ALLIANCE FO§ DEMOCRACY

A great blunder by Mr. Gauck

Wherever Gauck talks, there is growing annoyance. This is always the case when the President calls for a more active foreign policy, but by this actually means military intervention. Perhaps Gauck’s speechwriter was ill, perhaps Gauck was offended that his call for more action at the Security Conference in Munich a few weeks ago attracted little attention in the press, so he has now repeated his demand and said: Germany must demonstrate greater military involvement in order to stop the “criminals and despots”. And now Gauck has what he perhaps wanted: it is being discussed whether Germany, which has refrained from military action abroad since the end of the Second World War, should play a greater role in future.
Gauck may find the practice of restraint outmoded, and basically the demand is not reprehensible that an active policy of Germany on the resolution of conflicts should also include “dismissing from the start the use of military means as the means of last resort”, as the Federal President said in an interview at the end of his visit to Norway, and thought: In the struggle for human rights or the survival of people, it was sometimes necessary “to resort to the use of arms”. We should work in cooperation with our NATO allies and our partners in the EU; the ex-pastor neglects to say who should decide on such intervention, and who will supervise them. The head of state also believes that the Norwegians would have nothing against this idea (as if the idea had to be presented especially to them, or their agreement depended on the implementation of such plans). Gauck emphasised that the Germany of today was a reliable democracy, in contrast to the dominating behaviour of earlier centuries, which stood for human rights.
We know that the democracy in Germany is a sham democracy, and we also know that constitutional principles, which came about without the agreement of the people, are bent this way and that according to political whims, such as during the Euro crisis, and lead to decisions which will cause many future generations to vegetate in poverty.
To call for the use of arms under the guise of democracy is in itself impermissible, but to speak of Germany as a democracy state, which in this way could somehow repair its damaged image, that is defamatory, and the question must be asked of why Germany could be so bent on playing at war again, instead of eschewing it for all time. One answer could be the renewed megalomania of German politicians, who want to show themselves off as the rescuers of the Euro, and as the fire service in other countries, but thereby overlook that party-political failures failed as the rescuers of the Euro, and must also fail as combatants in a war. The German image needs to be polished a little, but does not need to shine so much. It must be asked what image the Germans already enjoy in the world, and what experience Germany has gathered so far from foreign deployments, and what would be so bad about keeping out of conflicts, and providing only humanitarian aid.
Germany as a fighting nation does not have to be, this is simply the wish of party politicians and warmongers who make money from arms dealing and similar business. It is a scandal that such a development is supported by the head of state, and shows how severely mentally ill some people in Berlin are, if they believe that they are governing our country as representatives of the people.
In this respect, it is an important discussion how Germany should behave on this issue. It would even be conceivable to concede to the Federal President that he can speak about possibilities, about visions without having to speak in actual terms, but there are 35 wars being waged on our earth at the present, and to neither express regret about this, nor to call for an end to wars, but simply to advocate more foreign intervention, breathes new life into a problem which Germany has so far avoided by its restraint, namely taking sides and waging armed struggles which are not Germany’s business at all.
Demanding more action always means attracting greater reaction, and if Gauck does not finally receive a rebuke from the Chancellor for this blunder, then we must admit to ourselves: The Federal Government seems apparently to be interested in military intervention, and has unfortunately found in Gauck someone who in his clumsy way revealed too early what has long been going on behind the scenes.
In this respect, we must thank Mr. Gauck – not for his speeches, but for his stupidity. And to the Federal Government we say: Soldiers are murderers, and we do not need them. We need an army capable of defending the country, otherwise our specially trained forces can provide aid anywhere in the world. And not because Germany sparked off two world wars, and can now never wage war again, but because the Germans, with their experience as warmongers, should have come to the point of despising war, and acting against it by diplomatic means, because force is no solution nor political action, but political action has not been on the agenda in Germany for a long time. It remains to be hoped that politicians can be found who are against this idea, and will also prevail in the game over the democratic façade of this country, which has long since been gambled away by despicable careerists.