 Friedrich Merz, who reckons that he will soon become Bundeskanzler, now wants to bring up his drastic Trump like 5 points plan on illegal migration in an expanded petition (Antrag) on Wednesday in the present Bundestag (See petition below).
Though important parts of his petition look suspiciously similar to some AfD proposals, Merz still rejects any cooperation with the AfD. Surprisingly therefore that he wants to bring forward the petition on Wednesday, as he must assume that it may only be passed with the votes from AfD. One would expect that most of members the Social Democrats (SPD) , the Greens (Bündnis 90/Die Grünen) and the small remnants of the left (Die Linke) would vote against his petition. Meaning it may only be passed with the votes from FDP, BSW and surprise, the AfD. Just take a look at the distribution of the present 733 seats in the Bundestag SPD 207 CDU/CSU 196 Bündnis 90/Die Grünen 117 FDP 90 AfD 76 Gruppe Die Linke 28 Gruppe BSW 10 Fraktionslos 9 CDU/CSU, FDP, BSW and AfD would potentially represent 372 votes in favour of Friedrich Merz’s petition. Which would allow the petition to pass. Merz own comment: “Mir ist völlig gleichgültig, wer diesen Weg politisch mitgeht. Ich sage nur: Ich gehe keinen anderen” One wonders what might happen after the election in February. How would a victorious CDU/CSU, with Merz, be able to form majority coalition that would include SPD or Greens, or a combination. Does he really expect to be able get them to accept a drastic execution of his 5 points plan? Or would he continue to rely on the votes of AfD, BSW and FPD (if they get in). In other words, is the “Brandmauer “getting holes? Yesterday (January 29, 2025) the petition was passed in the Bundestag. Of the 903 members present 348 voted in favour and 344 against. (In favour: 187 CDU/CSU, 80 FDP, 75 AfD, and 6 not members of a party). The result is not binding for the present govern ment, but was met with anger from the still governing parties SPD and the Greens. The petition The newspaper “Bild” on January 26, 2025, published a copy of what might be the full text of the petition Merz aims to bring up in the Bundestag on Wednesday: Antrag (petition) der Fraktion der CDU/CSU Fünf Punkte für sichere Grenzen und das Ende der illegalen Migration Der Bundestag wolle beschließen I Der Bundestag stellt fest: Die abscheuliche Mordtat von Aschaffenburg, bei der zwei kleine Kinder Opfer eines brutalen Messerangriffs wurden, hat Trauer und Bestürzung in ganz Deutschland ausgelöst. Der Mord an einem der Kinder sowie an einem erwachsenen Mann, der helfen wollte, verdeutlicht eine neue Dimension der Gewalt, die Deutschland zunehmend erschüttert. Sie reiht sich ein in die Terroranschläge von Mannheim und Solingen und den Angriff auf den Weihnachtsmarkt von Magdeburg. Der Deutsche Bundestag weigert sich anzuerkennen, dass dies die neue Normalität in Deutschland ist. Bei dem Täter handelt es sich um einen 28-jährigen afghanischen Asylsuchenden ohne Schutzanspruch, der ausreisepflichtig war. Er war zuvor bereits mehrfach durch Gewaltakte auffällig geworden; trotz vorübergehender Einweisung in psychiatrische Einrichtungen und bestehender Ausreisepflicht lief er frei herum. Die aktuelle Asyl- und Einwanderungspolitik gefährdet die Sicherheit der Bürgerinnen und Bürger und das Vertrauen der gesamten Gesellschaft in den Staat. Sie wird von ganz überwiegenden Anteilen der Menschen in Deutschland abgelehnt. Die Politik der letzten Jahre hat es versäumt, Kontrolle über die Migration zurückzugewinnen und zu erhalten. Sie hat es versäumt, das geltende nationale Recht durchzusetzen, klare Regeln zu setzen und Fehlanreize für illegale Migration – wie etwa überhöhte Sozialleistungen – zu beseitigen. Sie hat es auch versäumt, innerhalb der Europäischen Union den verbreiteten Bruch des gemeinsamen Rechts durch andere Mitgliedstaaten deutlich zu verurteilen. Die bestehenden europäischen Regelungen – die Dublin-III-Verordnung zur grundsätzlichen Zuständigkeit des Ersteinreisestaates, das Schengen-Abkommen zu den offenen Binnengrenzen, und die Eurodac-Verordnung zur Registrierung von Asylsuchenden – sind erkennbar dysfunktional. Die Migrationskrise geht maßgeblich aus vom syrischen Bürgerkrieg, den der russische Diktator Wladimir Putin über Jahre angefacht und verlängert hat. Bis heute instrumentalisiert der russische Diktator Wladimir Putin Migration als hybride Waffe, indem er jeden Monat hunderte Menschen über die belarussische Grenze nach Europa sendet. Aufgrund des völkerrechtswidrigen russischen Angriffskrieges sind mehr als eine Million Ukrainer nach Deutschland geflohen. In dieser Gesamtsituation ist es die Pflicht Deutschlands und damit der Bundesregierung, nationales Recht vorrangig anzuwenden, wenn europäische Regelungen nicht funktionieren – so wie es in den Europäischen Verträgen für