In einem der größten Freizeitparks Europas zwischen Deutschland und Frankreich unweit der Schweizer Grenze reist der Besucher grenzfrei zwischen Tulpen- und Veilchenbeeten von einem Themenbereich Europäischer Länder zum anderen, Kulinarisches aus Griechenland, Italien und Spanien bis Island, Skandinavien und Russland genießend.

Kinder schaukeln in luftigen Höhen eines Wiener Kettenkarussels, und Familien halten Ausschau nach Walen auf Norwegischen Fischkuttern.

Eine Attraktion der besonderen Art ist ‘Arthurs Land der Minimoys’. Auf einem ‘Stahlachterbahn-Darkride-Hybrid Coaster’ mit Höchstgeschwindigkeiten bis zu 31 km in der Stunde lassen sich Jung und Alt mit ‘special effects’ in die Unterwelt kleiner Phantasie-Wesen befördern, die im Amerika der 1950er Jahre gegen das Böse kämpfen. Während an der Oberfläche das Leben auf einer US Amerikanischen Farm seinen normalen Gang zu gehen scheint, treiben der ‘böse Malthazar’ und sein Sohn ‚Darkos’ im Untergrund ihr Unwesen.

Während der Besuch im Freizeitpark die Flucht aus der Realität für einige Stunden erlaubt, darf man sich dieser Tage die folgenden Fragen stellen: Wie lange sind derartige ‘Banalitäten’ wohl noch möglich? Wo und wie findet in unseren Zeiten der Kampf gegen das vermeintlich Böse statt? Lauern in der realen Welt ebenso dunkle Kräfte, die wir – die ‘normalsterblichen Steuerzahler’ – nur nicht in unserem Alltag zu erkennen vermögen? Ist vieles von dem, was als realer Wohlstand anmutet, im Grunde schöner Schein einer zunehmend von Globalisierungs-Ungerechtigkeiten und -Unfreiheiten charakterisierten Welt?

Dasselbe ‘vereinte’ Europa von einst, in den späten 1940ern und 1950er von Politikern erdacht und in den Folgejahrzehnten herbeigeredet, wird nun - so erscheint es - von seinen Nachfolgern demontriert und dekonstruiert. Schlafwandelnd scheinen wir Erdenbürger in den nächsten großen Krieg zu taumeln.

Nach wessen Skript?

‘Otto-Normalbürger’ mag sich zunehmend vorFassungslosigkeit die Augen reiben - so viel ist dieser Tage vom Krieg die Rede.

Sollte nicht jahrzehntelang der gewöhnliche Mensch (‘ordinary men’) für die Greuel des letzten Weltkrieges verantwortlich gewesen sein? Das 21. Jahrhundert scheint vermehrt zu offenbaren, vor was uns Ex-Präsident Dwight D. Eisenhower bei seiner Abschiedsrede 1961 gewarnt hatte: die Allmacht derjenigen, die den militärisch-industriellen Sicherheitsapparat repräsentieren; sie scheinen den Krieg zu suchen und uns die ‘kleinen Minimoys’ in diesen zu treiben – um dann womöglich erneut vom Wiederaufbau aus den Trümmern zu profitieren: scheinbar unsichtbar, im Verborgenen.

„…If truth be known, Americans are no more free than were Germans under Gestapo Germany. ‘Freedom and Democracy America’ is the greatest lie in the world… Countries sink into tyranny easily. Those born today don’t know the freedom of the past and are unaware of what has been taken away. Some American blacks might think that finally after a long civil rights struggle they have gained freedom. But the civil rights that they gained have been taken away from all of us by the ‘war on terror.’ Today black Americans are gratuitously shot down in the streets by police in ways that are worse than in Jim Crow days… American women might think that finally they have gained equality, and they have—the equality to be abused by police just like men. As John Whitehead reports, women are forced by police to strip naked, often in public, and have their vaginas explored as part of a ‚drug search‘. When I was a young man, society would not have tolerated any such intrusion on a woman. The officer and police chief would have been fired and if not prosecuted for rape, would have been beat into bloody pulps by the enraged men… 9/11 clearly, without any doubt, destroyed American liberty. Even if you are so brainwashed as to believe an obviously false story of the event, even if you believe that a few Saudi Arabians without government or intelligence service support outwitted all 16 US intelligence agencies, the National Security Council, all intelligence agencies of Washington’s vassals abroad, outwitted Israel’s Mossad, US Air Traffic Control, caused US Airport Security to fail four times in one hour on the same day, and prevented for the first time in history the US Air Force from sending fighters to intercept off course airliners, the fact remains the same: the US government used 9/11 to destroy the constitutional protections of US liberty. The raw, ugly, but true fact that ‚our’ government has destroyed American liberty is the reason that everyone of us is subject to experiencing the abuses that John Whitehead describes. Who will be next? You? Me? Your Wife? Your Son? Your daughter? Your aged and infirm parents? When it happens, it was the American people who permitted it.“ (*)

(*) Freedom and Democracy, What is Tyranny? http://www.globalresearch.ca/if-this-is-freedom-and-democracy-what-is-tyranny/5586232

Anmerkung der Autorin: Die nachstehende Zusammenfassung und Übersicht wurde im Frühjahr 2017 bewusst als Presseschau sogenannt konservativer Quellen in den USA verfasst, um einen Überblick derjenigen Stimmen zu erhalten, welche die politischen Ereignisse um Donald J. Trump in einem positiven Licht betrachteten. Das Dokument entstand in Deutscher Sprache. Die Autorin wohnte zum Zeitpunkt des Verfassens als Amerikanerin in der BRD.

