Feb 082019
 
Hypocrisy – The High Art of the Berlin Republic

A comment by Rainer Rupp | Tagesdosis February 8, 2019

In the case of Venezuela, the deep gulf between the lofty moral claims of the top representatives of the Berlin Republic and the shabby reality has once again become very clear. Our Chancellor, for example, repeatedly swaggered about the „rule-based international order“. With her index finger raised, she likes to accuse other states of violating it. But does she keep to herself? Not the bean! She and her ministers and state secretaries and their writing court guards are playing games with the „rule-based international order“.

Behind „rule-based international order“ stands the UNO as the rule-giving International Organization of Order above all others. There should be no one who would deny, in full possession of his senses, that the United Nations (UN) with its Charter and its many sub-organisations form the umbrella under which a multitude of other, rule-based international regulatory organisations have developed – either in direct or indirect cooperation with the UN.

The question as to whether the Federal Government itself adheres to the „rule-based international order“ it so insistently invokes can therefore be most easily examined if we measure its foreign policy actions against the rules of the UN. And it doesn’t look good there. At the latest since its military involvement in the war of aggression against Yugoslavia, which was not provoked by anything and which will celebrate its twentieth anniversary next month, the Federal Republic of Germany has actively participated in the worst of all crimes. It was the Nuremberg Tribunal against the NACI greats of the Third Reich that outlawed the war of aggression as the „worst of all crimes“ because it was inherent in all other bad crimes such as murder, manslaughter, torture, rape and looting.

Following this logic of the Nuremberg Tribunal, the UNO, founded a short time later, has made the prevention of war, especially war of aggression, the core of its Charter, its rule-based international order. And this Charter not only prohibits wars waged with bombs and cannons, but also explicitly prohibits economic wars whose embargoes and sanctions are comparable to medieval sieges of cities, in which above all the population is starved to death. But according to the UN Charter, measures such as interference in the internal affairs of other states with the aim of destabilizing them are also prohibited.

Here we already suspect that the Federal Government, with its compliance with the „rule-based international order“ so often demanded by others, is doing nothing other than treacherous hypocrisy by deceiving this order itself. But let’s put Venezuela as an example to the test.

The recognition of the self-proclaimed Venezuelan „interim president“ Juan Guaidó by Western states, including the Federal Republic, „is the support of a coup and, according to all the rules of the UN Charter, an unauthorized interference in the sovereignty of a state“. This was explained by international law expert Norman Paech in an interview with the daily newspaper junge Welt on Wednesday. Berlin has thus „returned to the slime line of the US government“, he notes. (1)

„People no longer talk about what should actually play a major role in Western values: international law and the sovereignty of states.“ The events in Venezuela were a „completely inadmissible and illegal coup d’état“, which also contradicted the constitution of the country, according to the Hamburg expert on international law.

In this context, Tilo Gräser, a German journalist at Sputnik, referred to the homepage of the Federal Foreign Office (AA) where one can read: „The rule-based international order is a cornerstone of German foreign policy“. This is the theory and the German practice is the opposite, as the following remarks of the German Graumaz (most horrible foreign minister of all times) Heiko Maas make clear.

At the end of January he said in the Bundestag about Venezuela: „Democracy, human rights and the rule of law are trampled underfoot by Nicolás Maduro. His regime, which cynically refers to Bolívar, has led Venezuela to the abyss.“ The German government could not be neutral towards this, the NATO man continued, who recognized Guaidó, who had not been „elected“ as president by the Venezuelan people but by Washington, as democratically legitimized. „Together with the EU, we have therefore pledged and will continue to pledge our political support.“ (Fortunately, the Italians have spat in Heiko’s criminal soup and vetoed Guaido’s support in the EU. Thank you Italia!)

The aforementioned international law expert Paech comments on the hip Heiko in the young world as follows: „I am surprised that very little criticism can be heard in the German press of the approach that the Federal Government has now adopted. Just remember what was heard in the Crimean case. Or think of what is currently haunting the Internet as a satire: Russian President Vladimir Putin would recognise a self-proclaimed President Marine Le Pen in France, against the backdrop of the protests of the ‚Yellow Vests‘ and the state of emergency for which the French government under Emmanuel Macron is responsible through the large police operations.“

Paech also stresses that the Western action against Venezuela is a long-planned ‚regime change‘, which is being pursued in the USA and in interested circles. „This is the relapse into a colonial and imperial practice: governments are called upon to submit, through which they ultimately return to vassal status. It has to be said that we are dealing with an absolute diplomatic impertinence.“

Obviously the Federal Chancellor, her government representatives and the leadership of the CDU/CSU/SPD do not have the United Nations Charter in mind when they demand the „rule-based international order“ from other states. On the other hand, the behaviour of the Federal Government fits in with a completely different pattern of order. If we take the often invoked „liberal order“ or „liberal world order“ as a basis, a term that Merkel often uses as a synonym for the „rule-based international order“, then there is no longer any contradiction between the theory and practice of German and EU foreign policy. I would like to illustrate this with the person of Robert Cooper and his fateful work in EU security policy and start with a quotation:

„We need a new kind of imperialism, an imperialism that is compatible with human rights and cosmopolitan values: an imperialism that aims to bring order and organization.