außergewöhnliche Notlagen vorgesehen ist. Deutschland muss die Abwehr von Gefahren und die Sicherheit der Bürgerinnen und Bürger an erste Stelle setzen und entschlossen handeln. Es sind sofortige, umfassende Maßnahmen zur Beendigung der illegalen Migration, zur Sicherung der deutschen Grenzen und zur konsequenten Abschiebung vollziehbar ausreisepflichtiger Personen, insbesondere von Straftätern und Gefährdern, erforderlich. Wer die illegale Migration bekämpft, entzieht auch Populisten ihre politische Arbeitsgrundlage. Die AfD nutzt Probleme, Sorgen und Ängste, die durch die massenhafte illegale Migration entstanden sind, um Fremdenfeindlichkeit zu schüren und Verschwörungstheorien in Umlauf zu bringen. Sie will, dass Deutschland aus EU und Euro austritt und sich stattdessen Putins Eurasischer Wirtschaftsunion zuwendet. All das gefährdet Deutschlands Stabilität, Sicherheit und Wohlstand. Deshalb ist diese Partei kein Partner, sondern unser politischer Gegner. II. Der Deutsche Bundestag fordert die Bundesregierung auf, unverzüglich folgende Maßnahmen umzusetzen: 1. Dauerhafte Grenzkontrollen: Die deutschen Staatsgrenzen zu allen Nachbarstaaten müssen dauerhaft kontrolliert werden. 2. Zurückweisung ausnahmslos aller Versuche illegaler Einreise: Es gilt ein faktisches Einreiseverbot für Personen, die keine gültigen Einreisedokumente besitzen und die nicht unter die europäische Freizügigkeit fallen. Diese werden konsequent an der Grenze zurückgewiesen. Dies gilt unabhängig davon, ob sie einen Schutzgesuch äußern oder nicht, sofern europäischen Nachbarstaaten sie bereits sicher aufgenommen haben. 3. Personen, die vollziehbar ausreisepflichtig sind, dürfen nicht mehr auf freiem Fuß sein: Sie müssen unmittelbar in Haft genommen werden. Die Anzahl an entsprechenden Haftplätzen in den Ländern muss dafür signifikant erhöht werden. Der Bund wird die Länder dabei unterstützen und schnellstmöglich alle verfügbaren Liegenschaften, darunter leerstehende Kasernen und Containerbauten, zur Verfügung stellen. Die Zahl der Abschiebungen muss deutlich erhöht werden. Abschiebungen müssen täglich stattfinden. Abschiebungen auch nach Afghanistan und Syrien werden regelmäßig durchgeführt. 4. Mehr Unterstützung für die Länder beim Vollzug der Ausreisepflicht: Der Bund soll die Länder auch weiterhin beim Vollzug der Ausreisepflicht – etwa durch Beschaffung von Reisepapieren und der Umsetzung von Rückführungen – unterstützen. Diese Unterstützung muss weiter ausgebaut werden. Überdies werden Bundesausschreibungen geschaffen, um Rückführungen zu erleichtern. Die Bundespolizei muss die Befugnis erhalten, bei im eigenen Zuständigkeitsbereich aufgegriffenen, ausreisepflichtigen Personen auch selbst und unmittelbar Haftbefehle für Abschiebehaft oder Ausreisegewahrsam beantragen zu können. 5. Verschärfung des Aufenthaltsrechts für Straftäter und Gefährder: Ausreisepflichtige Straftäter und Gefährder sollen in einem zeitlich unbefristeten Ausreisearest bleiben, bis sie freiwillig in ihr Heimatland zurückkehren oder die Abschiebung vollzogen werden kann. Aus diesem Arrest ist die freiwillige Ausreise ins Herkunftsland jederzeit möglich. Nicht mehr möglich darf hingegen eine Rückkehr nach Deutschland sein.  A few days ago, Friedrich Merz, who seems destined to become the next German chancellor, presented five concrete points for a turnaround in German migration policy. "The measure is finally full," he argued after the recent knife attack in Aschaffenburg. "We are facing the shambles of an asylum and immigration policy that has been misguided in Germany for ten years."
Merz promises to implement these five points:
 German politics in a serious predicament due to AfD A comparison of an INSA opinion poll for the upcoming Bundestag election with the latest Bundestag election result indicate serious upheavals in the “Parteienlandschaft” for Germany as a whole.  Neueste Wahlumfrage von INSA Sonntagsfrage #btwahl 2025-01-06 Suddenly the AfD with 21.5% is in second place after the CDU with 31,0%, and lo and behold in front of the social democratic SDP party, which only got 15.5%, and far above the Green party with 13,5%. BSW (Bündniss Sahra Wagenknecht) seems to have lost the sudden attraction it got, when it was formed by Sahra Wagenknecht, former leading figure in the Linke, in January 2024. Given that Bundestag elections have a 5% election threshold, the polling results may indicate that FDP and die Linke might not make it. How could a majority government then be created? Well, there might be these coalition possibilities according to dawum.de (Numbers represent the probable share of a new Bundestag, limited now to a total of 630 seats):  Neueste Wahlumfrage von INSA Sonntagsfrage #btwahl 2025-01-06 Here is the problem created not the least by possible AfD and BSW results. The established parties have promised