Source: http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/Dissenters1/zundel/reports_may26.htm
Timestamp: 2017-12-13 03:39:32
Document Index: 321156450

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 5', 'Art.5', '§ 185', '§ 244', 'BGH', '§ 194', 'Art.5', 'BGH', '§ 244']

Reports 26 May 2005
Germany is the only country in the world that does not honour all its dead soldiers - that is a sign of a sick nation!
It is time for Germany to honour all its fallen soldiers - including those called NAZIS - and at the same time to stop the plunder of its national resources.
Denying the 'Holocaust'
Horst Mahler invites all Germans who still want to be Germans to witness the result of defence counsel, Sylvia Stolz, defend Dr Rigolf Hennig's application to have his judge dismissed for alleged bias - Monday, 30 May 2005, 2pm Court 130, Landgericht Verden, Johanniswall 6, D-27283 Verden.
Montag, dem 30. Mai 2005,
14.00 Uhr, im Gebäude des Landgerichts Verden,
Johanniswall 6, 27283 Verden, Saal 130.
In der Berufungssache des Oberstarztes d.R. Dr. Rigolf Hennig wegen Volksverhetzung in der Begehungsform der Leugnung des Holocausts findet eine
Fortsetzungsverhandlung am Montag, dem 30. Mai 2005, 14.00 Uhr,
im Gebäude des Landgerichts Verden, Johanniswall 6, 27283 Verden, Saal 130,
5 Tage vor dem ersten Verhandlungstag hatte der Angeklagte dem Gericht ein ausführliches eigenes Schreiben und Germar Rudolfs „Vorlesungen über den Holocaust“ (umfaßt 571 Seiten) zu den Akten überreicht und ankündigt, diese in den Mittelpunkt der Berufungsverhandlung stellen zu wollen. Dieser demonstrative Akt löst beim Vorsitzenden Richter Fluchtreflexe aus. Unter Mißachtung der Beschlußempfehlung des Petitionsausschusses des Bundestages (siehe unten) weigerte er sich, dem Angeklagten – wie von diesem förmlich beantragt - die Grundlagen zu benennen, auf denen die Annahme einer Offenkundigkeit des Holocausts beruhen soll. In diesem Zusammenhang erklärte er, „daß es der beantragten Erörterung nicht bedürfe, weil die Annahme der Offenkundigkeit der Bezugstat („Holocaust“) für die Urteilsfindung ohne Bedeutung sei.“ Das war eine Sensation.
Offenbar rechnete der Vorsitzende nicht mit dem geschickten und beherzten Eingreifen der Verteidigerin, der Rechtsanwältin Sylvia Stolz aus München, die dafür sorgte, daß dieser Vorgang im Verhandlungsprotokoll „aktenkundig“ gemacht wurde.
Die Sitzungsvertretung der Staatsanwaltschaft (eine Ober(!)staatsanwältin) wirkte völlig lustlos. Sie sprach immer nur zwei Sätze – und diese so leise, daß der Vorsitzende Richter nach wütenden Protesten der Zuhörer jeweils wiederholen mußte, was die „Frau Oberstaatsanwältin“ gesagt hatte.
In der Ablehnung der beantragten Erörterung ist entweder die Vorwegnahme eines Freispruchs aus Rechtsgründen (im Hinblick auf die Meinungs- und Berichterstattungsfreiheit gem. Art. 5 GG) enthalten oder der erste Schritt getan in Richtung auf eine offene und vollständige Lösung des Gerichts von Recht und Gesetz.
Da der Rechtsbruch näher liegt als ein (sensationeller) Freispruch aus Rechtsgründen, hat der Angeklagte den Vorsitzenden Richter wegen Besorgnis der Befangenheit abgelehnt. Die Verhandlung wurde daraufhin bis zur Entscheidung über das Ablehnungsgesuch auf den kommenden Montag, den 30. Mai 2005, vertagt.
