<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16945" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A
title=tanstl@aol.com href="mailto:tanstl@aol.com">David Sladky</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=undisclosed-recipients:
href="mailto:undisclosed-recipients:">undisclosed-recipients:</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, January 06, 2010 2:13 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> US surge in Afghanistan exposes dilemma of German foreign
policy</DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><FONT face=arial color=black size=2><FONT
face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"></FONT><BR><BR>
<DIV style="CLEAR: both">
<DIV id=AOLMsgPart_2_d9f276ef-5c02-4750-bba3-a0bccd1d9146>
<STYLE>#AOLMsgPart_2_d9f276ef-5c02-4750-bba3-a0bccd1d9146 TD {
COLOR: black
}
#AOLMsgPart_2_d9f276ef-5c02-4750-bba3-a0bccd1d9146 .hmmessage P {
PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
#AOLMsgPart_2_d9f276ef-5c02-4750-bba3-a0bccd1d9146 BODY.hmmessage {
FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana
}
</STYLE>
<H2>US surge in Afghanistan exposes dilemma of German foreign policy</H2>
<H5>By Ulrich Rippert <BR>5 January 2010</H5>On December 27 German Defence
Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg told the <EM>Bild am Sonntag</EM> newspaper
that he did not believe it was possible to bring Western-style democracy to
Afghanistan. “I have long come to believe that Afghanistan, because of its
history and its characteristics, is not suited as a model for democracy by our
standards,” the minister declared.<BR><BR>Until now, Berlin has sought to
justify the participation of the <EM>Bundeswehr</EM> (armed forces) in the
Afghan conflict on the basis of democratic and humanitarian arguments. German
politicians have repeatedly criticised the US military’s brutality in the
context of “Operation Enduring Freedom,” and tried to distinguish this from the
Bundeswehr’s activities. The International Security Assistance Force has been
presented as a “peace mission,” “stabilization operation,” or “reconstruction
mission,” that is, as a sort of “armed development assistance.”<BR>As late as
the summer of 2009, the German government claimed that the main task of the
<EM>Bundeswehr</EM> in Afghanistan was to provide security for the presidential
elections, although the extent of the corruption, nepotism and growing
criminality of the Karzai government in Kabul had long been known.<BR>On
December 3, the German parliament voted by a large majority to extend the
military’s deployment in Afghanistan for another year. The vote was based on a
motion by the government, which cited the establishment of democracy in
Afghanistan and the economic reconstruction of the country as the principal
justifications for extending the mandate.<BR>The government asserted it was
pursuing the goal of the “consolidation of democratic institutions and processes
through supporting the 2010 general elections, as well as proposed projects for
the implementation of the planned census to establish a credible voters’
register.” In addition, the government was striving, it said, “to continue its
contributions in the field of economic and social reconstruction and development
of the country.”<BR>Berlin’s Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development
(BMZ) intends to “continue its long-term work in the priority sectors of
Afghan-German development cooperation (basic and vocational education,
sustainable economic development, water and energy supply),” the government
motion also claims.<BR>With his brief remarks revealing that he considers a
democratic development in Afghanistan unrealistic, Defence Minister Guttenberg
has brushed aside the current war propaganda. His statement demonstrates that
the reasons cited by the government for extending the military mandate have no
relation to reality, and that it is dispatching soldiers to a war zone under
false pretences and with false arguments.<BR>After eight years, the true
character of this war can no longer be hidden. The massacre in Kunduz at the
beginning of September, in which at least 142 people died, including many
civilians, has made it clear that the Bundeswehr is not acting as an armed
auxiliary force to secure economic development, but as an occupying army.<BR>A
war has a logic of its own, and its aims determine the methods employed. The
targeted killing of a large number of insurgents at the cost of civilian
casualties is characteristic of a colonial war, as conducted by France in
Algeria or the United States in Vietnam and Iraq.<BR>While Defence Minister
Guttenberg has abandoned the previous propaganda that the army is pursuing
democratic and humanitarian aims, he has not revealed the true driving forces of
the war. These become clear when one examines the history of the present
conflict. For several decades, Afghanistan has been at the centre of the
