increasing
amounts of energy from other regions we have to pay attention
to African oil wealth as a potential way to diversify our sources
of supply. In contrast to us, the United States has already acknowledged
the significance of African oil. Western Africa will account for
a quarter of their essential oil imports by 2015.
Paech demanded that the German government prosecute its policies
through civilian means rather than military ones: The foreign
office has a paper that concerns itself with conflict prevention
and mediation. There exist many means to promote peace without
the use of military measures. We have to use these instruments.
Paechs speech was constantly interrupted by interjections
from all the other parties. The Greens above all found Paechs
speech too much to take. At the end of it, one of the Greens
leading members, Hans-Christian Ströbele, finally asked a
question. Ströbele has long time promoted himself as one
the partys so-called left-wing members. Although Ströbele
initially rejected German military participation in Afghanistan,
he then ensured that internal party opposition to the intervention
fell apart. Since then, Ströbele has given his blessing to
numerous other foreign interventions by the German army, in Afghanistan,
Macedonia and Africa.
Ströbele said: Mr. Paech, I understand many of your
arguments, also the one about oil. However, he went on to
say, didnt the African Union itself ask for help? Ströbele
said that if the government were to deny this help, it would undermine
the self-determination of Africa.
Another Green parliamentary deputy, Uschi Eid, was even clearer.
Paechs arguments had deeply appalled her. Eid
screamed hysterically towards the Left Party for the duration
of her entire speech. Paechs arguments protected murderers
and rapists, she said. On the one side stood the government and
the rebels, and on the other side the people: women, men,
children, those displaced, and those who have been murdered and
raped. I then ask you: As a left-winger, on whose side do
you stand? Those on the left wing stand on the side of the
victims and not that of the perpetrators! You stand on the side
of the latter when you dont intervene. By looking away you
become guilty!
Eids speech was greeted with substantial applause from
members of the Union parties, SPD, FDP and the Green Party itself.
The Greens have long been aggressive advocates of German militarism.
During their seven years in government, they sent German troops
into combat for the first time since the end of the Second World
War. At that time, the Greens arguments played a key role
in overcoming the broad popular resistance to military interventions.
Today their demand for the establishment of a full-time professional
army situates the Greens on the right wing of this foreign policy
debate.
It is noteworthy that the Greens reacted so hysterically to
arguments they themselves had formulated ten years ago. On every
issue, they have broken with their alternative policies
to become a right-wing middle class party, as their tirades against
the Left Party further demonstrate.
While the Left Party strives for a coalition with the SPD and
Greens, the latter are preparing themselves for a partnership
with the Union and FDP. At their last party congress, they made
it clear that they do not rule out a future coalition with any party.
In this sense, the recent performances by Eid and Ströbele
must be seen as lobbying: they are refuting their own past because
it could stand in the way of future coalitions.
The Greens were able to claim a significant success as a result
of this effort. The conservative CDU deputy Anke Eymer began her
speech with the following words: I would like to take this
opportunity to congratulate Uschi Eid for her words. Congratulations!
See Also:
An exchange on the German
Greens
[27 September 2005]
Abandoning party posts
after election
German Green leader clears way for collaboration with the right
[24 September 2005]
Top of page
The WSWS invites your comments.
Copyright 1998-2008
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved |