Weekend week Previous 13.09.2014 / weekend supplement / 1 page (insert) content There is a NATO-network in the German media Interview with Willy Wimmer. About the geopolitical interests of the USA in Europe, about Helmut Kohl and the attack on parliamentary democracy Interview: Thomas Wagner Willy Wimmer Willy Wimmer Photo: CDU / CSU Willy Wimmer was 33 years in the Bundestag. Between 1985 and 1992 he was the first defense policy spokesman of the CDU / CSU and then Parliamentary State Secretary, Federal Ministry of Defence. From 1994 to 2000 he was Vice President of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Parliamentary Assembly. You have the National Peoples Army (NVA) of the GDR incorporated after 1989 as Parliamentary Secretary in the Federal Ministry of Defence in the Bundeswehr and also developed the concept with which the united Germany was led into NATO. Nevertheless, you were soon accused it of U.S. representatives of communism. First, there was the question of how to manage the reunification so that European peace is maintained. But we parliamentarians who worked on an international field - us included the former Bundestag President Rita Süßmuth - wanted to also deal with economic and social issues. The British and Americans, who advocated a pure form of capitalism, prevented that. They rejected the concept that we represent the social market economy from and called us communists. That surprised us and was a sign that the world would wrap in an unexpected way. We then assumed that, would remain negotiation and communication forums such as the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), which later became the OSCE. The CSCE was connected, that one could think conceptually in three areas: foreign and -Sicherheitspolitik, Human Rights. The third of these three baskets had not been used in the Cold War: the economic policy cooperation. The continental Europeans wanted to fill it with life, the United States, the British and the Canadians partly not. Finally, the Americans have taken over the third basket and filled with shareholder value. We came with our concept of the social market economy into the background, even in his own party. 2002, on the so-called Leipzig party, the CDU presented as an oversized FDP. Here includes wife Merkels idea to develop a market-based democracy. In international fora, this development has signed so early that we had to not be surprised. But we were able to our colleagues who did not move in the international forums, just do not convey. They lived in a different world. This also applies to the unions. We have found that the United States was not prepared to continue the successful negotiating forum of the CSCE. Henry Kissinger, he embodied in this question, the American position has the mid-1990s advocated to eliminate the international body of international law and to put in its place a legal system that is in the United States interest. The included to eliminate proven negotiating fora for the peaceful settlement of conflicts. When Helmut Kohl then returned from trips to the USA, he has been in the group getting excited about the fact that the US-Congress mood prevailed: The Third World War is over, and we won it, He then said to us. the war has not disappeared from Europe, That did not believe him in 1994 in his own ranks.. They appreciate Helmut Kohl, you on a trip to China accompanied later in 2004, obviously. Unlike you, he has not collected in recent years, according to the voice to protest against those of us you identified trends in foreign and security policy. He paid for this development personally a very high price. There is no doubt that the German population in 1998 mostly not wanted to continue his chancellorship. The other question is, how has expired within the CDU. Helmut Kohl was an outspoken advocate of the idea that one must go to the other nations in Europe. This applies to the Russians, the Poles, but also the Serbs. I have conducted negotiations with Milosevic in his behalf to resolve the conflicts in the Balkans peaceful. That was against American interests. There were forces in their own ranks, Wolfgang Schaeuble and Volker Ruhe at the top, which forced the CDU in this direction. Because he would not have fought the war against Yugoslavia, no longer wanted at the tip of a future federal government to him. But his intention to strengthen the existing mechanisms of international cooperation was correct. Therefore, I make no secret of the fact that this man is me. In 2000 they took part in an in Bratislava, hosted by the State Department conference, was spoken on the openly about Washingtons strategy. I was surprised. We have had even one campaign after another given to the war against Yugoslavia: with Auschwitz and knows what all. In Bratislava, however, a purely power-political consideration was recited. The representatives of the U.S. State Department said it had gone on the war, therefore, to correct a wrong decision of General Eisenhower from 1944. He had then failed to deploy U.S. ground troops in the Balkans. This make it as open before leaders, foreign and defense ministers, was an unusual procedure. The representatives of the State Department made it clear that they wanted to settle property issues and organize criminal trials rebuild the manner in which we deal with our neighbors in Europe, according to the standards of their own legal system. The vehicle should be the text of the International Criminal Court in The Hague and the International Criminal Tribunal. They explained also how they imagine the future Europe. They wanted to draw a line that goes from the Baltic to the Black Sea and from there to Anatolia. All that lies to the west of this line, they considered the influence area of the United States. The Russian Federation should be forced out of the European developments. Todays events in Ukraine is proof that these people have not then looked at the moon for me. 2006, at the NATO summit in Riga, we have seen the attempt to include Georgia and Ukraine into the alliance. This has been prevented for an important reason: The Western Europeans have found no pleasure. Because if this continuous limit-line would established by the Baltic Sea to Anatolia, then would need German, French, Italians and Spaniards no longer worry about how unhindered relations with the Russian Federation can be maintained. Which could then be depending on the interests of the United States interrupted from these at any time. They will be able to build on cooperation with Eastern Europe: from the Baltic to Romania. The USA do everything, but to achieve this goal yet. This explains their behavior with regard to Ukraine. The U.S. intelligence service Stratfor has been considering earlier this year to install by establishing special relations with the Eastern European countries a lever with which they may be NATO are left. This is the logical consequence of what I have just said. These days, the Baltic States and Poland make demands, align the planned NATO missile shield to Russia. If we succeed in Washington, to establish special relations with the docile countries of Eastern and South-Eastern Europe, then we no longer play a role. We then find ourselves behind the Limes under American control. The news that the neutral countries Finland and Sweden seek closer ties to NATO, we must as an entering point to the real shifts in power that we have in Europe. How would you assess ongoing negotiations for a free trade agreement between the TTIP USA and the European Union in this context? In TTIP is the attempt of the United States to organize the behind the limit field in their interest. It is less about the much-debated chicken chlorine, as to the unhinging of parliamentary democracy. If we as an advanced law get arbitral tribunals with which differences on investments are to be decided, we need no longer worry about what still remains of our parliaments and governments. If our press would still free report, you would see debated considerations of this kind in the media. These foreign and security policy fields but is a free reporting no longer take place. How does this one-sidedness? These things can be approached only on circumstantial evidence. The prevailing opinion in the population diversity is not reflected in the reporting. I can remember a long conversation with one known to me for decades leading FAZ staff very good. Which made clear when the State Department in time before going to press like at night, then the product comes the next morning in the newspaper. When I defense policy spokesman in 1985, me a senior staff member of the press office of the CDU / CSU has explicitly warned of a network of NATO in the German press. If there is anything to comment today in connection with developments within the Russian Federation, always American institutions based in Moscow are used for in our media. You do not hear any voice from Moscow, which is Russian. Coming. Bundestag by the media Currently there is a coalitional working group that deals with the so-called parliamentary scrutiny reservation. What is it about? When it comes to parliamentary scrutiny reservation that the German Bundestag decides whether German soldiers are employed abroad. And indeed, before they are sent there. According to our Constitution, the Army is tailored to the defense of their own country. Peter Gauweiler few months ago held a brilliant speech before the Federal Armed Forces University in Hamburg, where he has worked out the anomalies which have existed for decades in this regard. In the CDU / CSU there after the war in Yugoslavia forces who want to see no more such concerns debated in parliament before use. They have succeeded in the new coalition, a working group that deals with the requirement of parliamentary approval. Is intended that it will automatically go in the integrated international associations, such as the AWACS aircraft, in use, when required by NATO. The Bundestag will then only have the ability to bring back the soldiers if necessary. This reminds me of Brunings emergency decrees in the final phase of the Weimar Repbulik. If the converted, then we get soon security emergency decrees. I can not imagine that the Bundestag withdraws once made NATO decision to me. In addition, the government would reduce its foreign policy space, she has been through parliament yet. If they decided today against a foreign assignment, they can justify their alliance partners with the lack of consent of the Parliament. This is so common in parliamentary systems. Even the U.S. President referred to the Congress, unless he wants something. If the parliament fails now, its actually not the federal government, which determined on foreign missions, but NATO. In this context, the parallel development in the armed forces must be viewed critically. There are always efforts to provide the Inspector General of the Bundeswehr, the role of the de facto commander. Currently, he is subordinate to the Defense Minister and State Secretaries. These efforts there since reunification. Want to Bonner times was recordable as requiring that only a four-star general should be defense minister. Theodor zu Guttenbergs attempt to raise the Inspector General in the rank of a Secretary of State, could be prevented. This is reminiscent of a development that there had been before 30 January 1933. Back then tried economically oriented circles and the army, the military leadership to return those important function they had in the Empire. Certain circles in the Bundeswehr try with the help of NATO in Germany today again the same. You mean: If the parliamentary reservation tilts and the Inspector General is made a commander, then decides on the deployment of the German armed forces in future NATO? Hotline in all major Western editors: NATO Generalse Hotline in all major Western editors: NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen in an interview with Reuters at the headquarters of the wartime alliance in Brussels (08/11/2014) Photo: Yves Herman / Reuters Or the European Union. Fear that the Bundeswehr could then be used against its own people? Yes. The solidarity clause adopted by the European Union in June points in this direction. Thereafter, the use of the military in domestic politics should be allowed: in the event of disasters, but also in the case of social unrest. In Germany, we have a number of decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court against the use of the Bundeswehr inside. This will be done via the detour of the European component of NATO or ad absurdum. We have seen in the original adoption of the Lisbon laws that the government had already agreed to. Only by induced by Gregor Gysi and Peter Gauweiler decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of the Federal Parliament could bring back the decision of the federal government. When it came to the role of the Bundeswehr, you have represented a minority opinion in parliament several times. How do you explain that? The reasons are complex. When I was socialized politically in Bonn, as parliamentarians, we were on the side of the administration, including the Ministry of Defence, always such a selection of fine people that there was almost no matter who was in power. Each Ministry was known to me at that time to be able to make the necessary decisions for government bills itself. Today, the law firms do. The decline of the public sector since the 1990s was accompanied by the emergence of consulting groups that have taken on political decisions whether gainful or increasingly influence. The Bundestag President Rita has Süßmuth late 1990s sung dirges about which pressure was exerted on the Bundestag to make these matters commercially viable. In addition, the previously mentioned transatlantic network naturally into effect in Parliament. We like being in the Council for this and the Council for the. Example, maintains Nicolas Berggruen a private think tank. The billionaire invites so-called elder statesmen and business leaders in the Google headquarters in California. Also active politicians are doing: for example, Ursula von der Leyen. The name Bergguen exemplifies the process, established institutions, which should represent the will of the people, to sweep aside in favor of advisory bodies engaged in the actual influence. In the relevant working groups of the parliamentary parties you do not know today as a paper that is submitted to them for consideration, originated and who has contributed to it. This comes from a variety of corners. And why is it swallowed by the parliamentarians? Because you can not deal with it all? No, because you want to make a career. Not a few colleagues have told me: Im actually your opinion, but I can come back in the Bundestag only with the help of the list. You no longer expect on the part of the opposition in terms of the militarization of foreign policy with a lot of resistance. In this judgment you close the Group The left one with. How did you come to this conclusion? Against the background of long and intensive discussions. With who? What they say will not get better. In addition, the consideration of the development comes since last autumn. The Greens are already in an almost disgusting way to become belligerent. The last party in the German Bundestag, which is the currently still resists, The Left. But it is not only I noticed that on the conceptual work of the Foundation for Science and Politics for the first time also left deputies were involved. In your written jointly with Wolfgang Effenberger book return of the gamblers: Shadow strategists, warmongers, profiteers 1914 and still today, They fear that we are on the road to World War III. How do you justify that? If I do not want that disputes be resolved in a peaceful way, I can only the military component. On the Americans set, worldwide. The Taliban, against our soldiers were twelve years employed in Afghanistan, are an American creation, financed by the Saudis, as IS in Syria and Iraq. We see this also in the case of Ukraine. Since the German Foreign Minister and his Polish and French colleagues lay understanding papers before, all agree, and then sabotage the right forces on the Maidan in the USA interest each solution. We have to face in Germany and in Europe on its hind legs to stay afloat in this general trend. What we need is a return to proven diplomatic understanding means that we already had with the CSCE, but have been destroyed. Wolfgang Effenberger / Willy Wimmer: return of the gamblers. Shadow strategists, warmongers, profiteers silent 1914 and today. Publisher zeitgeist Print & Online, Höhr-Grenzhausen 2014, 640 pages, 29,90 €
Posted on: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 23:34:19 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015