Remark of the author: In December 2016 / January 2017, the author of the following overview was invited by Peter Schmitt, then President of German Association of Employers ‚Markt und Freiheit‘ (market and freedom) in Wiesbaden, Germany, to provide a weekly overview of voices and commentary portraying Donald J Trump in a positive light. The author agreed to research the channels in question, but insisted to do so in a factual way. Throughout February 2017, the author composed four weekly press reviews with links and articles from so-called conservative alternative media. Those reviews ended up being published on the web site of Germany‘s Association of employers, reaching thousands of CEOs in German industry. By early March 2017, these posts were discontinued. I can only assume that the reviews in question were not pro-Trump enough; or, alternatively, they shed light on questionable sources. It is clear to me , that Trump has had powerful / influential backers in industry and finance abroad.

Am 14. April 2017 schreibt Stratfor in einem geopolitischen Tagebuch über die aktuellen Herausforderungen durch Nord Koreas nukleares Waffenprogramm:

“…Once again, the dogged struggle over the future of North Korea's nuclear weapons development program appears to be nearing a moment of truth. On Wednesday, 38 North, a website that tracks political and security developments in North Korea, released satellite imagery of the country's Punggye-ri nuclear test site that indicated Pyongyang is ‘primed and ready’ to trigger a nuclear test explosion, which would be the country's sixth. Expectations are high that North Korean leader Kim Jong Un will order the test to be conducted Saturday, the 105th anniversary of the birth of the founder of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, his grandfather Kim Il Sung.” (1)

Die Entwicklungen in Nordkorea hätten sowohl die Aufmerksamkeit der USA, als auch Chinas geweckt, so Stratfor. Die bilateralen Diskussionen zwischen der Chinesischen und Amerikanischen Regierung konzentrierten sich darauf, ob, und wie man das Nuklearprogramm Nordkoreas stoppen könne. Das Thema Nordkorea überlagere die maritimen Spannungen im Südchinesischen Meer sowie Konflikte in den Chinesisch-Amerikanischen Handelsbeziehungen. Als positives Zeichen werde von US Seite gewertet, dass China die Kohlelieferungen Nordkoreas seit einigen Tagen zurückweise, um das Regime im Norden wirtschaftlich weiter unter Druck zu setzen.

Von Interesse aus Europäischer Sicht dürfte die geopolitische Stratfor-Vorschau für 2017 sein: “…European divisions will present a golden opportunity for the Russians. Russia will be able to crack European unity on sanctions in 2017 and will have more room to consolidate influence in its borderlands. The Trump administration may also be more amenable to easing sanctions and to some cooperation in Syria as it tries to de-escalate the conflict with Moscow. But there will be limits to the reconciliation. Russia will continue to bolster its defenses and create leverage in multiple theaters, from cyberspace to the Middle East. The United States, for its part, will continue to try to contain Russian expansion. As part of that strategy, Russia will continue to play spoiler and peacemaker in the Middle East to bargain with the West. While a Syrian peace settlement will remain elusive, Russia will keep close to Tehran as U.S.-Iran relations deteriorate. The Iran nuclear deal will be challenged on a number of fronts as Iran enters an election year and as the incoming U.S. government takes a much more hard-line approach on Iran. Still, mutual interests will keep the framework of the deal in place and will discourage either side from clashing in places such as the Strait of Hormuz...” (2)

Als eine der herausstehenden Kernaussagen der Stratfor-Vorschau für 2017 mag nachstehende Schlussfolgerung stehen: “…The main difference between the Obama doctrine and the beginnings of the Trump doctrine is that Obama still believed in collective security and trade as mechanisms to maintain global order; Trump believes the institutions that govern international relations are at best flawed and at worst constrictive of U.S. interests…”

Ob die obige Charakterisierung einer sich ‚abzeichnenden Trump Doktrin‘ korrekt ist, bleibt abzuwarten. Mit Fragezeichen zu versehen scheint die Einschätzung Stratfors zu sein, Ex-Präsident Obama habe sich im Mittleren Osten ‚zurückgehalten’. Angesichts des gewaltsamen Regime-Wechsels in Libyen 2011 und der Amerikanischen Rolle in Syrien, insbesondere ab 2013, erscheint eine solche Schlußfolgerung als fragwürdig.

Am 13. April 2017 hielt Mike Pompeo, Direktor der Central Intelligence Agency unter Donald Trump eine Rede am US Amerikanischen Think Tank Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, DC. (3)

John B. Alterman ist Senior Vice Präsident des sogenannten ‘Zbigniew Brzezinski Chair in Global Security and Geostrategy’, und Direktor des Mittleren Osten Progammes des CSIS. Am 13. April 2017 schrieb er mit Bezug auf die aktuelle Lage im Mittleren Osten: “…The Trump administration would do well to remember this dynamic as it assembles a Syria strategy in the wake of its attack on a regime airbase last week. First, the administration should make clear to Bashar al-Assad and his patrons that the United States will not allow Assad to emerge victorious. No country in the world has a wider variety of military tools at its disposal than the United States, and it is newly ready to use them on Syria at the time and place of its choosing…”

Und ein paar Abschnitte zuvor: “The sheer number of conflicts in the Middle East is daunting. Battles are raging in Syria and Iraq, in Yemen, and in Libya. There is a low-grade insurgency in the Sinai Peninsula, and Shi`a communities in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain are seething. The Western Sahara raises tensions between Algeria and Morocco. Tiny Jordan hosts millions of refugees from three neighboring states, and it labors to prevent radical Islamist movements from two of them from inspiring radicals in the Hashemite Kingdom. The entire Middle East seems on fire…” (4)

Was Altman zu entgehen scheint, ist dass die vielen Interventionen des Westens in Angelegenheiten des Mittleren Ostens – angefangen mit dem Regierungssturz des demokratisch gewählten Iranischen Präsidenten Mossadegh im Jahre 1953 durch die CIA weder Stabilität noch Frieden brachten, sondern die betroffenen Länder und die USA auf einen prekären - da zunehmend kostspieligen und destabilisierenden Kurs unaufhörlicher Interventionen setzten.

