"...good military performance in the peacekeeping arena. Non-participation shows a lack of committment to do heavy lifting...."
Non-participation? To me it sounds like some more neo-con Germany thrashing. Not very relevant.
"Lord Robertson: ISAF will remain ISAF, even after the NATO take-over. It's been under existence under the British, then under Turkey and then, the Germans and the Dutch took over. So ISAF will remain ISAF, doing the same job in the same way and with the same mandate and there will be very little difference in appearance to the ordinary member of the public. But what will happen is that there will be a continuation and that will be able to deliver much more sustainable presence in Kabul, without this endless rotation of lead nations every six months."
isafkabul.org
From an ABC interview. Sept. 1, 2002
"Stephanopoulos: Mr. Ambassador, a year ago, Chancellor Schroeder of Germany promised unlimited, unconditional solidarity with the United States. But now, both he and his opponent in the German elections have come out foursquare against cooperating with the United States in taking on Iraq. What happened to unlimited solidarity?
Ischinger: Unlimited solidarity in the fight against terrorism, yes. We have deployed for the first time in post-World War II German history, combat troops outside of our country. We are today, as we talk here, behind the United States, the number-two country, when it comes to how many troops you have deployed overseas in peace-keeping operations. We have 10,000 soldiers now overseas. Thousands of them in Afghanistan. We are helping to prosecute, to find the terrorists. We are cooperating fully and massively in the war against terrorism.
The point is, that the way I read Vice President Cheney's speech, he does not make the point that this is part of the war against terrorism. This is a different problem. It's the problem of weapons of mass destruction, which we also believe is a serious problem, but it's a different one, and we take the view that our priority ought to be that we take the remaining task in Afghanistan and beyond, with respect to the war on terrorism, very seriously. We are being told that our own military and senior members of the US military are now discussing and proposing, actually, that the peace-keeping operation in Afghanistan should be extended, not only in terms of time, but maybe also in terms of geographic mandate. Who would provide the troops? Well, if you ask whether Germany can provide more troops, I don't know. Probably not many. But what we certainly couldn't do is keep doing that — and we are afraid we will need to do that for a long time — and help the United States open yet another theater of war at the same time. We think that the best way would be to get this job done and worry about the serious issue of weapons of mass destruction at the next point.
Stephanopoulos: The German Defense Minister, Peter Struck, said this week that "Iraq is not a threat to us." He was meaning Germany and the west. Is that the official position of the German government?
Ischinger: I think what we are saying and what we feel is that we share the intelligence assessment. We do know, just like your intelligence agencies know, what Saddam had and what he has. I do not believe that there is any significant difference in our assessment. There is a difference at the political level in whether that assessment requires urgent action now. Our view is that maybe containment with respect to the Saddam Hussein regime did not work perfectly. It probably didn't, but it has not failed completely.
Stephanopoulos: But Vice President Cheney says, if you wait, then the entire west will be open to the threat of nuclear blackmail.
Ischinger: He is probably right, I would say, in the medium and in the longer term. But we're talking here about the question of now. Is this an issue that requires military action now? I certainly share the view that Zbigniew Brzezinski just presented, namely that the Administration would get the fullest support, I believe, from many of us in Europe and from others, if a serious effort were to be undertaken at the United Nations to see whether we cannot create a more credible and more effective inspection regime. If that fails, then we are really presented with the challenge of, what is the weapon of last resort. And then I think at that point, you could probably also create more support overseas with the question of whether, in fact, the use of military force is not necessary in order to meet this challenge.
Stephanopoulos: Let me just press that point. So if inspections were tried, if the President went back to the United Nations, got an inspection regime, and Saddam Hussein cheated again or kicked the inspectors out, Germany would be willing to support military action?
Ischinger: Well, Germany, at this point, is not a member of the Security Council. So I'm afraid we don't even have a vote in this. What I am telling you is that within the EU, there is full support and unity on one point — we want the inspectors back. And if the Administration proposes that, and enlists the support of the allies, they would go with you. And they would also, I believe, if that effort fails, participate in a serious, in a serious political debate about what next steps do we need to do."
germany-info.org |
