Timmyhawk

As explained below we cannot reverse nuclear arms already aquired in the countries that have them. So, a realistic policy should firstly work at reducing their numbers, an area in which Britain is leading by example. The next realistic step is to stop further proliferation. The risk of this exists in two broad regions: the Pacific and the broader Mediterranean and greater Middle East.
Let's get the Pacific out of the way, as this is outside Britain's strategic sphere. The consequences of North Korea getting away with its programme and a possible weakening of American leadership could lead to the following chain reaction of nuclear weapons aquirement: South Korea & Japan, Taiwan, Australia and Indonesia.

Looking into our own region, let's have a look at the consequences of a nuclear-armed Iran, coupled with a possible drawdown of US-UK regional military policies: Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Turkey as the first in line would go nuclear first. In turn this would pressure and open opportunities for Egypt, Lybia and Greece. Leading on from there Algeria and Syria can also not be discounted entirely. Once this is getting underway, who can say that other European powers, especially Germany will not be tempted as well? Additionally remember the strategic pressure represented by Russia.
This is bad for Britain's security. So, in order to counter this we will have to work on strategic arrangements and security deals that will lift the potential burden of Iranian/Russian nuclear blackmail from these countries. This would require resetting our alliances and making it clear that armed conflict will at some point draw in British military force, which must, and will, ultimately be insured with nuclear weapons.
Such a policy would not be able to reverse nuclear weapons in any of the countries in our strategic neighbourhood (Britain, France, Israel, US, Russia, Iran), but it would prevent the spread of such weapons to other countries.

(See also this article in the JPost by Emanuel Adler on the Israeli case, which makes a good point, similar to mine, and which ties in with this earlier posting).

BUNDESTAGSWAHLEN 2005 / GERMAN ELECTION LOG: A DISAPPOPINTMENT RATHER THAN A NEW BEGINNING
Bringing this series on Germany's unexpected election to a close, I must say that I had great hopes in the beginning that there would be some genuine change in one of Europe's Big Three. To start off with there was a real prospect of economic reform, which would have helped the British economy as well and would have given a German chancellor more leeway in dealing with the EU. Such a position would have made cooperation with Britain easier and more beneficial for Germany and us. Coupled with the Chancellor-hopeful Angela Merkel's robust Atlanticism it really did look like a fresh dawn in the Western alliance. Well all of that has come to nothing. The indecisive outcome which gave the parting and unmissed Gerhard Schroeder's social democrats an almost equal say in the new government has lead to the formal coalition agreement that was signed last week.
How long this "grand" coalition holds in another thing but its economics doesn't bring much inspiration with it: mainly tax raising measures to fix the budget deficit, but at the expense of job creation measures, which in turn will mean higher welfare bills, which will mean a greater budget deficit, which in turn . . . well you get my drift. Germany needed a courageous and perhaps even dangerous cut in taxes and red tape to get it still-sluggish economy off the ground. Then solving the budget problem would have been far easier. Such a policy could of course never be decided by a grand coalition, which by the nature of the game will be shaped by compromises that lead to a sub-optimal outcome in which everybody's worse off.
As for foreign policy, the signs are not too great on this either. I suppose it's already a bad omen to begin with that the now-governing Christian democrats one staunch Atlanticist, Friedbert Pflüger, is not included in the cabinet at all. Whilst some people have opined that the new foreign minister, the former

THE RESUSCITATION OF THE EU CONSTITUTION?
I'll be back soon in full swing, but I thought I'd just flag up the news which has gotten too little coverage, that the new German government intends to use its 2007 presidency of the EU to get the ratification process up and running again. Just for all those like Ken Clarke and others who seem to daydream that "Europe" as an issue is finished. It isn't. It's more urgent than ever.

SOME NOTES ON THE PAST WEEK
Am I the only one who notices an uncanny resemblance between this EU Referendum posting and this comment piece in the Sunday Times? Ok, well the Sunday Times article mentions the must-read arrse, but otherwise it's hard to see any other ground being covered there. Still, I suppose it's good to see these arguments moving from the blogosphere to the "proper" media.
Staying with defence and the Times, Saturday had a strange comment about the Navy's future:

Yes, the Army is more important, but the RAF? There is, to be clear, only a very limited need for an air force at the moment. What our forces need are deployable and close-in support assets, such as would be ideally provided by aircraft carriers equipped with the Joint Strike Fighter. We could hope . . .
Lot of work in those regards to do for the next Conservative prime minister. From the most recent polling it looks like Cameron will be it. Not that he's spent an awful lot of time on saying what his defence policy would be, but a BBC poll says Party members are going to vote him in. Whether it's Davis or Cameron, I am confident that the Conservatives will carry the day in 2009/2010. Having so far only followed this leadership race in print for the past three months I was pretty amazed at the visual difference between the two Davids. Whereas Cameron always seems to look fresh, healthy and energetic, Davis looks clapped-out and finished. I guess that will shift the balance in Cameron's favour too.
On the other hand perhaps the BBC is still continuing its practice of presenting people it doesn't like in a bad ligh. Evidence for this could be seen on Sunday's The Politics Show when they interviewed noted Eurosceptic Daniel Hannan, he had a sinister menacing shadow over the left half of his face, funny that with all the technology available in terms of make-up, lighting and computer retouching something like that should still happen . . . (Not that these methods are restricted to this side of the Big Pond mind you.)
While we're on the issue of that show, am I the only one who thinks that the presenters' insistence of not wearing ties makes the whole programme look a little tacky and akin to some Sunday afternoon football chat show?
Talking of politics on the BBC though, is it possible that the coverage has actually gotten fairer? For example on Newsnight they had an interview with two American experts (one was Dick Morris) about Bush's remaining years in office after such a week of crisis, all of which was possible without the usual anti-war and Bush-bashing claptrap clouding out sober analysis as used to be the case for the often. And again, on the Politics Show Sunday morning, the Tories interviewed were given proper space to speak and even the appropriate respect. Has the BBC seen the journalistic light? Or is it scared what will happen to its future once the Conservatives are back in power?
If you happen to be curious about the further developments on the German election front, I will be bringing an update soon given the current troubles (includes more demonic lighting, what's going on . . . ?!). I see that the Times seems to agree with my call for a second round of elections. Looking back though I will say that going for another election campaign now will be a better option than it would have been in late September. The leftward shift apparent in Schroeder's social democrats should lead to a workable majority for a Christian-democrat/right-liberal coalition that I have argued here occasionally.
So, David Blunkett has gone from office again. Well, I don't really know my way around the ministerial code of conduct, so I can't say anything useful about that. The only thing I noticed again, is that here was a Labour minister leaving office due to some form of corruption. Whilst that is good in itself, it masks the fact that there has been quite a dearth in the past years when it comes to ministers being sacked or resigning due to incompetence. And to be sure, there's been plenty of it: Geoff Hoon anyone . . . ? In the broader scheme of things I would say that incompetent Government is a bigger problem than incompetent Government and I think we should shift the balance of accountability in back in that direction.
As a side-note, it is quite funny really that Blunkett sat on the board of a company specialising in paternity testing isn't it?
To end this post on a gripe though, I was intermittently watching Sky News during the day. Is David Blunkett's resignation the only event worthy of reporting the whole day?

BUNDESTAGSWAHL 2005 / GERMAN ELECTION LOG: MERKEL GETS IT . . . . . . the German chancellory that is. For what it's worth in identity politics terms, she is the first woman and the first former East-German to hold the post. Inevitably, given the share of the votes, the grand coalition with the social democrats means that she will nominally have a fairly limited scope for actually implementing any serious changes. As the Times reports:

This is quite a mess, and exactly the kind of fudging I had been concerned a grand coalition would bring about. The consequence will be, unless Merkel turns out to be a really tough leader, that Germany will slumber along without any real decisions being taken, while the coalition partners snipe at each other. It is a pretty safe bet that both sides will just be waiting for the moment when opinion polls favour their own victory and then go for it and abandon the coalition. Who this will be depends on who is responsible for the policy deadlock that will undoubtedly ensue. I would expect logically that this would be the fault of Schroeder’s gang; after all, they stalled on carrying on reforms before the elections, and if things don’t change, they are the constant factor in the game whereas the Christian democrats are already a bit of change. Of course it’s the perceptions that matter, and people may end up giving Merkel the fault for slow or little progress. We shall see. But it is disappointing that the foreign ministry will remain under social democratic control, as I was expecting a Christian democrat foreign minister to make it easier to pursue join British-German interests. But who knows, the current favourite for the post, defence minister Peter Struck, is quite a solid type who has done a decent job wrestling with the legacy of his awful predecessor Rudolf Scharping. So, perhaps a little good news may yet spring form this all.

