[Peace-discuss] Fw: A Bit of Bustle in the Bundestag

[unionyes]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <moderator at PORTSIDE.ORG>
To: <PORTSIDE at LISTS.PORTSIDE.ORG>
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 9:03 PM
Subject: A Bit of Bustle in the Bundestag


>A Bit of Bustle in the Bundestag
>
> Victor Grossman, Berlin
>
> There was unusual excitement in the otherwise so
> dignified Bundestag on Friday, February 25th. Of
> course, everyone knew the Afghanistan extension bill
> would pass. The ruling parties, Angela Merkel's
> Christian Democrats and their rightwing Free Democrat
> (FDP) partners, had a majority. Add on the Social
> Democrats. True, they were now in the opposition, but
> in such questions a very loyal opposition. After all,
> sending troops and planes to Afghanistan had begun when
> they headed the government. Their slogan at the time:
> Germany's security must be defended at the Hindu Kush
> mountains. As for the Greens, they had also been in the
> government then and were thus equally responsible for
> doing battle 3000 miles away, in renewed defiance of
> the German constitution restricting the armed forces to
> the home country. But many had become uneasy. How would
> it go?
>
> The planned extension, for one year, meant sending 800
> more troops,  thus raising the number of Germans in
> uniform to 5350, fewer than US generals had called for,
> and still limited to northern Afghanistan. But it
> involved many more thousands at home and abroad, cost
> billions, and represented one more precedent for using
> militarily force in far-off lands with deaths and
> injuries for Germans and Afghans. Where and when would
> it end? What new countries would require troops to
> either defend freedom, or women's rights, or democracy
> or, less publicly, strategic and economic advantages
> and prestige for military brass hats only too eager to
> show their mettle, test their weapons, and win some
> bright new medals in the long tradition many of them
> clearly admired.
>
> Despite the obvious odds, the fight against the
> extension seemed important to its opponents. One tragic
> event strengthened their resolve. On September 4th last
> year, near Kunduz, a German colonel ordered the bombing
> of two gasoline filled tank trucks seized by Taliban
> forces but then mired in the sand at a river crossing.
> The colonel called in an American plane to bomb the
> trucks without the usual warning for  the people
> clustered near the trucks. The explosion killed over
> 140 people, many of them civilians, not a few of them
> children.  The military and then the government tried
> to cover up the extent of this disaster, but item by
> item it leaked out to the public.
>
> A majority of Germans had not been convinced by the
> media that their troops in Afghanistan were beneficial
> to anyone or were helping to keep terrorists out of
> Germany. On the contrary, they heightened the danger.
> The Kabul government was viewed as corrupt, the war
> lords powerful. Dead and wounded German soldiers,
> though not yet numerous, increased the doubts, and the
> disaster at Kunduz helped explain why about 70 percent
> in Germany wanted out. Those circulating petitions
> against the war found almost no one supporting it.
>
> On February 20th, a week before the vote, people came
> to Berlin from all over Germany to demand a No vote.
> More had been expected - a strong mobilization a week
> earlier had successfully prevented a Nazi march in
> Dresden to there but had cost immense energy among left
> wingers and many were simply tired out. It was a good
> march all the same, it was generally agreed, with
> people from a wide variety of organizations bringing
> lots of color to wintry Unter den Linden boulevard, the
> Brandenburg Gate and the Reichstag building. The big
> news that day was that the Labor Party in the
> Netherlands, its Social Democratic party, had quit the
> government in protest at keeping Dutch troops in
> Afghanistan.  Could that win over some in the
> equivalent German party, despite its leaders? And what
> about the Greens? The pressure from their anti-war
> grass roots was always strong.
>
> The debate started with a bang. The entire fraction of
> Die Linke, the Left Party, stood up quietly as most of
> them unfolded signs, each with the black-bordered name
> of one of the Afghanis killed at Kunduz. Briefly there
> was shocked silence, but then the session chairman, a
> man from the Christian Democrats, ordered the whole
> delegation to leave the chamber, the first time this
> has ever happened. They filed out quietly, but they had
> stolen the show. This was something the media could not
> ignore!
>
> The other parties and the media fumed and scolded. One
> leading Social Democrat said the Linke should have
> obeyed long-standing rules and stated their views in a
> normal speech during the debate. But experience had
> shown: the TV news and other media would have quoted an
> obligatory half sentence or so and given the rest of
> the time to the other parties. In this way the Linke
> got scolded and lost its chance to make a speech but
> made its point instead. It argued that the lives of
> many civilians were worth more than parliamentary
> rules.
>
> The chairman, more than aware of popular feelings about
> the war, then got the approval of the other parties to
> let the Linke come back in to take part in the vote.
>
> This was almost an anti-climax. Two Christian Democrats
> had the courage to buck the very strong party
> discipline which rules the Bundestag. 226 voted Yes.
> Only one FDP man voted No, three abstained, 7 didn't
> vote at all, the other 82 voted Yes.  As for the Social
> Democrats, after the party spokesman dramatically
> insisted that the increase was only for one year and
> "we'll be watching carefully" 113 ignored the Dutch
> rebellion and voted tamely Yes.  16 Social Democrats
> had the courage to vote No, 8 abstained, 9 refrained
> from voting. This was no big improvement but it was an
> improvement.
>
> As for the Greens, 8 voted to extend, 21 voted No, 35
> abstained and 4 didn't vote. In other words, they were
> split as usual.
>
> As for the Linke: 71, all those who were present, voted
> No! This was, after all, a central plank in their
> program!
>
> The sum: 429 Yes, 111 No, with 46 abstentions. A better
> result than in earlier votes, but in no way
> representative of the wishes of the people. Thats
> nothing new, but is reflected in the growing
> unpopularity of the present government.
>
> February 28 2010
>
> _____________________________________________
>
> Portside aims to provide material of interest
> to people on the left that will help them to
> interpret the world and to change it.
>
> Submit via email: moderator at portside.org
> Submit via the Web: portside.org/submit
> Frequently asked questions: portside.org/faq
> Subscribe: portside.org/subscribe
> Unsubscribe: portside.org/unsubscribe
> Account assistance: portside.org/contact
> Search the archives: portside.org/archive 


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.