that they will uphold a “Brandmauer” or fire-proof wall against any AfD participation in government. The former dominating parties, CDU/CSU and SPD have all attempted to demonstrate that the “Brandmauer” is intact and will stay intact after the coming Bundestag election on February 23. A recent study by Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin seem to confirm that “Brandmauer” is intact and stable: “Insgesamt ist die Brandmauer weitaus stabiler, als vielfach vermutet wird” (Zeit Online). This means that all coalitions with AfD is out of the question. Before the February election at least. The problem is that the remaining coalition possibilities do not look especially attractive, meaning that the “Brandmauer” against AfD has given German politics a serious problem. It would in this case only leave coalitions with CDU/CSU and SPD, or CDU/CSU and the Greens. Now the first coalition would represent a kind of forced return to the GROKO, the great coalition of the blacks, CDU/CSU, and the reds, SPD, apparently not something that the two parties are wishing for, and not something that the voters would like. It might lead to a kind lethargic political staleness. Being mostly a soft mid-position leaning a little more to the right than the present government. Probably not strong enough to solve Germany’s present, economic, structural, migration, and security problems. And how would such a coalition be able to agree on how to tackle the Ukraine proxy war or expected Trumpian policies? A coalition of CDU/CSU with the Green party, has been categorically rejected by CSU’s Markus Söder, and now apparently also by CDU’s Friedrich Merz, although he seems some-what less categorical, eyeing as he must the limited possibilities for a coalition government. Here similar problems would manifest themselves, as the Greens have their share of responsibility for the present German misery, and they certainly don’t seem to see eye to eye with CDU/CSU on the immigration issue. The means that German politics has landed itself in serious quandary, that may make it impossible to find the necessary drastic solutions to the serious problems manifesting themselves in Germany now. Problems that lead to the demise of the traffic light coalition (the Red, Yellow and Green parties). The serious problem of finding governing coalitions is already seen in a lesser format in the recent local state elections. AfD’s and BSW’s hard impact in recent local state elections The latest local state elections in Germany taking place in the eastern part of the country show that AfD (Alternative für Deutschland) is making major inroads in the traditional party landscape in Germany, together with new formed BSW (Bündniss Sahra Wagenknecht). Here the recent results of Landtag elections in Thyringia, Saxony and Brandenburg in 2024 (in percentages). Thyringia (selected results):  The AfD trumped all other parties with 32.8 %. Social democrats (SPD) only got 6.1%, while the CDU (Christian Democratic Union achieved a respectable 23.6%. The new BSW party trumped die Linke, the left party they broke out from. It may seem strange that there has been no attempt to create a local government with participation from the AfD, when almost a third of population who voted chose AfD. But all the other parties have erected what they call a “Brandmauer” or fireproof-wall against the AfD, doing everything they can to make it impossible for the AfD to gain influence. With the other parties ganging up against the AfD, difficult negotiations resulted in a so-called Brombeer (Blackberry) coalition government consisting of CDU, BSW and SPD. Saxony (selected results):  In Saxony the AfD with 30.6 % of the votes is getting very close to the established CDU with 31.8% of the votes, while BSW made its entry with 11.8%. This resulted difficult negotiations before a minority government consisting of CDU and SPD came about. Everything was also done here to keep the AfD from gaining influence. Brandenburg (selected results):  The AfD with 29.23 % is suddenly almost equal to the social democrats’ (SPD) 32.8%, while the BSW has overtaken the CDU (Christian Democratic Union). A red-black-green coalition consisting of SPD, CDU and Die Grünen/B90 make up the new government. Again, a coalition with express purpose at keeping out the AfD. While AfD and BSW is capturing large shares of the votes in these three local states in eastern Germany, they have had far less attraction in western parts of Germany. Still, on the national level they may really be causing trouble for the old established parties as indicated by the national opinion polls before the upcoming elections to the Bundestag on February 23, 2025. What, a “Brandmauer” against a large part of the population? After the local state elections in Thyringia and Saxonia Chancellor, Scholz was