This statement comes from Robert Cooper when he was the foreign policy chief ideologist of the then British Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair. He later joined the EU in Brussels, first as head of cabinet of Xavier Solana, former NATO secretary general, who at the time held the post of head of the European Union’s security and defence department. Solana, a member of the Spanish Socialist Party, had given the order to attack Yugoslavia in 1999 as NATO leader. It was not long before Cooper became „Director General for Foreign and Political-Military Affairs“ in the General Secretariat of the EU Council, where Ministers and Heads of State met regularly. In this role, one can read at Wikipedia.org, the philosophy of the „development of the European Security and Defence Policy“ has decisively influenced. In plain language, this means that he has set the ideological course in the EU and its member states towards neo-conservative military interventions.

In his writings and speeches Cooper distinguished between two kinds of „new imperialism“: First there is „voluntary imperialism“. Here, the supposedly „democratic institutions“ of the Western world, such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) or the World Bank, play a decisive role. According to Cooper, these institutions „help all those states that voluntarily want to find their way back into the global economy. In plain language, this means that all states that are willing to bow and let their economic, social and societal order be prescribed by the neo-liberal, „winner takes all ideology“ of the „democratic“ institutions IMF and World Bank, need have no fear of „humanitarian“ EU bombardments. Even all states that are prepared to let themselves be turned into the extended workbench of the capitalist metropolises can then go to sleep in safety.

Cooper threatens all other states that do not voluntarily want to submit to the new, cosmopolitan, liberal world order with „good neighbourly imperialism“, i.e. that „responsible“ states – such as the USA or France, Great Britain or Germany – first impose economic and political coercive measures and, if they are of no use, intervene militarily to prevent instability in the global village.

As a shining example of „good neighbourly imperialism,“ Cooper refers to NATO’s successful „humanitarian intervention“ in Kosovo. The NATO protectorate established there showed like no other example how well „the new colonialism(!) can bring order and organization“.

In his 2002 book „The Post-Modern State“ Cooper further develops the EU doctrine of „new, liberal imperialism“, writing among other things that „the great challenge in the post-modern world is to get used to the need for double standards (in dealing with so-called problem states)“. This is why Cooper recommends to his new EU imperialists that they use double standards in dealing with countries that do not belong to the EU and the „West“, i.e. preach water and drink wine. Hypocrisy or ambiguity is here elevated to an essential component of the EU state doctrine. The reference to current politics cannot be overlooked.

Another book by Cooper makes it even clearer what it’s about. That’s what the title suggests: „The Breaking of Nations. There he guesses:

„Europeans should operate among themselves on the basis of law and common security. But outside Europe they should use the harsher methods of earlier times – violence, pre-emptive strikes, deception and whatever else is needed. For when we are in the jungle, then we must also apply the laws of the jungle. „(„In the jungle, one must use the laws of the jungle.“)

And here Cooper obviously provided the answer to the mystery of the federal government’s behavior: How one can demand from other states to adhere to a „rule-based international (liberal) order“ and to cover even other countries (which do not adhere to it) with wars, to murder and plunder, to lie and cheat.

Until 2014, the then 68-year-old Cooper held high-ranking positions in the Brussels corridors, including advising Lady Catherine Ashton, the successor to Solana. In 2005, news magazines such as „Prospect“ even included him among the 100 most important intellectuals in the world. Cooper was showered with medals „for his services to international peace and security“ by EU states and knighted by the Queen in 2013.

I also went into so much detail about Robert Cooper because it can be shown very well in his person that a person with such common and dangerous delusions is not locked away as a crazy outsider in today’s world, but honoured as an outstanding intellectual and trend-setting security politician. When you tell this Cooper story to well-meaning but politically naive peace activists, they wave away and mumble „conspiracy theory“.

But the conspiracy takes place in the circles of the so-called political elites. They speak of nothing other than the welfare of the people, but in reality they are the executive organ of the hard-hitting capital interests, for which they also go over mountains of corpses, see Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine and possibly soon in Venezuela.


Links