In der Fortsetzungsverhandlung wird der Angeklagte mit einer Reihe von Beweisanträgen Germar Rudolfs „Vorlesungen über den Holocaust“ in die Verhandlung einführen und damit die vermeintliche Offenkundigkeit des Holocausts bis in die Wurzeln zerstören.
Obwohl die Presse - einschließlich des Fernsehens - der Verhandlung sichtlich mit Spannung folgte, ist darüber in den Medien nicht berichtet worden. Ein gutes Zeichen! Hätten diese doch nur berichten können, daß die energische und mutige Verteidigung des Angeklagten die Szene bestimmte. Das wollte man die Öffentlichkeit nicht wissen lassen.
Anl. 1 z. Prot. Nr. 12/32
Pet 4-12-07-45-5699
Der Petent fordert gesetzliche Regelungen, durch die der - ver­meintlichen - Behinderung der historischen Forschung und der wis­senschaftlichen Diskussion über die Existenz von Gaskammern zur Vernichtung von Juden im Dritten Reich entgegengewirkt wird.
Er trägt vor, daß wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen über die Nichtexistenz von Gaskammern dem Schutz von Art.5 Abs.3 Satz 1 Grundgesetz (Freiheit von Wissenschaft, Forschung und Lehre) unterstellt seien und deshalb nicht durch § 185 Strafgesetzbuch - StGB - (Beleidigung) strafbedroht sein dürften. Dies müsse jeden­falls dann gelten, wenn die Wissenschaftler die Anzahl der Opfer in den Konzentrationslagern nicht in Zweifel zögen.
noch Pet 4-12-07-45-5699
Eine weitere Konsequenz des verfassungsrechtlichen Schutzes sei es, daß die ständige Gerichtspraxis beendet werden müsse, nach der Indizienbeweise bzw. Beweisanträge für das Fehlen von Gaskam­mern nicht zugelassen würden. Hierzu sei eine Verschärfung der Anwendungsvoraussetzungen des § 244 Strafprozeßordnung -StPO­(keine Beweiserhebungen bei offenkundigen Tatsachen) notwendig. Als Ergebnis der parlamentarischen Prüfung läßt sich unter Be­rücksichtigung einer; vom Petitionsausschuß zu der Eingabe einge­holten Stellungnahme des Bundesministers der Justiz (BMJ) folgen­des feststellen:
Nach der ständigen Rechtsprechung des Bundesgerichtshofes (BGH) ist die Teilnahme an einer wissenschaftlichen Diskussion über das Ausmaß der Vernichtung der jüdischen Bevölkerung im Dritten Reich keineswegs strafbar. Eine Strafbarkeit besteht nur in den Fällen, in denen der millionenfache Mord an der jüdischen Bevöl­kerung abgeleugnet oder bagatellisiert wird. Diese Rechtslage ist - anders als der Petent annimmt - durch das 21.Strafrechtsände­rungsgesetz nicht geändert worden. Durch dieses Gesetz ist ledig­lich § 194 StGB dahingehend ergänzt worden, daß auf das Erforder­nis eines Strafantrages verzichtet und eine Strafvollstreckung von Amts wegen ermöglicht wurde.
Soweit der Petent sich auf die in Art.5 Abs.3 Satz 1 Grundgesetz garantierte Wissenschaftsfreiheit beruft, ist darauf hinzuweisen, daß auch dieses Grundrecht seine Grenze in anderen verfassungs­rechtlich geschützten Werten findet. Hierzu gehören insbesondere die Würde und das Persönlichkeitsrecht anderer.
Die höchstrichterliche Rechtsprechung gibt nach Ansicht des Petitionsausschusses keine Veranlassung zu gesetzgeberischen Maßnahmen.