depressed: “The AfD's performance in the state elections in Thuringia and Saxony with more than 30 percent "depresses me greatly," … "The fact that populism is now receiving so much support is not good. And now we all have to see what we are doing … " (Zeit Online). Friedrich Merz from the CDU agrees with the chancellor. After the local state elections, he again rejected any coalition with the AfD. “The AfD is so clearly and unambiguously against everything the CDU stands for that cooperation in any form is unthinkable.” (swr.de). Merz even appeals to the SPD, Greens and FDP to help "bring people back to the political center and to get them more enthusiastic about our democracy again." (swr.de). Before Chancellor Scholz’s government coalition, consisting of SPD, the Greens and FDP, broke up in the fall, there was even a serious attempt to ban the AfD. Representatives from SPD, the Greens, Linke, CDU and SSW (Südschleswigscher Wählerverband, representing a Danish minority in northern Germany) got together to file a petition in the German Bundestag, with object of proving the possibility of simply banning the AfD. In the petition they wanted the Bundestag to decide that the party “Alternative für Deutschland” is unconstitutional, and to confiscate the assets of the “Alternative for Germany” for the benefit of the Federal Republic of Germany for charitable purposes. They would in fact ban the influence of voters electing the AfD. Expressly wanting to preserve and guard a special German idea of democracy, by eliminating or ostracizing what might after all represent up to one fifth of the German population. Among CDU initiators of the petition in the Bundestag, is Marco Wanderwitz, who might argue that the Bundessamt für Verfasssungsschutz (The German domestic intelligence services) have classified AfD as a suspected right-wing extremist case (Rechtsextremistischen Verdachtsfall), in a local state case even as “Gesichert Rechtsextrem.” Now the word “Wanderwitz” in German would be “running gag” in English, and though the attempt to ban the AfD might not be a gag, others have warned against the initiative to ban the AfD. Both Chancellor Olaf Scholz (SPD) and CDU leader Friedrich Merz have warned of the risks that a rejection of a ban by the Federal Constitutional Court would entail. Similar objections have been raised by the Greens. The attempt to ban the AfD may of cause have more do with a troubled part of German history, than with the idea of democracy. But it seems funny that a German attempt to have an election system designed to make sure that Germany would have a kind of model democracy, is precisely what allows the AfD to gain influence. Apart from the rule that parties must obtain a minimum of five percent of the vote to be represented in the Bundestag, albeit with certain exceptions, there is the special one ballot two votes system (“Erst und Zweitstimme”). With the first vote (Erststimme) a voter may choose a favourite candidate, with the second vote on the ballot (Zweitstimme) the voter chooses a favourite party. The second vote determines the percentage of seats for each party. Perhaps seen as a fair system compared with the UK’s first-past-the-post voting, it allows AFD and BSW to gain seats in Bundestag, whereas a UK system might have left the parties in the cold. Elon Musk prodding and stirring up German politics “Only the AfD can save Germany,” Elon Musk asserted on X in December. This was his first jab at the prodding opinion in Germany. Next followed the op-ed in Die Welt, a major German newspaper belonging to the Axel Springer group. That really stirred up the beehive of German politics, and no wonder. Musk started out by arguing: “The Alternative for Germany (AfD) is the last spark of hope for this country. Here some of his arguments. In relation to Germany’s economic woes. To Musk AfD is a party that understands the importance of economic freedoms, the necessity to reduce bureaucracy, lower taxes and deregulate markets. Principles that had make Tesla successful. In relation to migration. “Germany has opened its borders to mass migration, which, while humanitarian in intent, has led to significant cultural and social tensions. The AfD advocates for a controlled immigration policy that prioritizes integration and the preservation of German culture and security. This is not about xenophobia but about ensuring that Germany does not lose its identity in the quest for globalism” (Elon Musk, translation by Martin Varsavsky). On energy and energy independence. In Musk’s view Germany’s present energy policies are seen as economically costly and politically naïve. In contrast the AfD is seen as pragmatic, and apparently Musk hopes that this means that the AfD will advocate nuclear power, together with battery energy, that would act as storage able to act as buffer