„Why did America just drop the mother of all bombs? There is the glib answer: Because we can. Then there is the technical answer: Because it was right for the job. That the administration chose to speak publicly and plainly about the use of this weapon was clearly intended to send a message: Playtime is over. Trump may not be interested in looking to go forth to find dragons to slay. On the other hand, he seems determined and persistent in seeing through the tasks required to protect America’s interests and warn America’s enemies to back off.“ (5)

Verstehen wir James Jay Carafano des konservativen Think Tanks Heritage Foundation richtig, so handelt es sich bei den jüngsten militärischen Maßnahmen der Trump Administration um eine Kampfansage. Ob hiermit die Wähler (ein Teil der Wählerschaft) Donald Trumps, die auf eine zurückhaltende Außenpolitik und ein Weniger an Krieg gesetzt hatten, einverstanden sind, ist durchaus zweifelhaft.

Exemplarische Quellen:

(1) ‘Testing the Depth of U.S.-China Cooperation’, Geopolitical Diary, 14. April 2017, https://www.stratfor.com/geopolitical-diary/testing-depth-us-china-cooperation

‘Trump Weighs His Military Options in Syria’, Analysis, 6. April 2017, https://www.stratfor.com/analysis/trump-weighs-his-military-options-syria

‚Understanding America’s Global Role in the Age of Trump’, Geopolitical Weekly, 3. Januar 2017, https://www.stratfor.com/weekly/understanding-americas-global-role-age-trump

(2) 2017 Annual Forecast, Dezember 2016, https://www.stratfor.com/forecast/2017-annual-forecast)

(3) ‚A Discussion on National Security with CIA Director Mike Pompeo’, 13. April 2017, https://www.csis.org/analysis/discussion-national-security-cia-director-mike-pompeo/?block1

Heather A. Conley, ‘The Kremlin Playbook. Understanding Russian Influence in Central and Eastern Europe’, 13. Oktober, 2016

https://www.csis.org/analysis/kremlin-playbook/?block3 ‘CSIS on the U.S. Missile Strike in Syria’, 6./7. April 2017 , https://www.csis.org/csis-us-missile-strike-syria/?block4

(4) John B. Alterman, ‘Bombs, Bullets and Leverage’, 13. April 2017, https://www.csis.org/analysis/bombs-bullets-and-leverage/?block2

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/markaz/2017/04/07/around-the-halls-what-brookings-middle-east-experts-are-saying-about-the-u-s-airstrikes-on-syria/

http://carnegieendowment.org/2017/03/30/russian-active-measures-and-influence-campaigns-pub-68438

https://www.welt.de/geschichte/article119180782/CIA-bekennt-sich-zu-Militaerputsch-1953-im-Iran.html

Luke Coffey, http://www.heritage.org/global-politics/report/the-trump-administration-and-the-115th-congress-should-support-ukraine

(5) http://www.heritage.org/defense/commentary/what-the-mother-all-bombs-means-trumps-foreign-policy

July 24, 2008 at 11:49PM


The scene is dark. All the spectators can hear is the soft spoken voice of a scared man reflecting on hopes crashed following the American invasion in Iraq in 2003. ‘Betrayed’ a play by George Packer, author of the ‘Assassin’s Gate’ and directed by Pippin Parker tells the story of three young Iraqis “who loved America too much”. When the lights go on, we can see his figure: how the sharp lines in a tired face do not match up with the warmth of the voice! It is a Friday evening at ‘Culture Project’, a tiny, charming theatre on Mercer Street in SoHo. I had planned to see the play ever since reading ‘Imperial Life in the Emerald City’, an insider’s story told by Washington Post journalist Rajiv Chandrasekaran. “Death to Saddam, long live the American liberators!” an actor portraying a Sunni Iraqi in Western clothes yells while tearing apart a pos
ter of the former Iraqi dictator. The scene is vivid. It reminded me of images we had seen in Eastern Germany and other Eastern European countries once communism fell. “Death to Ceausescu”, the Romanian people in late 1989 demanded liberation both, from a brutal tyrant and his hardliner interpretation of socialism. The early 1990s also saw the
international community punish Saddam Hussein for having invaded oil-rich Kuwait; twelve years later, America decided to finish off Hussein himself by toppling his regime. Chandrasekaran’s book highlights the enormity of betrayal of American values that followed in the aftermath of the war in 2003. High hopes by Iraqi civilians for a speedy process of economic, political and social peace-building efforts spearheaded by Americans did not materialize. It is obvious that the Administration had not planned how to improve or safeguard the well-being of Iraqi civilians. ‘Citizen safety’ was not a major concern. Children being able to go to school – a prerequisite for stability in any society – has remained a key failure of America’s legacy in post- Saddam Iraq. In ‘Judgement at Nuremberg’, a movie on the American war crime tribunals in occupied Germany following World War II, Spencer Tracy acts as the presiding American Judge. In a key scene, he can be quoted saying: “You have got to stand for something. And, America stands for truth, justice and the value of one single life”.
Back on stage on Mercer Street, three young, inspired translators who had put all their hopes for a better future on working for the Americans in the Green Zone, lament about the daily risks for their life. They are too afraid to carry their American issued badges when returning to their home neighborhoods after a day’s hard work for the ‘occupiers’. “The Americans don’t seem to care”, the female translator shakes her head, still in disbelief. Every day they have to line up among ordinary Iraqi citizens in front of the Assassin’s Gate, the entry point to the Green Zone. Their security badges deny them the privilege of speedy entry that American and international civilians have. Hostile Iraqis eye them every morning when lining up in front of the gate: “this puts us on the spot for being killed! At a minimum, one would assume the Americans want to keep their translators!” one of the main character, Adnan exclaims. The curtain falls. End of act one: darkness surrounds us.