Als offenkundig gelten ferner gerichtskundige Tatsachen, worunter solche Tatsachen zu verstehen sind, die das Gericht im Zusammen­hang mit seiner amtlichen Tätigkeit zuverlässig in Erfahrung ge­bracht hat. Dabei hat der BGH die Annahme der Gerichtskundigkeit als unbedenklich auf Gebieten erachtet, die im Hintergrund des Geschehens stehen und gleichsam den Boden für die Verübung einer größeren Zahl gleichgearteter Verbrechen abgeben.
Die Annahme der Offenkundigkeit schränkt jedoch in keinem Falle die Verteidigungsmöglichkeiten der Angeklagten unzumutbar ein. Das Gericht ist verpflichtet, solche Tatsachen, die es für offen­kundig erachtet, in der Hauptverhandlung zu erörtern und damit dem Angeklagten die Möglichkeit zu geben, dazu Stellung zu neh­men. Außerdem ist zu berücksichtigen, daß die Offenkundigkeit nicht für alle Zeiten unverändert fortzubestehen braucht. Neue Erfahrungen oder Ereignisse können hinzukommen, die geeignet sind, eine abweichende Beurteilung zu rechtfertigen. Tragen die Beteiligten solche bisher noch nicht berücksichtigten und erör­terten Umstände vor, so kann die Offenkundigkeit dadurch erschüt­tert und eine erneute Beweiserhebung über diese Tatsachen notwen­dig werden. Damit haben der Angeklagte und sein Verteidiger die
Die Entscheidung über die Offenkundigkeit einer Tatsache im Sinne des § 244 StPO obliegt damit ausschließlich dem jeweils erkennen­den Gericht und unterliegt damit dem Grundsatz der Unabhängigkeit der Richter. In den einzelnen Instanzen kann zudem durchaus eine unterschiedliche Beurteilung erfolgen.
Nach Ansicht des Petitionsausschusses besteht daher kein Anlaß, die geltende Rechtslage zu ändern.
Er empfiehlt daher, das Petitionsverfahren abzuschließen.
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 10:14 AM
Subject: Re: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy
"Mortimer Ostow just published Myth and Madness: The Psychodynamics of Antisemitism, a recent contribution to the genre of literature that explains anti-Semitism as a mental illness whose epidemiology can be understood through [the]psychoanalytic interpretation of . . specific antisemitic myths, including pre-Christian early and medieval Christian, 'racial' and post-modern Muslim antisemitism . . the pogrom mentality, including the Nazi phenomenon, antisemitic fundamentalism, and black antisemitism."
If you are able to read the foregoing badly written screed, I think you will glean from it the assertion that anti-semitism is a mental disorder of everyone on earth who reacts in any way negatively to Jews, but not a mental disorder of Jews themselves, who are the inventors of anti-semitism packaged as a weapon against all those who Jews hate or who have been the victims of Jewish parasitism or Jewish criminality.
At bottom, anti-semitism is a Jewish projection mirrored back upon Jews themselves of hate resident within the Jewish psyche, which is the logical correlate to the complex of fixed ideas and attitudes also resident within the Jewish psyche as the operative paradigm by which Jews justify, energize and free themselves for a specialized pursuit of life as parasites and predators. This paradigm of cold-eyed reptilian aggression represents the total absence from the Jewish psyche of moral regard for their victims.
The Jew knows who he has vicitmized. He knows the wrong he has committed, the injury he has done. His wrong, after all, was carried out in conscious pursuit of a carefully contrived plan of aggression. He also knows that his victim knows who it was who injured him. He knows who his victim will hate, if he hates anyone, for the harm he has sustained. From this logic, it then remains only for the Jew to posit in his Jewish soul the knowledge that he is hated by his victim.
The Jew's way of dealing with this is to deny that he has victimized anyone. He can then cry loudly that he is the innocent victim of someone's hate. If he claims persuasively that he is innocent of any wrong doing, he can also claim even more loudly that he is hated only because he is a Jew.