for large swings in electricity usage. Now Musk is actually in the business of proving such storage solutions, as he has done for instance in Australia. On political realism. Musk believes that traditional parties have failed Germany, leading to economic stagnation, social unrest, and dilution of national identity. Whereas AfD would offer a political realism resonating with many Germans, that have been constrained by political correctness. The labelling of the AfD as far-right, Musk dismisses in a curious way, by noting that that Alice Weidel, one of the leaders of the party, is living with a same sex partner from Sri Lanka! On innovation and future. Innovation requires freedom from constraints. The AfD visions is aligned with this ethos. “They push for educational reforms that encourage critical thinking over indoctrination and support tech industries which are the future of global economic leadership.” To Musk the AFD is thus the only party can save Germany from becoming a shadow of its former self. By the way Musk is not the only American to see AfD as the only party that can save Germany. David P. Goldman, U.S. strategist and editor of “Asia Times” wrote an article arguing that AfD is the key to European defence. That may come as surprise to many. But in Goldman’s view AfD is right when it argues against supporting Ukraine with weapons and advocates for a negotiated peace solution, wanting instead to concentrate on Germany’s and Europe’s own defence. Goldman here also refers to a survey showing that AfD members would actually be willing to fight for their country in contrast to members of the Green party. Musk as well as Goldman have touched upon a series of problems that ruling Germans parties have proven unable to solve, and rightly raised the question of why the established parties have been so eager to silence the views and positions found in AfD, and keep them out of public discourse. Although the AfD may actually have at least part of the answer for solving the present German misery. Angry reactions to Musk article One might actually argue that Musk’s criticism and his defence of AfD viewpoints, is confirmed by the angry reactions to his views. Friedrich Merz, the CDU’s candidate for the next chancellor uttered harsh critique of Musk’s interference in German politics. He criticized Musk’s "Welt am Sonntag" op-ed article in favour of the AfD as "intrusive and presumptuous." He could not remember “a comparable case of interference in the election campaign of a friendly country in the history of Western democracies, the CDU's candidate for chancellor told the newspapers of the Funke Media Group.” (deutschlandfunk.de). To Merz it was evident that Musk must have overlooked that with AfD in power he would never have been able to build a Tesla Plant in Brandenburg, and also that AfD ïs in favour of leaving the EU, which would hurt German Economy massively. Chancellor Scholz also argued against interference by tech billionaires “One had to stay cool … I find it much more worrying than such insults that Musk is supporting a party like the AfD, which is in parts right-wing extremist, preaches rapprochement with Putin's Russia and wants to weaken transatlantic relations," (spiegel.de). The strange censoring role of German media In the paper “Die Welt,” the accept to publish Musk’s article created furore among the journalists, and one of lesser editors announced that she would leave in protest. The furore and the editor protest show that the Musk article really represented a breach in German mainstream medias own “Brandmauer” against the AfD. Public broadcasting channels and printed media have long assisted in the attempt to uphold the “Brandmauer” and has attempted to warn and scare their viewers and readers against the AfD and its views, always remembering to mention AfD as rechtsextrem or rechtsradikal. In an interview with the well-known German magazine “Der Spiegel,” one of moderators of the news program in ARD, Caren Miosga, explained why she did not invite main political actors from the AFD, but only less important members. Her strange argument: "We are facing elections in Saxony, Thuringia and Brandenburg. The AfD is ahead in all three federal states, so we have to invite them. However, that does not apply to everyone from this party. Quite a few of them are masters at building a web of lies. As a moderator, you cannot keep up with checking the statements live. It would be a stupid game: no, yes, not true, it is true. And there are those in this party who are so blatantly right-wing extremist that they will not get an invitation either. … I don't think they need ARD and ZDF. They find their voters without us, via social media." (medium.de) No wonder that AfD has been very critical of German mainstream media, and the cry “Lügenpresse” has often been heard in social media. The deplatforming of AfD by public broadcasting stations like ARD and ZDF is borne out by Statista in a “Comparison of the party affiliation of politicians in the political talk shows of ARD and ZDF and the share of seats in the German Bundestag in the year 2024.” In the diagram blue columns represent participation in political talk shows, and black column share of seats in the Bundestag.  