(Michaela, 'Writing Across Media', The New School for General Studies, July 2008)


December 1, 2007 at 3:54PM

The Challenge of Post-War Stabilization: More Questions than Answers for the NATO-EU Framework

The commentary below was published by the Duesseldorf Institute for Foreign and Security Policy (DIAS), http://www.dias-Onlineartikeln.org/

The following comments regarding the so-called ‘EU-NATO framework’ and its increasing role in post-conflict peace- and nation-building and stabilization refers to a project, which I conduct as associate researcher at the Foundation for Post-Conflict Development in New York (http://www.postconflictdev.org/). The focus of my research at the Foundation is three-fold. First, it analyzes Germany’s role and player within the ‘framework of increasing out-of-area peacekeeping or peace-building missions, initiated or supported by either the North Atlantic Organization or the European Union, or both.

Some of the questions concern the characteristics of contemporary German foreign and security policy. Are there, and if yes, what are the specific limitations for German contributions to peacekeeping, such as in Afghanistan? I also ask the question, whether and to which extent, reunified Germany might benefit from its own historic experience with a successful post-World War II reconstruction process; and how we can contrast this success story with the disastrously flawed policy of insufficient or non-existent post-war planning for Iraq, plus the enormous security challenges NATO is still facing in Afghanistan where the Germans have had for a considerable time the second largest contingent among NATO allies. What might be the lessons the international community could have drawn or still should be drawing from the ‘German case’ following World War II with regard to contemporary cases of reconstruction and stabilization?

The second aspect of my research has dealt with NATO’s increasing role in post-conflict peace- and nation-building. In the 1990s, NATO provided leadership for peacekeeping missions in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo. With regard to SFOR, the former Stabilization Force in Bosnia, the official leadership shifted from formerly NATO to nowadays the European Union (EUFOR). While NATO still heads the International Stabilization Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan, we all know how considerably ‘bogged’ down NATO has been in recent months, every winter anxiously awaiting the next spring offensive by the Taliban. It is striking, how unequally the burden among NATO members in Afghanistan is shared. Some NATO partners put considerable restrictions on their troops concerning the missions and regions in Afghanistan they can be engaged in. This applies, for instance to Germany, France, Italy and Spain. As a result of allies pushing the Germans to lift those restrictions on fighting forces and to assume a more active and robust role in more dangerous areas in Southern Afghanistan, the German government in early 2007 agreed – after long debates in the German Parliament – to send ‘tornado’ fighter jets. What turned out as a major step for the German public and politicians, some of Germany’s allies regarded the measure as rather half hearted and as too little, to late. Whereas in the late 1990s and especially after September 11, 2001, it seemed as if NATO might have the potential to develop into a ‘permanent stand-by force’ for the UN, as envisioned in chapter 7 of the UN Charter, the challenges that NATO has been facing in recent years while trying to transform itself from a regional security alliance into one with a more global reach, give us reason to pause!.

During an October 24, 2007 NATO summit the US American government increased the pressure on Germany, France, Spain and Italy to pledge more troops, whereas, on the other hand, in Canada and the Netherlands, public pressure has been increasing to reduce national troops in Afghanistan. It seems, tensions over unequally shared NATO burdens are probably here with us stay. The repeated statements by German and other European foreign and defense ministries, particularly in 2006 and 2007, that the ‘West’ was failing in Afghanistan and the Afghani people, but could simply not afford to do so, are an indicator for how precarious the situation in Afghanistan has become. The utter lack of ‘citizen-security’, which Charles Call of United States Institute for Peace in Washington, DC describes as the most pressing goal in post-conflict stabilization is not only undermining (any remaining) credibility in Western democracy and values in the Arab and Muslim world, but also undermining the credibility of the NATO-EU framework to efficiently contribute to post-war stabilization that goes beyond the regional context.[i] Call speaks of the necessary revival of an international peacemaking approach that emphasizes the rule of law and citizen protection – unlike what the world witnessed in Iraq in the aftermath of war in 2003 when looting was prominent with American forces simply standing by and watching; or, what ensued in the following years with insufficient numbers of international forces on the ground that could actively and efficiently enforce the peace and provide the conditions for post-war goals superseding ‘immediate security’, such as economic well-being and justice. As Jane Holl points out, any ultimate post-war ‘transition’ period needs to be followed by ‘stabilization’ and ultimately, ‘normalization’. In both, Iraq and Afghanistan, outside actors – whether based on multi-national alliances or an international effort backed by a UN mandate – never seem to have left the initial post-war ‘transition’ period with regard to the degree of ‘citizen security’ that could be achieved for the people living in the two countries. One challenge clearly concerns the training of police and the strengthening of the justice system and security ‘apparati’. It is a recommendable step in this regard that the government in Berlin after the visit of German Chancellor Angela Merkel to Afghanistan on November 5, 2007, pledged to send more police trainers to Afghanistan.

Third, given the centrality of nation- or peace-building to my research, and how weak the post- war planning for Iraq obviously was, research of the author of this paper has tried to highlight and discuss some of the core challenges in post-conflict situations, such as security, economic well-being or reconstruction, establishing the foundations for governance, and recreating the social fabrics of society through social peace-building or reconciliation. Earlier doctoral research had already focused on conflict prevention in the Balkans and the prospects for a common European foreign and security policy, following NATO intervening in Kosovo in 1999. Throughout preceding research, a key assumption in the aftermath of September 11, 2001 was that ‘Europe needed to toughen up’ and take on more ‘hard-power-related’ security, as outlined within the European Security Strategy of the European Union in December 2003; but that on the other hand, America – also under the leadership of the current Bush administration with its neo- conservative advisors, including Condoleezza Rice who repeatedly had been on record during Presidential elections in 2000 that US troops should not engage in nation-building – could not afford to ignore the ‘softer aspects’ of foreign policy, such as ‘nation-building’. From what we, the international community, have witnessed in recent years, we have to conclude unfortunately that, whereas the United States could not afford to ignore nation-building, it clearly and very unfortunately did just that!