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 5:59 AM
Subject: Nazism and the German economic miracle, by Henry C K Liu
Nazism and the German economic miracle, by Henry C K Liu
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 06:21:12 -0400 From: "David Chiang
The Nazis came to power in Germany in 1933, at a time when its economy was in total collapse, with ruinous war-reparation obligations and zero prospects for foreign investment or credit. Yet through an independent monetary policy of sovereign credit and a full-employment public-works program, the Third Reich was able to turn a bankrupt Germany, stripped of overseas colonies it could exploit, into the strongest economy in Europe within four years, even before armament spending began. In fact, German economic recovery preceded and later enabled German rearmament, in contrast to the US economy, where constitutional roadblocks placed by the US Supreme Court on the New Deal delayed economic endorsement for Nazi philosophy, the effectiveness of German economic policy in this period, some of which had been started during the last phase of the Weimar Republic, is undeniable.
There were major differences between the German situation in 1933 and that in 1945. Not having been a battlefield in World War I, Germany in 1933 was not physically in ruins, as it was in 1945. What lay in ruins was its political and economic institutions. But in 1933, Germany not only did not have the benefit of the Marshall Plan, it was saddled with ruinous war reparations and an inoperative credit rating. What Germany had in1933 was full sovereignty through which the Third Reich was able to adopt policies of economic nationalism to full effectiveness. In 1945, Germany was deprived of sovereign power and national policies had to be adjusted to comply with US and Soviet geopolitical intentions. Economically, the dependence on foreign investments and credit forced West Germany into an export economy at the mercy of its main market: the United States.
After two and a half decades of economic reform toward neo-liberal market economy, China is still unable to accomplish in economic reconstruction what Nazi Germany managed in four years after coming to power, ie, full employment with a vibrant economy financed with sovereign credit without the need to export, which would challenge that of Britain, the then superpower. This is because China made the mistake of relying on foreign investment instead of using its own sovereign credit. The penalty for China is that it has to export the resultant wealth to pay for the foreign capital it did not need in the first place. The result after more than two decades is that while China has become a creditor to the US to the tune of nearing China's own gross domestic product (GDP), it continues to have to beg the US for investment capital.
The period between World Wars I and II, like no other period in modern European economic history, saw the success of centrally planned economies in Germany and perpetuate its hegemony by suppressing national planning everywhere to prevent the emergence of economic nationalism and socialism. It promoted global market capitalism and neo-liberal free trade to keep all other economies subservient to the US economy. It is the economic basis of the Pax Americana.
In his writings, Rathenau criticized free-market capitalism and argued that technological change and industrialization were pushing civilization toward a laissez-faire capitalism that did not involve state socialism and Marxism, Rathenau proposed a decentralized, democratic social order, in which the workers would have more control over production and the state would exert more control over the economy. His translated works include In Days to Come (1921) and The New Society (1921). Despite his great contribution to the German economy, Rathenau epitomized the living target of Adolf Hitler's accusation of internationalist Jewish treachery that betrayed the German nation. Hitler's rejection of the loyal nationalist support of the German Jews played an undeniable role in his own defeat. Jewish contribution to the flowering of German economy, culture and civilization had been the strongest in any European nation. Nazi persecution of the Jews was a strategic error more fundamental than the Nazi invasion of the USSR. The emigration of German Jews to the West, particularly to the US, played a critical role in the defeat of Germany in World War II. It is a lesson that the Arab nation in general, and Palestinians in particular, have yet to learn.
From the very outset of his rule, Hitler, whose main short-term goal was the economic revival of Germany with the help of German nationalist bankers and industrialists, won popular support of the nation. Hitler adopted an aggressive full-employment campaign. Between January 1933 and July 1935 the number of employed Germans rose by a half, from 11.7 million to 16.9 million. More than 5 million new jobs paying living wages were created. Unemployment was banished from the German economy and the entire nation was productively engaged in reconstruction. Inflation was brought under control by wage freeze and price control. Besides this, taking into account the lessons learned during 1914-18, Hitler aimed at creating an economy that would be independent from foreign capital and supply, and be well protected from another blockade and economic war. For Germans, all of the above was proof that Hitler was the one who had not only brought Germany out of economic depression but would take it directly to prosperity with new pride. German popular trust in the Fuehrer rose dramatically.