https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/954672/umfrage/parteizugehoerigkeit-der-politiker-in-talkshows-vs-sitzanteil-im-bundestag/ The fact that the main public broadcasting channels of ARD and ZDF have been deplatforming the AfD is not exactly a sign of a democratic and political neutral attitude in the media.
Essentially mainstream media in Germany has been keeping their viewers and readers in the dark with regard to AfD views, focusing instead on painting a clearly negative picture of the AfD. Trying to “Entzauber,” or break the spell of AfD and re-educate people that may have got more positive views of the AfD from social media. “This assumes that the AfD is concealing its true goals and is essentially deceiving voters. And I believe this is a very fatal assumption that is also widespread in journalism” it was argued in Deutschlandfunk (deutschlandfunk.de). Punching a hole in the “Brandmauer”? Elon Musk has tried knock down at least part of the “Brandmauer,” first by his article in “Die Welt,” and now by heaving price on Alice Weidel , co-chair of the AfD, in long talk with her on his X Media. (A version of the talk with German subtitles can be found at https://x.com/Alice_Weidel/status/1877475125970211197). Looking at German media, this talk has mostly had a negative reception in German media. But it as Alice Weidel said, it is the first interview where she was not interrupted all the time, as it would happen in German media. Perhaps Elon Musk, in his own eccentric way has contributed to a break in at least the media’s “Brandmauer” against AfD in Germany. It has simply become necessary to open a discussion about media treatment of important actors in German politics, and likewise about the protective and censoring attitude of the EU. The former French EU-commissioner Thierry Breton actually warned Alice Weidel before her talk with Musk. Referring to the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) he took to X, writing: “As a European citizen concerned with the proper use of systemic platforms authorized to operate in the EU under the strict respect of our law (#DSA), especially to protect our democratic rules against illegal or misbehavior during election times, I believe it's crucial to remind you: 1) That you will be offered by your counterpart (210 million followers) during this exercise a significant and valuable advantage over your competitors; 2) That your counterpart should, once again, fully respect all its obligations under our EU law, particularly during this exercise as already publicly expressed in comparable situations, notably last summer. His warning that Alice Weidel and AfD might get undue media presence and attention is really bizarre in light of Germans mainstream media’s deplatforming of AfD and Alice Weidel and shows that there exists really seriously censorship of free speech, not only in Germany, but in the EU as well. Enforcers of the DSA are on their toes in relation to Weidel’s talk with Musk: Politico wrote that “A team of up to 150 European Commission officials in Brussels and Seville will help scrutinize whether Musk’s social media site plays by the European Union’s tech rules. They wield far-reaching investigative powers that allow them to visit X’s offices and request access to its algorithm and internal correspondence.” (Politico. January 9, 20225) Perhaps Germany and EU should follow the sarcastic advice of Berthold Brecht, the German poet. The Berthold Brecht solution to an impossible quandary? The attempts to keep AfD from gaining influence may remind one of the poem “Die Lösung” by Berthold Brecht, written after the rebellion in East Germany on June 17, 1953. The poem takes up the possibility of dissolving the people, when it has lost the trust of government: “The solution After the uprising of June 17th, the secretary of the Writers' Union had leaflets distributed on Stalinallee, which read that the people had lost the government's trust and could only win it back by working twice as hard. Wouldn't it be easier if the government dissolved the people and elected another one?” (Bertholdt Brecht, deutschelyrik.de/die-loesung.html) It seems that attempts to ban a party representing one fifth of the population or at the very least the attempt to ostracize it to keep it from any kind of influence, is in a way similar to the suggestion in Brecht’s poem. Although it may not dissolve the people, it certainly