With regard to seemingly increasing numbers of ‘out-of area peace- and nation-building missions’, NATO has not been the only organization to be ‘out-of-area’. European Union peacekeeping has gone ‘out-of-area’, for instance in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The EU has also provided the bulk for an enlarged international peacekeeping effort by the UN in Southern Lebanon after the war between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon in 2006. Today, NATO and EU member states alike seem to be stretched thin with regard to both, their contributions to more or less robust peacekeeping and civil crisis management. I would like to make the argument that, whether NATO or EU-members lead or contribute considerably to international peace-building efforts, it is the overall EU-NATO framework – its members among the most developed nation-states and part of the G8 - which increasingly enables and empowers international peacekeeping.

With regard to earlier research on the so-called NATO-EU framework in post-conflict stabilization, and the role of Germany as an essential contributor to that framework, as stated before I am addressing the question, to which extent Germany can benefit from its own historic experience with a successful post-World War II reconstruction process. And, I argue that – looking back at this uniquely successful transformation process following the devastation of World War II – there are crucial lessons that Europeans, Americans and the international community can draw from the ‘German case’. Real and long-term commitment seems to be the most obvious one. With regard to European integration following World War II, its biggest success seems to lie in the fact that the integration process put a lid on formerly virulent ethno- nationalism, constant war-fighting, counter-balancing and struggles over who might become the next hegemony on the continent. Thus, we are left to wonder, whether the framework of arguably mutually reinforcing ‘integration and reconciliation within Europe’ coupled with ‘strong transatlantic ties’ – these are still the same, two old sides of one and the same ‘coin’ – are applicable to other troubled regions? While the vision for Europe following World War II was nothing but ‘big’ – democracy (based not just on elections, but the rule of law), stability and reconciliation – the concrete policy steps were smaller, centering on certain sectors, such as the economy first – sectors, as we all know, nation-states could agree upon more easily.

An April 2007 edition of the weekly Economist concluded that transatlantic relations had improved during the second Bush administration. The two sides, Europeans and Americans, had learned to moderate, or, rather to suppress their differences. With still not ‘much love lost’ for the current US administration by fellow Europeans, and much trust and ‘benefit of the doubt’ lost among Americans in their current leadership, part of the change in transatlantic attitude may be pragmatism. It has, after all, increasingly become clear that allies on both sides of the Atlantic will have to face a number of geopolitical and transnational threats, whether terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, containing Iran, but also global warming and energy scarcity together. Charles Kupchan at the Council on Foreign Relations on November 12, 2007 wrote: “President Bush last week met with French President Nicolas Sarkozy and with the German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Sarkozy was given a rare White House black tie dinner, and Ms. Merkel met with Bush at the ranch in Crawford, Texas. Do these meetings signify a dramatic improvement in the Atlantic relationship now? Yes, I think that the symbolic importance of the Sarkozy and Merkel visits overshadowed their substantive importance...”[ii] On the latter point of substance, I would like to differ. Let us remind ourselves that French Foreign Minister, Bernhard Kouchner declared weeks ago that the world could not permit a nuclear Iran. We can

probably assume that among the issues topping the agenda during the Bush-Sarkozy meeting was Iran.

Efforts by the EU Commission and EU member states to come up with a coherent energy policy that is sustainable and linked with the challenge of climate change are an indicator, how relevant geo-political topics have become in addition to transnational threats, especially in the light of Europe’s growing energy dependency from a less and less dependable, reliable and accountable Russia.[iii] With regard to concrete NATO-EU cooperation in the context of post- conflict peace- and nation-building, the Economist of February 10, 2007 observed that in Kosovo and especially in Afghanistan today, NATO commanders despaired that the Taliban simply regrouped after and wherever NATO had cleared an era from them. And, Afghan ministers complained that there was insufficient coordination of aid from the EU. It seems, while members of NATO and EU are commonly engaged in similar ‘out-of-area’ missions, dealing with similar threats to international peace and security, they increasingly share real geo-political and geo-strategic interests, in addition to the often referred to values, such as the emphasis on democracy, individual freedom, the rule of law. So, are the European Union and NATO in effect moving closer together, conceptually?

Whereas – again - unevenly shared responsibilities among NATO allies in Afghanistan have put the spot on NATO capability challenges, both concerning the provision of security and when trying to safeguard it, NATO’s mandate has changed considerably from the Cold War, and the ultimate Cold War aftermath to nowadays, the 21st century. In its 2002 Transformation Declaration, NATO formally embraced ‘out-of-area’ missions. Again, does NATO have the potential to grow into a permanent stand-by force, which the UN Charter foresees in chapter 7? Can we imagine a so-called ‘NATO-Plus’, which would include countries, such as Australia – a country already engaged in fighting alongside NATO troops in Afghanistan? With a growing number of countries in Europe belonging to both, NATO and EU - 2005 brought 10 new EU member, 7 new NATO members, and 2007 added two new EU members - it is in essence the ‘NATO-EU framework’, which often enables and empowers international peacemaking and peace-building. Consequently, with members of NATO and EU commonly engaged in similar ‘out-of-area’ missions, dealing with similar threats to international peace and security, they increasingly share real interests, in addition to values. And, this, indeed, might actually increasingly compare to a geo-political time and situation like after World War II, when the make-up of the international system in terms of ‘polarity’ shifted considerably.