The Marshall Plan lent Europe the equivalent of $632 billion in 2004 dollars. Japan's foreign-exchange reserves alone were $830 billion at the end of September 2004. In other words, Japan was lending more to the United States in 2004 than the Marshall Plan lent to Europe in 1947. And Japan did not get any benefits, because the loan is denominated in dollars that the US can print at position to do without reducing the yen money supply, causing the Japanese economy to contract and the yen exchange rate to rise, thus hurting Japanese export competitiveness.
The Age of New Monarchy in Europe laid the foundation for the age of sovereign nation-states by placing royal authority to institute a fairer social contract above feudal rights, a development that began in the High Middle Ages. The new monarchs presented the institution of monarchy as a progressive guarantor of law and order and promoted hereditary monarchy as the legitimate means of transferring public power. Monarchism was supported by the urban bourgeoisie, as it had long been victimized by the private wars and marauding excesses of the feudal lords. The bourgeoisie was willing to pay taxes directly to the king in stronghold of the aristocracy, be dominated by the king who was expected to be a populist. The direct collection of popular taxes by the king, bypassing the feudal lords, gave the king the necessary resources to maintain a standing army to keep the feudal lords in check. These new monarchs revived Roman law, which favored the state and incorporated the will and welfare of the people in their own persons. Direct payment of taxes to the sovereign also ensured that future wars were fought to protect or enhance national interests, rather than at the personal pleasure of the king. The new monarchs ruled by the mandate of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, just as communist governments ruled centuries later with the mandate of the dictatorship of the proletariat. It was by protecting the people against abuses from aristocratic special interests that the king protected himself, a principle that escaped Louise XVI of France to his own sorrow.
The new monarchies, caught between fixed income and mounting expenses, were forced to devalue their money by diluting its gold content. They began to borrow from private banks to deal with recurring monetary crises. These monetary crises led to constitutional crises that produced absolute monarchies in Europe and the triumph of bourgeois parliamentarianism in England. The need to find new conquered lands to repay sovereign indebtedness gave birth to imperialism and colonialism, which the Atlantic Charter centuries later categorically rejected in the third of its eight points of "common principles in the national policies of their respective countries on which they base their hopes for a better future for the world". The third point stated that "they [the US and Britain, and later the United Nations members] respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self-government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them".
Notwithstanding the high-sounding rhetoric of the Atlantic Charter, the outbreak the United Nations that international communism was a clear and present danger to residual Western imperialism and colonialism in the Third World. Under president Harry Truman, the US began to abandon its wartime anti-colonialist posture and to solicit the help of European imperialists, particularly the British and French, to support its global war on communism.
Colonel Summers pointed out that, in reality, UN involvement was a facade for unilateral US action to protect its vital interests in northeast Asia. The UN Command was just another name for General Douglas MacArthur's US Far East Command in Tokyo. At its peak strength in July 1953, the UN Command stood at 932,539 ground troops. Republic of Korea (ROK) army and marine forces accounted for 590,911 of that force, and US Army and Marine Corps forces for another 302,483. By comparison, other UN ground forces totaled 39,145 men, 24,085 of whom were provided by British Commonwealth Forces (Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) and 5,455 of whom came from Turkey. The troop composition was of the UN, Truman's decision not to seek a declaration of war set a dangerous precedent in the erosion of the constitutional power of the US Congress.