BUNDESTAGSWAHL 2005 / GERMAN ELECTION LOG: FOREIGN MINISTER SCHROEDER?
It seems I am spared nothing. After it has become apparent that Germany will be with a grand coalition, here comes another stupidity: Gerhard Schroeder for foreign minister. Oh dear. Given that may main argument against him was foreign policy that could mean Germany would end up with a sort fo worst case scenario, in which domestic policy remains in blockage while Schroeder can grand stand on the world stage and continue his wrongheaded foreign policy. He probably won't be able to swallow his pride though to take that step. Given that the world views of Schroeder and Merkel diverge significantly I can't see how it could work. Given (again!) that I have based all my previous predictions on this sort of reasoning I am not sure I shoudl make such bold statements any more.
So, welcome foreign minister Schroder! ;)

BUNDESTAGSWAHL 2005 / GERMAN ELECTION LOG: A GRAND COALITION AFTER ALL?
Well, despite my objections and doubts, the idea of a grand coalition has been gaining traction in Berlin. It is laready being talked up by the media as the only possible solution to the current troubles. While I remain opposed and think a minority coalition would be preferable, there have been signs that a grand coalition might be achieveable after all. In the SPD some people are obviously becoming a little fed-up with Schroeder's insitence that he remain in charge. As compromise some have even suggested that there could be a shared Chancellorship, with Schroder handing over to Merkel in two years time. But this has been dismissed by the Christian-democrats and it's not going to happen. As a grand coalion is not going to be possible with Schroeder, the question now is: will he go?
Actually it might happen. Schroeder has already said he will do everything to make the grand coalition work. Given the unrest in his own ranks and the strong backing of Merkel in the CDU/CSU, that can only mean he is willing to consider stepping down.
But why is he waiting so long? There is a danger here. I am not exactly sure about the time-frame, but if memory serves the politicians have two weeks to form a new government. Given the pending election in Dresden this Sunday, might count towards granting extra time, which would mean there are another three weeks to go. But that is unclear. Otherwise it will be the president's decision to either determine the chancellor, or, more likely, order renewed elections. Although I endorsed the idea of another round of voting a while ago, I am not sure this is a good idea after all. As I reported on Friday, people would vote exactly the same way again. Either way, this is all constitutional mine-field territory, and constitutions are not for playing around with.
So what explains Schroder's behaviour? It is true that he doesn't have a very cautious and restrictive approach towards the German constitution. Leaving that aside, it may be his desire to ensure a further personal victory, by taking Merkel down with him. His current manouvering could well mean that the two big parties get tired of their leaders' ego and drop both of them. Given the CDU/CSU's strong backing for Merkel however, Schroeder might thus have been moved to soften his position. The other alternative is that he is playing hard to get for his party. Though not known as particularly attached to the SPD, he could still be trying to ensure they get as good a deal as possible in coalition talks.
The bottom line of this is that if Merkel gets through this, which it currently seems she will, then she will clearly emerge as a strong leader. Given her professed desire to alter Germany's foreign policy, it seems unlikely she will give too much power to a possible SPD foreign minister. That scenario may not be as attractive as a coalition with the right-liberals, but it certainly improves the options for Britain in working together with Germany. And for that a strong Merkel would seem indispensable.