The European Union comes with a traditional external relations focus on aid, development and trade, and nowadays disposes of an emerging common foreign and security policy; whereas NATO represents a Cold War alliance that has provided regional stability and has adapted its agenda to include more peacekeeping in intra-state conflicts since the 1990s. Both organizations combined, I have argued - and argue today - seem to provide the ideal toolbox for the long-term tasks required to help build, stabilize and reconstruct war-torn societies to prevent the re-emergence of more than hopefully just the worst outbursts of violence. ‘EU-Europe’ has its own problems, of course. When the German EU Presidency concluded by late June 2007, many observers had wondered, why the German government spent so much time and effort trying to salvage the so-called ‘EU constitution’, whose ratification the French and Dutch population had already rendered impossible given their ‘no’ vote during popular referenda in 2005. The German EU presidency tried to save, among other things provisions that had been negotiated earlier, such as qualified majority voting or a reduced number of commissioners in the EU Commission. There was also the idea of a common EU foreign minister who would combine the offices of the High Representative of the EU’ s common foreign and security policy, plus the office of the Commissioner for External Affairs in the Commission. Shortly before the corresponding EU Summit completing the German EU Presidency in late June 2007, the German government, after another talk with its French counterparts – announced to the astonishment of the European public that Germany would recommend to its neighbors during the German EU Summit to ‘drop the constitution’. What followed was the so-called ‘Reform Treaty’, a somewhat leaner version of the earlier, so-called constitution. The Reform Treaty agreed in Lisbon, still foresees a representative for the common foreign and security policy, the

exact title now being “High Representative for the Union of Foreign Affairs and Security Policy”; the idea of a common foreign minister – implying a reduction of sovereignty – however, for now belongs to the history books.

Back in 1997, Zbigniew Brzezinski identified Germany and the US as main proponents of NATO enlargement and raised the question, what an ever closer relationship between reunified Germany and the US meant to France, which was geo-strategically weakened by an eastward shift of Europe’s center. Robert Kagan in an article in ‘Business Day’, a South African newspaper on August 25, 2007 discusses the ‘return of history’. Kagan refers to the hopeful view of the early 1990s that with the end to the bi-polar system the international community within international institutions might be able to agree on matters of peace and international security more often than not. In 2007, Kagan concludes, however that“our time was a ‘time not of convergence, but of divergence, of ideas and ideologies’.[iv] And, the ‘West’ was unfortunately still clinging to a vision of an increasingly ‘liberal, democratic world’. However, the ‘turn toward autocracy in Russia’ and the growing military ambitions of China, we might add, rendered the world a risky place. The enormous environmental problems China currently faces seem to shed doubt on the ‘unstoppable growth potential’ assumption the West might have had concerning the 'Empire of the Middle' in times of globalization. I argued before that I see, in general, ‘institutional convergence’ in the case of necessary and continued NATO-EU cooperation, plus convergence in opinion and policy by partners and allies within Europe and across the Atlantic, such as on threats. However, I do conquer with Kagan, that US and probably European foreign policy has both, ‘underestimated Putin’ and ‘overestimated China’.

The ‘Russia-factor’ and ‘Turkey dimension’ will determine to a large degree, whether and how EU-Europe and Europeans will be able to strengthen their own, common European foreign and security policy, distinguishable from other actors on the global scale. (How) will Europeans be able to become less dependent from energy supplied over Russian territory? Might this increase the prospect for Turkey to become an EU member, after all, given the fact that the only alternative gas and oil pipeline – the so-called ‘Nabuko’ pipeline – travels from Azerbaijan through Georgia to Turkey? What about recent tensions on the Iraqi-Turkish border? Which role does the recognition of the Armenian ‘genocide’ play? Before a recent debate within the US Congress to acknowledge the Armenian genocide as what it is, France had already endorsed a corresponding resolution and law about two years ago. Given Turkey’s current problems with rising Kurdish nationalism and potentially, a rising Kurdistan, debates about Turkey’s secularism, constitution, the legacy of the Ottoman Empire, the massive ethnic cleansing or genocide against its Armenian population, and, last but not least, (Northern)Cyprus, how can we not imagine the ‘Turkey dimension’ blowing into the ‘face of the West’ in the foreseeable future? With regard to Russia, here are just some of the ‘hurdles’ that have impeded and can only negatively affect constructive relations between the West and Russia: political murder seems to have become a constant feature of Russian society; plutonium is smuggled throught Germany 'en route' to Great Britain to murder yet another dissident; there is possible Russian involvement in a cyber attack on Estonia; Russian meddling in national elections, such as in Ukraine is obvious; Moscow has been putting enormous pressure on the nation-state of Georgia with whom NATO has started membership negotiations; repeated incursions into NATO airspace by Cold War style Soviet bomber planes seem to become a normalcy in 2007; and, the Kremlin does not hesitate to repeatedly turn off the gas and, or oil supply to Eastern and Western European neighbors.[v]

While we see the ‘West’ moving closer together again on global issues, increasingly recognizing them as common challenges; on the other hand, we see China and Russia cooperating increasingly, too, on security issues. One concrete example is the so-called Shanghai Cooperation Organization, a regional security regime that includes an increasing number of oil and gas rich Central Asia – except Afghanistan – and lists countries, such as energy-rich Iran, as an affiliated member. It really looks as if the great powers of today are yet again engaged in the ‘Great Game’, the 18th and 19th centuries struggles among the British and Russian Empires over influence in Persia, the Caucasus, Central Asia and India. Thus, we are left with the important question, whether the struggle for hegemonial dominance ever brought about lasting

peace or stability? Short term ‘stability’ or ‘balance’ maybe. In the end, ‘counter-balancing’ all too often means ‘war’ (and supporting nasty dictatorships and autocrats along the way). With America at the forefront – in general – and especially, nowadays concretely in Iraq, European allies find themselves engaged in the ‘Great Game’ together with the US, whether they like it or not. Many of the long-term challenges following unsuccessful nation-state making and artificially drawn borders in some of the most volatile regions in today’s world, such as in the Middle East, date back to European colonialism and imperialism. Following that line of argument, it is really quite mind-boggling that it should be the so-called ‘NATO-EU framework of growing cooperation among NATO and EU member states, which increasingly – yet again - engages in out-of-area nation-building and ‘stabilization’ efforts – ‘neo-colonial, or 21st century style'! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[i] Charles T. Call, 2007, Constructing Justice and Security after War (USIP: Washington, DC). [ii] Charles Kupchan, ‘Gwertzman Asks the Experts’, interview published by the Council on Foreign Relations, Washington, DC, November 12, 2007, www.cfr.org/publication/14784/kupchan.html

[iii] ‘Russian Protests. Democracy A La Russe’, Economist, April 21, 2007, www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm

[iv] Robert Kagan, Business Day, August 25, 2007.