For West Germany, five years after having lost the most devastating of all wars, this meant forming a new army, a step unthinkable for many Germans who had just gone through de-Nazification and demilitarization indoctrination during Allied Germany eager to capture new overseas markets. As West Germany prospered from profits garnered from new wars to defend imperialism in Asia, the US was in a position to push Germany into rearmament, despite the fact that German rearmament was anathema not only to German citizens, but also to all their apprehensive neighbors, especially France. As the Korean War continued, however, opposition to rearmament lessened within West Germany, and China's entry into the war caused Gaullist France, which was apprehensive of the liberating impact of Asian communism on its crumbling empire in Southeast Asia, to revise its negative posture toward German rearmament, as long as the new German war machine was oriented toward the east. Instead of the tradition Franco-Russian alliance against a powerful Germany, the French began to see benefits in using the Germans to deter Soviet intentions to march toward Paris. It was a classic balance-of-power move. Germany, deprived of sovereign authority, was at the mercy of superpower global conflict.
The buildup of the Bundeswehr met considerable popular opposition within West fall of the Weimar Republic, laws were passed that guaranteed civilian control over the armed forces and gave the individual soldier a new social status. Members of the conscription army were to be "citizens in uniform" and were encouraged to take an active part in democratic politics, in contrast to the Junker tradition of a warrior class. This was done to inject a measure of consideration of German domestic politics into US-dominated NATO decision-making.
The Soviet Union recognized the German Democratic Republic as a sovereign state in 1954, and the two communist countries established diplomatic relations. The Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) had not, however, recognized the GDR. And toproposed that the FRG break diplomatic relations with any country that recognized the GDR. Anti-communism was the convenient decoy from targeting the rise of neo-fascism in a society that had won a permissive reprieve from its US conqueror's de-Nazification program. As the brilliant German filmmaker Rainer Werner Fassbinder showed in many of his films, postwar Germany turned out to be very much what it would have been like if the Nazis had won the war.
The Hallstein proposal was based on the West German claim that as a democratic state, it should be accepted as the only legitimate representative of the German people. By contrast, East Germany claimed to be the legitimate state of the German people because it was a dictatorship of the proletariat. Democracy was used as a justification for legitimacy in the West. Israel would learn from the former persecutor of its people to use democracy to bargain for US acceptance ofits legitimacy in an Arab region, using anti-communism as currency to secure US support, by purging the left totally from Israeli domestic politics. The Hallstein Doctrine was adopted as a principle of West German foreign policy in September 1955 and remained in effect until the late 1960s when the idea of two German states became a reality, and Germany remained divided until the dissolution of the USSR in 1991.
German officials point out that their country's Iran initiative is a breakthrough, since for the first time in recent memory the leading European powers are united and proactive, as well as independent from Washington, on a major issue that threatens peace. There is sober concern about Iran playing off repeat of US Iraq policy in Iran. If the EU approach to Iran should break down, the EU, being still economically dependent on the US, would have no choice but to join the United States in economic sanctions against Iran. Diplomatically, the EU would still be in a position to dissuade the Bush administration from pursuing a military option or seeking Security Council action that Russia and China could be expected to oppose.
Since the end of World War II, nothing major has happened on the world stage, good or bad, unless the United States has orchestrated it. The only two notable exceptions are chancellor Willy Brandt's efforts more than two decades ago to engage the Soviet Union and East Germany, and British and French diplomatic efforts that helped produce the deal to trade an end of Libyan terrorism for an end to economic and diplomatic sanctions.
Washington at first reacted negatively to both of these initiatives. European involvement in world affairs beyond continental borders has been welcomed by refused to accept this subservient role. The Iraq war is immensely unpopular in Europe, similarly to other regions around the globe, even in Britain, which has happily accepted the role of geopolitical Gerhard Schroeder an option to support the Bush administration's Iraq policy. The blatant ineptitude of recent US foreign policy, particularly in the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, has provided a window of opportunity for European independent activism in world affairs.
