Germany and America: Strained Political Relationship
Installment #4 of Brent Martin's "European Adventure"
Germans don’t care much for George W. Bush. Actually, that might be too mild a statement. Germans don’t like George W. Bush. Better, but that still might miss the point. Germans can’t stand George W. Bush. That actually might be pretty close to the truth.
I have only spent a couple of weeks in Germany and have met only a few Germans. The statements made in the opening paragraph aren’t supported by in-depth knowledge and expertise. They do reflect my experience while on the journalist exchange program in Germany and Belgium.
Politics is a pervasive subject in Germany, as well as Belgium, among those we spoke with during the two-week program. A typical day would have our group of 11 American journalists meet with three to five journalists, government officials or experts in various fields each day. We also interacted with the German people in restaurants, pubs and stores. The RIAS program seeks a better understanding of the two countries from its participants and an understanding of not just the political structures, but the realities that drive those structures.
Those I came in contact with were very interested in United States politics and very knowledgeable. The Germans seemed much more interested in the United States than the United States is in Germany. That shouldn’t be read as a criticism of Germany. It should be interpreted as a knock on us. Our history and geography lead to our tendency toward isolationism. It seems that that doesn’t serve us well on the world stage. Many Americans don’t care. Germans do.
Discussions of politics during the stay in Germany couldn’t be separated from discussion of President Bush, which couldn’t be separated from discussion of the war in Iraq. Germans opposed the war in Iraq. It seems the war hasn’t gained any converts as it has worn on.
German journalist Thomas Habicht, senior political editor of “Rundfunk Berlin Brandenburg”, gave us fascinating insights, not just of the relationship between Washington and Berlin, but of German politics as well. Much of German politics is wrapped up in the fall of the Wall in 1989. The end of the Cold War then has ramifications for US/German relationships now, according to Habicht.
Habicht is a refined gentleman who speaks in measured tones. He has seen much change in Germany and has observed the ebb and flow of relationships between Germany and America. Habicht says former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder understood the opposition among the German people to the war in Iraq and the growing disenchantment with the United States among Germans. Habicht says Schroeder exploited the issue of Iraq for domestic purposes, to prop up his sagging public opinion numbers. It helped him win re-election in 2002, but failed him in 2005 as he lost a close election to Angela Merkel. Schroeder’s opposition was seen as a slap in the face to President Bush, because without his father, George H.W. Bush, German reunification would not have taken place in 1990. Habicht says the support of the US in general and the former President Bush in particular were vital to reunification.
Merkel, while maintaining some of the same positions as Schroeder, has made more of an attempt to heal the rift between the two nations. Habicht says Merkel’s trip to Washington, DC shortly after her election to speak with Bush was a big step in restoring the relationship. Habicht points out that Merkel has advantages no other German chancellor has had. She was raised in East Germany, the daughter of a Protestant minister and an English teacher. Being raised in East Germany, she knows Russian well and since her mother taught her English secretly when she was growing up, she knows our language well. Habicht says she is the first German chancellor who can speak to both Russian President Vladimir Putin in his language and President Bush in his. Habicht says Germany still desires a strong relationship with the Untied States as it deals with domestic issues that largely stem from the problems of reunification.
Germans who don’t support the war in Iraq don’t see a link in the fight against terrorism. Terrorism concerns Germany. Opponents to the Iraq War openly question whether American intervention in Iraq hasn’t created more terrorists.
Peter Altmaier is Parliamentary State Secretary of Federal Ministry of Interior, a long title for a man in charge of keeping Germany safe from terrorists. Altmaier arrived late to our meeting at the Visitor Center, just off the Bundestag nestled among a series of governmental buildings in Berlin. Altmaier entered the room, took off his jacket, poured an apple juice and mineral water spritzer for himself, loosened his tie and began to speak. Altmaier is bald and wears round glasses. He hunched over with his arms folded on the table, speaking with that sense of urgency that busy people use to convey how busy they are. He only had a few moments with us before leaving for another appointment.
Germany fights the same terrorist battles we fight. There have been six terrorist attempts in the last few years. All have failed. Altmaier insists that the strained relationship between the United States and German governments were unilateral, driven by Schroeder. He says the new government wants a better relationship with the US and needs it on a practical basis as the entire West faces the problems of terrorism.
Altmaier says Germany and all of Europe face a dilemma. No matter how many acts of terrorism have been prevented, two or three successful attacks could paralyze all of Europe. Germany faces many of the same problems America does. Immigration has increased, especially among Muslims, mostly from Turkey. Altmaier says Germany is attempting to improve its dialogue with Muslims and better integrate them into society and into the democratic leanings of the West. Work to suppress terrorism is hampered, according to Altmaier, by a lack of agreement on the definition of terrorism. He says Russia and North Korea don’t agree with the West on who is and who isn’t a terrorist.
The Iraq War was very much on the minds of those we visited at both the European Union and NATO. We ended our two-week stay in Brussels, Belgium so that we could visit both. The visits gave me an even broader perspective of America’s new role as the only super power in the world.