[v] ‘Kremlin Inc’, New Yorker, January 29, 2007, www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/01/29/070129fa_fact_specter

September 1, 2006 at 3:02PM

The following analysis was published by the Duesseldorf Institute for Foreign and Security Policy (DIAS), a foreign policy think tank at the Heinrich Heine University of Duesseldorf, on 9/1, 2006. Please see: DIAS-online.org

The Challenge of Successful Post-Conflict Nation- and Peace-Building: NATO's Role and Potential

This paper explores NATO’s increasing role in post-conflict peace- and nation-building, a process that started in the 1990s with peacekeeping missions in the Balkans (IFOR, SFOR and KFOR). At the beginning of the 21st century, that process has continued in the form of out-of- area missions in Afghanistan and a common NATO role for Iraq. The paper also takes into account NATO’s humanitarian operations, be they logistical support for the African Union (AU) in Darfur, Sudan, or flying aid to Kashmir in the aftermath of a devastating earthquake.[1] Does NATO have the potential to steadily develop into a permanent stand-by force to the United Nations for UN peacekeeping based on chapter 7 of its charter?[2]

Another important aspect refers to the theoretical challenges for successful nation- and peace- building after both, man-made and natural disasters.[3] Important questions in that regard are how to create lasting stability?[4] How to enable a viable peace, and thus ‘win the peace’?[5]

1. The Theory of Peace- and Nation-Building: ‘Old Issues’ Re-Visited

Which lessons should and could have been learned from post-conflict peacekeeping and peace- building in the Balkans in the 1990s?[6] Jock Covey, Michael Dziedzic and Leonard Hawley observe that the commanders of the NATO-led Stabilization Force (SFOR) believed it to be

“essential to the effectiveness of their mission and the security of their own troops that the former warring parties see the international military as an honest broker aloof from politics”.[7] However, neutrality vis-à-vis all parties in a post-conflict situation seems to pose a dilemma, as NATO learned in the second half of the 1990s, especially when dealing with so-called obstructionists to a peace process.[8]

For instance, when faced with a possible coup by former Serb member of Bosnia’s joint presidency, Momcilo Krajisnik, against Biljana Plavsic, the then President of the Republic of Srpska from 1996 to 1998, “Washington proposed to NATO headquarters in Brussels that it adopt a more rigorous standard: support the peace process and oppose those who seek to obstruct it. Within hours, this simple rule of thumb was translated into the SFOR commander’s intent and passed down to subordinate units. This new concept immediately legitimated the role of SFOR in preventing Momcilo Krajisnik’s coup against Biljana Plavsic”.[9] While Plavsic’s record before and during the war had been “unenviable”, her post intervention role was constructive. After the change in policy it had become “clear to all concerned – would-be spoilers as well as risk-averse commanders – that the international military would no longer be neutral about the peace process”. Covey concludes that “the importance of this seemingly small conceptual adjustment” could not be overestimated. In that sense, when the international community led by NATO went into Kosovo, “most military commanders and civilian officials understood their roles under UN Security Council Resolution 1244: the mission would be evenhanded with those who basically cooperated with the peace implementation process and would actively oppose those who obstructed it”.[10]

How crucial the adaptation of security and defense policy is, so that diverse actors, whether national governments, alliances or international organizations can meet the threats of the 21st century, is discussed in yet another late publication on post-conflict peace-building.[11] The editors conclude, that “military and police forces play a crucial role in the long-term success of political, economic and cultural rebuilding efforts in post-conflict societies. Yet, while charged with the long-term task of providing a security environment conducive to rebuilding war-torn societies, internal security structures tend to lack civilian and democratic control, internal cohesion and effectiveness, and public credibility. They must be placed under democratic control and restructured and retrained to become an asset, not a liability, in the long-term peace- building process. External actors from other nations, regional organizations and the United Nations can be of assistance in this process, by creating a basic security environment, preventing remnants of armed groups from spoiling the fragile peace-building process, and by facilitating reform of the local security sector”.

It seems the fragile situation both in Iraq and Afghanistan today highlight the challenges outlined above. Furthermore, after the United Nations Security Council agreed on UN resolution 1701, which calls for an international peace force to boost UNIFIL troops already in Southern Lebanon, Lebanon is about to become yet another test-case!

So, is there a way for the international community to measure progress in stabilization and reconstruction?

A special report published by United States Institute for Peace in March 2006 provides some preliminary conclusions and recommendations how to “assess success of efforts to stabilize and reconstruct failed states”.[12] The government of the United States was “facing enormous challenges in stabilizing nations emerging from conflict. After months of experience in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo, reconstruction and stabilization operations are still plagued by persisting problems. While adequate national and international mechanisms have been developed to address some aspects of these interventions, such as conducting elections, coordinating the return of refugees, and privatizing state enterprises – reconstruction and stabilization so far have produced mixed results in other essential areas”.[13] The following steps should help the United States to keep building its stabilization and reconstruction capacity: First, the US government should invest in developing the capacity to measure progress in all stabilization and reconstruction operations; second, measures used to assess progress should

be public and transparent, and the task of measuring should focus on actions of independent external actors and an internal metrics office that is attached to mission planning; third, decision makers should allocate adequate resources for assessing progress and integrate the results into the stabilization and reconstruction process.[14]

In the words of Robert Perito “as the war on terrorism progresses, US ability to establish sustainable security in post-conflict societies will become more important, not less”.[15] Even before September 11, 2001, the Pentagon had begun “planning to reshape the US military to address a range of new contingencies”. The defense review in that sense reflected “an emphasis on homeland defense against asymmetrical threats from international terrorism; cyber-warfare; transnational organized crime; illicit trafficking in drugs, weapons, and people; and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction”.[16] However, the United States needed to project is power “in a manner that ensures the rapid restoration of stability and the creation of an environment conducive to post-conflict reconciliation and reconstruction”.[17] To deal with rogue states and international terrorism, the United States would require “new forces and a new approach to post-conflict intervention. It must maintain its war-fighting ability while becoming more adept at integrating civilian actors and processes. The mission of the military remains one of providing overall security; yet in post-conflict environments, civilian actors also have critical roles to play in achieving sustainable security”.[18]

As a consequence, should any ‘exit strategy’ for the US military be based on the principle that external troops can leave a country once a peaceful society is left behind?[19] For the US military in particular, but also for the military of other allies involved in international crisis management, does it take both, winning a war and the peace, to achieve victory?