Politically, the Bush administration at the time leading up to the Iraq invasion wanted Germany to join its international coalition to support its disastrous policy on Iraq, with diplomatic backing at the UN, and to grant the "coalition of the willing" complete access to German airspace and allow the US and Britain full use of their bases on German soil for offensive operations against Iraq. The White House also wanted Germany to support more fully Washington's "war on terrorism", especially with regard to the extradition of terrorist suspects on convict them in US courts. It also wanted Germany to increase defense spending, which had fallen to just 1.5% of its GDP, and to pay for costs associated with increased terrorism security at US bases in Germany. The US has warned that if the German government continues to hinder US policy toward Iraq and elsewhere, such as Iran and in the UN, Washington may conclude that Berlin is reneging on its defense-treaty obligations, which would have serious political consequences, beyond being labeled the "old Europe". US support for German membership in the UN Security Council hangs in the balance.
Schroeder has stated unequivocally that Germany would not participate in US-led military action in Iraq. In his first successful election campaign in September 1998, he declared that "this country under my leadership is not available for adventure". In reference to Germany's $9 billion contribution to funding the first Gulf War, Schroeder warned that "the time of checkbook diplomacy is over once and for all". During the Cold War, checkbook diplomacy for West Germany meant to give money in place of sending German troops. It remains unclear if the end of checkbook diplomacy according to Schroeder means acceptance of a revival do. To buy their precarious security, the Saudis have been forced to pay all sides in complex Mid-East politics.
Schroeder's justice minister, Herta Daeubler-Gmelin, compared the Bush administration's policy towards Iraq to that of Hitler's strategy before World War II. She was quoted by the German regional newspaper Schwäbisches Tagblatt as stating: "Bush wants to divert attention from his domestic problems. It's a classic tactic. It's one that Hitler also used." Daeubler-Gmelin also remarked that the United States "has a lousy legal system" and that "Bush would be sitting in prison today" if new insider-trading laws had applied when the president had worked as an oil executive. Condoleezza Rice, then the US national security adviser, condemned the remarks as "way beyond the pale", and according to the White House, the president was "very angered" by the comments. Schroeder sent a letter of apology to Bush. Daeubler-Gmelin denied making the comments, but Schroeder announced that she would resign. Then defense minister Rudolf Scharping, a leading figure in the SPD, accused Bush of wishing to remove Saddam Hussein in order to placate "a powerful - perhaps overly powerful - Jewish lobby". Predictably, this raised vocal accusations of anti-Semitism in Washington.
Germany is urging the US to remove its 150 or so land-based nuclear weapons Green Party leader Claudia Roth in the Berliner Zeitung newspaper. "There is no need for them to be there. They should be removed and destroyed."
The EU is actively expanding beyond trans-Atlantic relations. The annual EU-China summits highlight not only the burgeoning economic ties between the pushed for and achieved an in-principle agreement for the EU to work toward lifting the arms embargo imposed on China after the Tiananmen Square incident in 1989. The arms embargo has been an obstacle to stronger strategic ties. In the lead-up to the most recent summit last December, China branded the ban "political discrimination" and "the result of the Cold War". During his recent visit to China, Schroeder expressed the hope that the summit would "give an important signal" for the removal of the ban. Chirac also declared the French government in favor of rescinding the embargo during a visit to China last October.
Anti-Americanism has proved to be a useful ideology for the definition of a new European identity. It was the attempt to defend European colonialism in the Third World, particularly in Asia and the Middle East, that had forced Europe to accept US dominance. A new definition of European identity will seek strength from anti-Americanism in the form of anti-neo-imperialism in Asia and the Middle East. European anti-Americanism is not just a friendly disagreement with its former senior ally, it is a widening chasm to buttress an independent Europe. Although in the formerly communist states of Eastern Europe, the US anti-communist policies during the Cold War can translate into pro-US sympathies today, a comparable post-Cold War bonus does not appear to apply in the new state of a unified Germany. The social democracies in Europe seem more in tune with the neo-communism in China than the neo-liberal supply-side market fundamentalism promoted by the United States.
Mirror: http://mailstar.net/index.html