BUNDESTAGSWAHL 2005 / GERMAN ELECTION LOG: WILL WRANGLING END IN MINORITY GOVERNMENT?
The indecisive election results of Sunday have largely left the political scene in Germany in a situation of mild confusion. Coalition talks have been ongoing, but son far there is little that can be regarded as established fact. After Schroeder announced his intention to remain in power, the whole business was made rather more complicated, because this rules out a grand coalition with the Christian-democrats (CDU/CSU). The only way this could have happened is if the gang of West-German men who run the party decided to oust the uppity Eastern gal Angela Merkel so as to circumvent her determination not to compromise with the ruling social-democrats (SPD). But as it goes they obviously support her because she was confirmed as party leader, increased her support from 92.6% to 98.6%. This is gives her a good base from which to take measures that may become necessary.
Now, Schroeder and his pals aren’t stupid of course, so they’ve been roaming around for some way to remain in power. As a background it is necessary to explain that the German Christian-democrats are actually made up of two parties, the CSU which only exists in Bavaria, and the CDU which exists everywhere else. But they count as one Fraktion in parliament. So this week some people in the SPD have decided that breaking up this Fraktion would make the SPD the strongest single force in parliament and would automatically confer the status of Chancellor-maker. In order to do so, they proposed to change the parliamentary rules of business to ban parties from forming common fractions. Although they have retracted from this since one help but agree with one conservative politician, who complained that this was the methodology of a “banana republic”. Certainly this sorry episode is another argument against the SPD.

Besides the grand coalition, another numerically realistic option would be the Jamaica-coalition, in which the Christian-democrats, right-liberals and greens go together (the party colours match the colours of the Jamaican flag). This may have worked on the local level occasionally, but I cannot for the life of me see this working on the federal level. The only way to achieve such a coalition would be if on or the other side start compromising seriously on their political positions, which is neither likely nor desirable for reforming Germany. In any case the Greens have said no. The only bonus such a coalition would have brought, would be the inevitable headline, now only roaming around as a joke: from deadlock to dreadlock!

That brings us to a rather more difficult proposition of having a conservative-liberal minority government. One constitutional expert has already argued in favour of it and pointed out that the president would ultimately have the decision. Given that he’s from the CDU himself and given his past penchant for controversy in speaking out politically and how he deals with the constitution, my guess would be he will be quite happy to appoint Merkel as leader of a minority coalition. So far the politicians have been rather shy about all of this, with only one right-liberal openly calling for this solution. In any case, the only alternative, the rather farcical exercise of renewed elections in a few weeks time, would currently not produce any change, as polling suggests that voters would vote exactly the same way as they did on Sunday. Strangely enough they also believe the useless grand coalition, with its inherent self-blocking, can solve Germany’s problems best. Another example of the far too widespread German love of consensualism.

The only encouraging news has been the latest polls on who the Germans want as Chancellor. For a long time Schroeder has had a clear lead here, but now the shift is there, Angela Merkel is now leading by 47 to 44 per centage points. Given all these factors the minority government looks likely. It is certainly the best option right now. Merkel is clearly gaining ground as future Chancellor in her party and the population at large, all other options are clearly not going to work out, so she should build on this, take the initiative and push for the Chancellorship.

This is her chance to change Germany. It is the chance to improve Germany’s economy and thus the foundation for Germany’s foreign policy. Given her less Europhile instincts, Merkel can thus take up the positions on European reform that Schroeder pushed in alliance with Blair, but abandoned due to a weakening home economy (see here or here). This will be a help for Britain’s reform course in the EU. Additionally, the intent to rebalance German foreign policy in an Atlantic direction, should at least ease the making of Western security policy. Given that this is a vital issue for the UK, Britain should be hoping that Merkel has the guts to do it.

CHANGING OF THE GUARD AT THE STIFTUNG WISSENSCHAFT UND POLITIK
The Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (SWP) Berlin is having a fare-well do for its director Christopher Bertram (formerly also at the IISS). He served the outfit which is an independent, though publicly funded, academic think-tank quite well, easily making it one, if not the most influential body to advise on German foreign and security affairs. Bertram himself caught my attention back in 1990/1991 at the beginning of the Iraq war when he argued for a full-scale German military involvement, not exactly a popular position to take back then. That said, he opposed taking up arms again in 2003, hardly unpopular(!), but he has by and large been a quite fair commentator on broader global affairs and is quite a nice guy, which sort of helps overlook his excessive enthusiasm for the EU. As I was saying,it's his leaving do today and he is soon to be replaced with the Middle East expert Volker Perthes. There are several points to make about the nomination. The first and most obvious one is the shift from Bertram's Anglohpile background and emphasis on security, to the Orientalism of Perthes, which clearly shows a greater interest in the Middle East. I don't think there is anything wrong about that shift in emphasis, it simply goes to show that the problems German foreign policy faces have changed.
The problem I see with Perthes is his ideology and the often irritating, snide anti-Americanism he often shows in interviews, if not always in his written work. I will write some more on this one day, but it is a disappointing development for an Atlanticist like me who would like to see stronger British-German cooperation.

