Advance for new German hegemonial ambitions
The war of aggression against Yugoslavia siding the KLA probably constitutes the Green’s worst crime. Since they have been founded so late, the Greens are the only important party in West German political history with no personal continuity to the Nazi Reich. However, they abused this very quality as the central legitimation for the 1999 aggression war. Even worse: German history was re-interpreted into an argument in favour of war. Supposedly, Germany was obliged to wage the war on the Balkans because it is responsible for National Socialism and World War II. The intention behind that: To get rid in one go of the old enemies on the Balkans as well as of the annoying singularity of the Holocaust - not to accept the memory of Auschwitz as a warning against a German superpower but to use it as a positive motive for global military commitment.
There are good reasons for an unusually severe punishment for the crime of aggression war, laid down in the the German constitution (Article 26) and in the German penal code (§80), calling for “life sentence or imprisonment for no less than ten years”. In the reality of Germany under a red-green government, public prosecutors prefer to deal with a paint bomb that burst on a warlord’s head than with fragmentation bombs that have torn civilians into pieces. Consistent conscientious objectors are sentenced to prison or to amends, while those who take part in a criminal war of aggression gain danger money and credit points in opinion polls. Even verbal criticism of the war policy is taken to the courts by the right-wing mainstream as well as by the “left” wing of the Greens. “Those who want to make sure that Germany will also be able to fight wars and win them in the future, should under all circumstances vote for the Greens in 2002. The defence concept presented by the Green party in the Bundestag will produce the highest quality and most operational troops, according to a study by Professor Reiner Huber of the German Armed Forces university in Munich.” I wrote this notion in Denkpause No. 7, published May 29th, 2000. This honest way of overtly praising green merits has become a central component of the party regulations suit against myself. Yet, I have only repeated what has gained the Greens a lot of approval, especially in garrison districts. (Sources: see www.ilka.org/ordnung/)
What the Greens and the sympathetic media dislike just as much is naming the reasons for German commitment on the Balkans. By contrast, the conservative newspaper DIE WELT (June 6th, 2001) wrote point-blank: The Balkans are an “undeclared protectorate of the EU”. Furthermore: “Yes, the Balkans are our back yard. Yes, we do have interests there that we have to take responsibility for. Yes, in the last consequence military personnel are one of the means to realise those interests.” Based on these premises, the paper published by the right-wing Springer Group praises the determination of the red-green government who, it says, among other things with the armed forces commitment on the Balkans prepared the ground for an extension of EU military capabilities, of course “for our best”. If this article’s author, Nikolaus Blome, was a member of the Greens, his openness would have cost him a disciplinary measure.
In spite of all the propaganda lies which have become known in the meantime and which were the ideological foundation for starting the Kosovo war, the German Federal Government succeeded in setting up an EU assault force under German leadership. Even more impudent: the military build-up was justified by “lessons learned” form the war of lies. The EU Forces are currently not a permanent army, each member state’s government can decide itself in each single case which and how many troops to dispatch to the front. It is foreseeable, however, that there will be a further enhancement of EU military structures, in the course of which Germany will probably gain access to nuclear weapons.
The Greens/EFA Group in the European Parliament fully supports the EU’s military line. One colleague from Germany criticised that one fundamental rule was severely breached: There was no democratic control of the build-up of military structures whatsoever. Consequently, she demands co-decision competences for the parliament on foreign and security politics, which would mean giving the still missing, fundamental legitimation to EU troops. And this colleague is even part of the more military-critical minority of the Group. Everyone is free to imagine what the even more militaristic majority wants.
More:
ilka.org sicher lesen? dann: https://www.ilka.org