wants to reduce the choices for one fifth of the people that have fallen prey to ideas and opinions that would threaten the ruling parties’ idea of German democracy. Is this democracy? Or is it a democracy perverted by fear lingering as a result of Germany’s past? Limiting present day German democracy in a way that in itself dangerous for democracy. Perhaps it is time for German democracy to get rid of fears stemming from its history and become more like the democracy of its neighbours. The attempt to isolate the German version of democracy from right-wing influences like the AfD and the votes of one fifth of the population may prove to become increasingly impossible to uphold. Germany politics just has to look to its neighbours to see that democracy may in fact include right-wing views and parties. This at least seem to be the case with the rising wave of right-wing parties among Germany’s neighbours. Like the Partij voor de Vrijheid (PVV) in the Netherlands government; Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (FPÖ) in Austria, that is at this moment attempting to form a coalition government dominated by them; Rassemblement (RN) in France; Fratelli d’Italia (Fdl) und Lega Nord per l'indipendenza della Padania (Lega) in the Italian government. In general, it looks as if right-wing parties are having or gaining influence in many countries in Europe. Do established German parties really believe that they can establish a ban or limit on people’s democratic choices or continue to gang up against and ostracize a party like AfD. Perhaps recent happenings in Austria may indicate how difficult that would be. The attempt of the losers of the recent Austrian elections to form a government coalition and keep out the winning right-wing FPÖ party have gone awry, as we have just seen. As a consequence the leader of right-wing FPÖ Herbert Kickl, has got the task of trying to form a new Austrian coalition government, consisting of his FPÖ party and ÖVP, the Christian – conservative party. Perhaps after the German election, even German parties like CDU/CSU will be forced to change their minds, although it might prove difficult for them. At least even established German parties and public opinion are now challenged by Donald Trump as U.S. President, supported as he is by the likes of Elon Musk, who has had the temerity to interfere with European politics and politicians.  In theory at least in the mid-nineties. On the 50th anniversary of the end of WWII on May 9-10, 1995, President Clinton visited Moscow. In meetings with President Yeltsin NATO expansion was discussed. In preparation for Clinton’s meeting, Strobe Talbott, Deputy Secretary of State, had provided Clinton with a memorandum, with the stark title “May 10: Moment of Truth,” outlining the U.S. and Russian positions on NATO expansion: “At your September Summit with Yeltsin in Washington, you got him to accept the proposition that NATO would, over time, bring in new members. You assured him that the process would be governed by the four "no's": no rush (expansion would be gradual, no surprises (it would be transparent), no threat (it would take account of Russia's legitimate security interests), and no exclusion (Russia would be, at least in theory, eligible for membership someday). There's a fifth "no" as well: no veto.” (Emphasis added). (Declassified document found at https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/27170-doc-16-strobe-talbott-memorandum-president-moment-truth). But Russia may actually have wanted to joinNATO President Putin brought up the idea that Russia should join NATO at a couple of occasions. During a series of interviews with Oliver Stone, Putin recounted that in 2000 he had said to President Clinton “Let’s consider an option that Russia might join NATO,” and that Clinton had said: ”Why not? But the U.S. delegation got very nervous.” https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/stone-interviews-putin-says-asked-russia-joining-nato According to an interview with former Secretary General of NATO, George Robertson, Putin later also brought up the idea of Russia joining NATO. Putin had argued “I want my country to be part of Western Europe” and expressed the wish to join NATO. In the interview Robertson says that he found Putin to be quite sincere, but that the Busch/Cheney administration at the time were clearly not interested in the idea. See and hear the interview with George Robertson at https://www.channel4.com/news/did-nato-get-putin-and-ukraine-wrong More on the U.S. push for NATO expansion in the essay “Containment and messianic NATO expansion.” https://wahrnehmungen.weebly.com/blog/containment-of-russia-and-messianic-nato-expansion or https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/containment-russia-messianic-nato-expansion-verner-c-petersen-g6tif |