geo-strategic interests of the United States in Central Asia. Through the
military occupation and the establishment of a puppet regime in Kabul, the US
government intends to establish its strategic and economic dominance over the
resource-rich region.<BR>Thirty years ago, the Carter and then Reagan
administrations financed Islamist insurgents and supplied them with weapons to
fight against the Afghan government, which at that time was supported by the
Soviet Union. In the 1990s, the Clinton administration encouraged its allies in
the Pakistani government to assist the Taliban to come to power in Kabul. This
was done in the belief that the Taliban regime would work with the major
American energy companies then developing oil and gas projects in Kazakhstan and
other Central Asian countries, and which wanted to build pipelines through
Afghanistan. Finally, the US government prepared a direct conquest of the
country. The terrorist attacks of 11 September provided the pretext to put this
long-prepared plan into action.<BR>In addition to controlling access to raw
materials, the US is pursuing yet another goal with its military occupation of
Afghanistan. Washington wants to establish an outpost in the region, in order to
contain its rivals—mainly Russia, China, India, and Iran.<BR>The decision of the
Obama administration to increase the number of American troops by a further
30,000, intensifying the war and extending it into Pakistan, has put the German
government under pressure in two respects, both domestically and in terms of
foreign policy.<BR>Domestically, it has become increasingly difficult to justify
a war whose colonial character is so transparent. Even before Guttenberg cast
aside the official aims being pursued in Afghanistan, after eight years of war,
the country’s social and political collapse contradicted the official war
propaganda.<BR>According to human rights organizations, eight million Afghans
are suffering from hunger and malnutrition. Some 75 percent of the population
has no access to clean drinking water. The war is being aimed ever more directly
against the Afghan population. Already, civilians form the majority of the
50,000 official war victims.<BR>On the one hand, the corrupt regime being kept
in power in Kabul by NATO forces rests on the billions from the so-called donor
countries, and on the other, it relies on the proceeds from the ever-expanding
drug trade and other criminal activities. With 9,000 tons of raw opium, the past
year saw a new record in drug production.<BR>In foreign policy, the various
efforts by the Merkel government to reach out to Washington and establish closer
cooperation have not succeeded. Transatlantic tensions are increasing on all
levels. The hopes associated a year ago with the inauguration of Barack Obama
that unleashed a storm of so-called “Obamania” are long gone.<BR>Berlin
expressed disappointment when the American government decided on its troop
increase and expansion of the war without consulting its allies. On the economic
front, the US administration is exploiting the low dollar to pursue trade war
ends. Chancellor Angela Merkel was snubbed both regarding the fate of auto
manufacturer Opel and at the climate summit in Copenhagen where she had wanted
to score points as a former environment minister, but the US prevented any
agreement.<BR>So far, Germany has been able to pursue its interests in the wake
of the United States. With growing transatlantic tensions, the question of
Germany’s foreign policy orientation has flared up again. At the same time a
German withdrawal from Afghanistan would shatter the NATO alliance, and the
government wants to avoid this under all circumstances. Berlin also fears the
economic and military consequences of an open confrontation with
Washington.<BR>The Merkel government has responded to this dilemma by attempting
to strengthen its influence, not only economically and politically, but also
militarily. Thus the Bundeswehr deployment in Afghanistan and the massacre in
Kunduz have become the springboard for an intensive military build-up and an
overall revitalization of German militarism.<BR><BR>
<HR>
Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. <A
href="http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141665/direct/01/" target=_blank>Sign up
now.</A> = </DIV><!-- end of AOLMsgPart_2_d9f276ef-5c02-4750-bba3-a0bccd1d9146 -->
<STYLE>.AOLWebSuite .AOLPicturesFullSizeLink { height: 1px; width: 1px; overflow: hidden; } .AOLWebSuite a {color:blue; text-decoration: underline; cursor: pointer} .AOLWebSuite a.hsSig {cursor: default}</STYLE>
<LINK href="http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/30269/css/microformat.css"
type=text/css rel=stylesheet></DIV></FONT><br />--
<br />This message has been scanned for viruses and
<br />dangerous content by
<a href="http://www.mailscanner.info/"><b>MailScanner</b></a>, and is
<br />believed to be clean.
</BODY></HTML>