BUNDESTAGSWAHL 2005 / GERMAN ELECTION LOG: FIRST RESULTS . . OH DEAR!
Unfortunately it has happened, the possible coalition between the Christian-democrats and right-liberals doesn't have enough votes to be the clear winner. In fact Schröder is even claiming victory for himself. Too early right now to say anything else, but so far the right-liberals (FDP) have said they will not enter into coalition talks with the Red-Green government. We shall see. A grand colaition seems likely, but remains a bad option. If she can get enough backing in her party, Merkel might now have to resort to the "nuclear" option that was dismissed only days ago and go for another round of elections. That would be my personal choice. But let's wait and see the results are not final yet. The only positive thing so far has been the particularly strong showing with 10% of the FDP, my fave amongst the German parties. Also extra points to my own prescience, as I wrote back in May:

BUNDESTAGSWAHL 2005 / GERMAN ELECTION LOG: GRAND COALITION LOOMS?
Well, the temporary election result will be released on Sunday night after all. Despite some objections about the results influencing the voting in Dresden, I think this was the right decision. Newspapers and tv are going to do polling anyway, and that way the temporary result would become known anyway.
The problem at the moment is the looming grand coalition. This situation of deadlock in the polls at the moment is already having negative effects on the markets. Despite some speculations I have heard, I see no benefit in a grand coalition that the current polling situation would suggest is the only viable option. I heard on the radio earlier that the most up-to-date polling has seen a slight upsurge for the opposition parties and I certainly hope that trend continues. The other, and rather drastic step would be for the Christian-democrats to push for another round of elections. Unfortunately the reports that there are plans for this are being denied by Merkel's spokespeople. That is a shame. Nonetheless, even if there is a grand coalition, Britain can rest assured that there will be a gradual shift in foreign policy. More Atlanticist for starters, and less knee-jerk anti-American.

BUNDESTAGSWAHL 2005 / GERMAN ELECTION LOG: RISING UNCERTAINTY
Although the campaigning here in Berlin is in its decidedly hot phase, I've been somewhat distracted by other stuff including the piece on Middle East democratisation and a review of a book on EU enlargement. The essay I had started about the German elections is shelved as the results now look entirely open. In conversation last night -ok, not the most reliable sourcing here ;)- I learned that the polls had shifted so much that only a grand coalition would be possible. Given that all concerned parties are ruling this out categorically I'm not sure what to make of the possible developments. I still think a grand coalition would be a bad solution, though it's hard to see it going any other way at the moment. That said, we may not even know the result on the polling day, i.e. this Sunday, because, due to the death of a Neo-Nazi candidate, Dresden will not be voting until two weeks after. Even if the interim results are released on Sunday, it may be so close that the Dresden vote might be decisive. All in all that means that the previous certainty about the next German government is gone. I was actually going to use this space to sketch out future prospects for British-German cooperation, but given the circumstnaces and my limited time resources I will obviously limit this for now, especially given that these politicians are all pigs really . . .

BUNDESTAGSWAHL 2005 / GERMAN ELECTION LOG: ALTERNATIVES TO THE MAINSTREAM
It is good to see that Germany has equivalents to our likes of the Monster Raving Loony Party or the Forward to Mars Party and their like. Perhaps I missed it, but during the General Election I didn’t see any election broadcast by the loonies, so at least some fun is provided here:

Probably not. Though it’s certainly at the cutting edge of advertising, I’m not convinced it will get them into parliament . . . .