The EU is a strange political creature for Americans to grasp. We visited the EU on its 50th anniversary. It was established after World War II on idealism; the thought that a united Europe would overcome the divisions that led to two great wars that left the continent in tatters. The European Union’s own literature states its 21st century mission is to provide peace, prosperity and stability for its peoples; to overcome the divisions in the continent; to ensure that its peoples can live in safety; to promote balanced economic and social development; to meet the challenges of globalization and preserve the diversity of the peoples of Europe; and to uphold the values that Europeans share, such as sustainable development and a sound environment, respect for human rights and the social market economy. Now that’s quite a mission.
It’s a mission that comes at a price. The 27 members of the EU must give up a bit of sovereignty to reap the benefits the EU has to offer. Many Americans would believe giving up any sovereignty is tantamount to giving up all. The rewards for such a sacrifice seem a bit more theoretical than concrete.
Those who spoke to us at the EU in Brussels readily acknowledge that the low-point of EU and US relationships was 2003 when President Bush decided to invade Iraq. One official at the EU stated that the Iraq War severely hurt the relationship between the EU and the US. The strong opposition to Bush’s decision kept the relationship at that low-point for a couple of years.
Neither the Bush Administration nor the EU has changed its position on the war, but a US-EU summit held in Washington, DC in 2005 healed the rift a bit. Also, according to the EU official who spoke to our group, President Bush displayed “a real change of tone” during a visit afterward to Brussels. That change paved the way for a successful summit in which both sides swallowed their pride and improved their relationship. Neither side changed its stance on the war. Both simply agreed the relationship was too important not to move forward in other areas.
EU officials say that improvement can prove beneficial to America in more than one way. The EU has channels of cooperation with Iran that the US lacks. The US needs an avenue to talk to Iran in our efforts to disentangle from Iraq.
We met with many EU officials who described its political structure, its economic activity and its growth. One of the major issues facing the EU is the possible entrance of Turkey as a member. Turkey is a member of NATO and applied for membership in the EU in 1987. If accepted, Turkey would be the first Muslim nation welcomed into the European Union. The United States is pushing for its membership, based on military strategic reasons. The EU has been hesitant to make it a member, because of its geographic location, political history and culture. The question becomes: is Turkey European or is it Middle Eastern?
Though 50 years old, the EU seems to still be in the stages of early growth. Many challenges remain as the body attempts to unite very diverse countries that often view each other with suspicion at best and derision at worst. It has made economic strides. The Euro is the means of exchange across the continent with only a few hold-outs, such as England. That might be the primary achievement of the EU: to be an economic counter-weight to the United States.
NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, is more active than ever. At least, that’s what our host, James Snyder, told us. Snyder is youthful, well-dressed and impeccable in his appearance and manners. An American who works for NATO, Snyder is somewhat of an oddity. Most on staff at the NATO headquarters are residents of Belgium. Most Americans at the NATO headquarters work for the United States.
NATO has 26 members, liberal democracies united in strategic defense for the most part, but also politically. NATO operates by consensus decision-making, meaning that while it doesn’t have to reach unanimous agreement to act, any member with a serious disagreement can stop NATO from taking action. The Secretary-General of NATO is always a European. The Supreme Allied Commander is always an American. NATO was founded in 1949 to defend Western Europe during the Cold War against the Soviet Union threat.
The organization saw no action during the Cold War, but has activated in the war on terrorism. On the 12th of September 2001, less than 24 hours after the terrorist attacks in the US, NATO invoked Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, declaring the attack against the United States an attack against all the members of NATO. It was the first time NATO had taken such action.
Snyder says the primary threats NATO sees now is international terrorism, failed states and weapons of mass destruction. NATO deploys 50,000 troops on a rotation basis. NATO troops have been deployed to Afghanistan to fight in the war on terrorism, which is a new mission for NATO.
A strained relationship remains between NATO and Russia. Snyder says the NATO is depicted in the Russian press in Cold War terms even though NATO and Russia have worked together of late. Snyder says the Balkan war was a defining moment in NATO/Russia relationship as the United Nations authorized a peace-keeping force in 1996, using NATO forces. Russia participated in that peace-keeping mission.
Journalism provides the great privilege of access to officials and dignitaries. It was enjoyable to stroll from one EU building to another, to speak with various EU officials. We had a great meal at the NATO headquarters with free-flowing conversation in the elegant dining room. But one of the most enjoyable parts of the trip was an afternoon and evening spent with students from Humboldt University, a former Marxist college located in the old eastern section of Berlin. We met with bright, engaging students eager to discuss US politics with Americans. We met first at the college, then retired to a near-by pub and talked even more politics over drinks.
The students had a keen interest in our 2008 elections and piled question upon question, many of which we couldn’t answer even if we could keep up with their curiosity. I truly enjoyed the give and take, found their interest refreshing and only a couple of times found comments to be off base. Of all the comments made by the students, one stood out. Toward the end of a wide-ranging discussion, a German student mentioned that what always struck him about Americans was the pride they took in their country. “Americans are so proud of their country,” he stated and then added somewhat somberly, “I wish I could have such pride in my country.”
That is our strength and our weakness. We truly are proud to be Americans. That gives us a strength that is effective in resolving problems and addressing needs. It sometimes, though, makes us self-absorbed and ignorant of the world in which we live and the effect we have on it. That is a political lesson I hope will always stick with me.