Being a participant in the Iraq war or not is not really the defining characteristic of being a sovereign country but I'll let that slide as unfortunate rhetoric. So Germany is not sovereign because of US troops on its soil? Nevermind European integration, the Euro, the ICC, . . . It's obvious this is just Yank-bashing, and there is no evidence whatsoever that the US forces in any way have any influence over German policy. Quite obviously not when you come to think of it.
Of course Schroeder's governing SPD doesn't want to be left out of this, so for the SPD parliamentary vice-chairman Michael Mueller the opposition's expert on finance, Paul Kirchoff, is the German representative of the US "neoconservatives". Apparently Kirchoff has a secret agenda to turn Germany into a "different republic" (a very loaded term in Germany), allied as he is with Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz, who of course are responsible for the Iraq war. So there you have it. A finance expert with no public position on Iraq is given the German Left's standard "neocon!"-smear and associated with the Iraq war. (hat tip No Blood for Sauerkraut-Paul)
This obsession with Iraq continues of course with the governing Greens. On a poster which is hanging up all over Berlin, the party asks voters to "Yes! New Energy instead of oil and nuclear". It is illustrated with a picture of a desert, and you can see the shadow of three soldiers on the desert floor.

What has that to do with renewable energies? Well, Iraq of course. Those soldiers are of course Yank-imperialist-stormtroopers out to steal other peoples' oil! Everything is about Iraq! It is all America's fault!
Dear oh dear. They really must be running short on ideas for the future let alone actual achievements in government if this anti-American posturing is all that they can put up. (see John Rosenthal as well.)
Iraq! Iraq! Iraq!, but hang on, they can do empty ad hominem attacks too of course, as Schroeder's wife now demonstrates:

Why not?! So women are only allowed to go into politics if they have had children? That's a pretty bizarre new form of sexism if I may say so. Also quite tall of Schroeder-Kopf to go on as if she had to make any of those difficult decisions she alludes to. It's not too difficult to juggle work and children if you're well off as she is and can afford nannies and all that stuff. So in fact the Chancellor's wife's credibility in this form is equally zero. This kind of smearing is doubly unacceptable because:

It will truly be a joy when the Schroeders get in the removal van. I fear however that the German Left's anti-American hysterics and Iraq obsession will be with us rather longer.

BUNDESTAGSWAHL 2005 / GERMAN ELECTION LOG: GERMAN SOCIAL-DEMOCRATS PREPARE FOR BIG COALITION?
Say what you like about the SPD, Germany’s ruling social-democrats, but they are intent on trying to survive the unsurvivabl of being kicked out of office in three weeks time. A report in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung has details on tomorrow’s release of the SPD’s main lection slogansand such like. Although this is to include the obviously unrealistic call for Schroeder to remain chancellor, it is notable, that there is no mention of coalition partners. As the faz-article reminds us, in 1998 the Red-Green alliance was clear from the outset, and in 2002 Schroeder and the Greens’ chief, foreign minister Joschka Fischer, even campaigned side by side. It is obvius that the SPD is keeping its options open for when Schroeder surely will depart soon. (Depressing though to see that Schroder’s biggest foreign policy fiasco, opposition to the regime change in Iraq, is to be one of their central platforms.)
The possibilty of a grand coalition between the SPD and the Christian-democrat CDU/CSU cannot be ruled out. If indeed the right-liberal FDP and Christian-Democrats have too few combined votes to achieve a majority, the "Grosse Koalition" will be the most likely option. (A red-red-green coalition is nigh on impossible as the Left Party is quite explicitly out to bash the SPD and has ruled out any cooperation.)
Some good may come of it however. Such a coalition would have the necessary amount of votes in the two parliamentary chambers to push through what meagre reforms they may agree on. That is of course, as long as such a coalition holds - which won’t be long. But the mess that such a government will inevitably end up in will certainly convince voters that they need to vote for real change. That change can only be delivered by a strong FDP, which is the only party in Germany which seriously promises to cut the red tape, the ever growing bureaucracy and the excessive tax rates that are holding back Germany’s much-needed economic recovery.

BUNDESTAGSWAHL 2005 / GERMAN ELECTION LOG:TIMMYHAWK’S UPDATED COMMENT AND ANALYSIS BLOG ON THE 2005 GERMAN ELECTIONS
Basically this is my anchor page for all the posts about the upcoming election in Germany, which will take place on September 18th. Here are the links to all connected posts including those on Germany previous to the campaign phase and I will update this post whenever I have something new, so ignore this post’s dateline.

September 15, 2005 GRAND COALITION LOOMS?

September 14, 2005 RISING UNCERTAINTY
September 09, 2005 ALTERNATIVES TO THE MAINSTREAM

September 01, 2005 GERMAN LEFT TURN TO HYSTERIA AND PARANOIA IN ELECTION

August 30, 2005 GERMAN SOCIAL-DEMOCRATS PREPARE FOR BIG

August 15, 2005 SCHROEDER AT IT AGAIN
August 11, 2005 HOPING FOR A CHANGE IN FOREIGN POLICY
August 09, 2005 BUNDESTAGSWAHL 2005 / GERMAN ELECTION LOG

Earlier posts on Germany:
June 22, 2005 GITMO WORSE THAN GULAG
May 23, 2005 SCHROEDER BATTERED - GOOD
July 15, 2004 PROLIFERATION WATCH - CHINA AND THE EU'S ANTI-ATLANTICISM
July 10, 2004 ANTI-BUSH BOOKS
April 08, 2004 GERMANY'S ECONOMIC WOES, BRITAIN'S SUCCESSES AND WHAT IT MEANS
January 15, 2004 GERHARD SCHROEDER, TOWERING GENIUS OF POLITICS
December 05, 2003 GERHARD SCHROEDER'S FOREIGN POLICY PRIORITIES EXPOSED AGAIN

BUNDESTAGSWAHL 2005 / GERMAN ELECTION LOG: SCHROEDER AT IT AGAIN
Last time round Schroeder only won the election narrowly because his team could capitalise on anti-American and pacifist sentiments in the German electorate. As I recollected recently the only way he could win now would be a US invasion of Iran. So, I remember when I read of Bush's insistence that no options, including military ones, were off the table in dealing with Iran, I briefly and mischievously though, Bush must want the red-greens to stay in power. Unsurprisingly though Schroeder has grasped at the opportunity:

And the opposition is decidedly and rightly unimpressed:

Quite so. Given that this crisis is on the front pages at the moment, this could well give the government a boost. In many ways that would definitely be a bad thing. Unlike Iraq under Saddam, the problems with Iran, can possibly be solved diplomatically. Unfortunately, diplomacy also has to include the ability to threaten and use force. By sending mixed messages to Teheran, the regime there knows that it can play outside powers off against each other. It could thereby try to prevent any crack down on its nuclear weapons programme. It is a high risk game of course, because if it goes wrong there will inevitably be war. Schoeder's stance is thus not that of somebody who is "peace-loving" but in fact who is both dangerously opportunistic and naively pacifistic, a combination with potentially catastrophic consequences. By ruling out categorically any coercive measures against the Iranian regime, Schroeder is also obstructing debate in the international community in favour of what he sees as Germany's interests. Who is the unilateralist now then? It is high time Germany gets a new government, and by that I mean one that is lead by somebody else.

Updated (see comments)

BUNDESTAGSWAHL 2005 / GERMAN ELECTION LOG: HOPING FOR A CHANGE IN FOREIGN POLICY
If Germany is governed by a Christian-democratic (CDU/CSU) & right-liberal (FDP) coalition from Septemebr 18th onwards, the FDP’s Wolfgang Gerhardt is poised to be the new foreign minister. In the current edition of Internationale Politik he has outlined where he thinks German foreign policy should go, and I will provide in-depth analysis in the days ahead, which will also include my endorsement.
(The Transatlantic edition doesn’t currently have the article but here’s a report in English. The German-language pdf-link is here.)
This ties in well with reports about the Christian-democrat leader Angela Merkel’s desire to reconnect with the US. It is certainly true that there are limits to where any future Kanzler could take German foreign policy so a little caution is in order, as the Economist points out, it will be rebalancing, not realigning. But it does need to be borne in mind that these Atlanticist positions that are being articulated, are not only not vote-winners, but in the circumstance that international security comes back onto the agenda, will be electoral suicide. Hence we can conclude that politicians such as Gerhardt and Merkel are definitely sincere in their ambitions to craft a foreign policy that will in effect be closer to Britain’s.