In 1997, Allen Holmes concluded that, “during Operation Desert Storm, our special operations forces supported a major coalition combat operation for the first time since their reconstitution. Our civil affairs forces were critical during the post-conflict phase of Desert Storm in assisting the Kuwaiti government to restore essential services going to the people of Kuwait and to reestablish its authority... During IFOR, the focus of civil affairs was on peacekeeping operations and small community projects in areas in which troops were deployed. With the deployment of the stabilization force, or SFOR, there has been a change in focus to national-level objectives. To that end, SFOR uses the civil-military task force as its primary interface with the civilian establishment in promoting the economic regeneration and rebuilding of the country, in promoting returns of refugees and in attempting to build lasting institutions for peace. The task force, which is being led by a US commander, has been involved in literally hundreds of major projects in support of SFOR and in furtherance of civil implementation of the Dayton accord. Our recent experiences illustrate an increasing possibility that the US military will be called upon to participate in more complex, nontraditional operations – ones that involve close interaction with other US government agencies, nongovernmental, international organizations and our allies. Thus, the work that we have done in the past truly points the way toward the future security environment that we will face”.”[20]

What concerns lessons learned from previous operations, especially concerning the enforcement of the rule of law, the training of national police and the use of international police, Perito concludes that the use of “an international constabulary and police force” in the Balkans had been “painful but instructive”, while NATO multinational specialized units (MSUs) had been used sparingly.[21] “This has resulted from misunderstandings on the part of SFOR and KFOR commanders of their proper role and mission. Military commanders generally were unfamiliar with constabulary forces and assumed the MSUs were part of SFOR’s strategic reserve, a ‘riot squad’ that should be called only when needed. They failed to appreciate that the MSUs could perform a broad range of functions, including proactive patrolling, providing area security, and collecting intelligence. Problems with language and the absence of common doctrine also impeded efforts to use the MSUs more effectively. Commanders were unaware that the MSUs were subject to the same rules of engagement as other NATO forces. These units did not have executive authority and could not engage in law enforcement. This created additional misunderstandings within the military and between the MSUs, UN CIVPOL, and local police. As

experienced law enforcement professionals in their own countries, members of the various MSU contingents, particularly the Italians, were frustrated by their lack of police powers and routinely exceeded their authority. In Kosovo, the MSU practice of detaining suspects and seizing contraband and then attempting to turn them over to the UN police was a source of constant friction between the two organizations. The civilian UN Special Police Units in Kosovo fared better than their military counterparts, but many of the problems encountered by these units were the same...”[22]

Two important questions can be deducted from the previous deliberations: First, which conclusions precisely could have been drawn from crisis management in Bosnia and Kosovo and used for the planning of the post-war period in Iraq? Second, which lessons does the NATO experience in Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s and in Iraq and Afghanistan in the new century, provide for future crisis interventions, such as potentially in Southern Lebanon?

Perito makes a strong argument in favor of a US Stability Force. Such a force would have the full capacity to face so-called modern-day war, including the deployment of troops and the use of intelligence, presence, movement, observation, and intimidation to influence events. “With the inclusion of military, constabulary, police, and judicial personnel, this force would in fact have full-spectrum capability to enforce peace and to maintain stability through the introduction of the rule of law...”[23] The creation of a US Stability Force would “join together all of the elements required to effectively achieve sustainable security under a single, unified authority; close the security gap that has plagued previous peace operations by providing for a smooth transition from war-fighting to institution building; establish police and judicial authority from the outset, thus freeing the military to perform its functions and speeding the withdrawal of military forces; establish the rule of law as a platform from which the other aspects of political, economic, and social reconstruction could go forward in an environment conducive to achieving success; provide the United States with a force that could join with similar forces organized by the European Union, the OSCE, and other regional organizations; allow the United States to support much-needed UN reform by contributing a force that could assist the United Nations in meeting its responsibilities for international peacekeeping as envisioned in the Brahimi Report...”[24]

How essential the provision of immediate security in any post-conflict setting is, can be highlighted by the following thoughts.

During a personal interview in 2000, Jane Holl emphasized three major phases during a post- conflict transition process: the so-called transformation, stabilization and normalization phase. Three major objectives needed to be addressed during all of the three phases. Those objectives were security, well-being and justice. During an initial transformation phase, directly in the aftermath of violent conflict and war, meeting the security objective meant to “eliminate mass violence and establish a safe and security environment”.[25] During a second stabilization phase, security meant to “develop legitimate and stable security institutions”.[26] A third normalization phase would then “consolidate security institutions”. With regard to the second objective of well-being, during the transformation phase, the aim was “to stop the dying and restore essential services”; whereas the second stabilization phase should “restart the economic base (such as local market activity).”[27] Third, the normalization phase’s purpose was about the formulation and pursuit of a development program. With regard to the third objective of justice, the transformation phase would ideally “eliminate torture and extra-judicial killing”, while the stabilization phase should “develop legitimate and durable judicial institutions”. The normalization phase would “consolidate judicial institutions”.[28]

In the words of Garland Williams on the military role in post-conflict reconstruction, “former UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali’s Agenda for peace formally recognizes the peace consolidation activities that take place after a conflict. However, he provides only the following generic definition: ‘Action to identify and support structures which will tend to strengthen and solidify peace in order to avoid a relapse into conflict’. This charge suggests a wide variety of actions that must be undertaken to promote sustainable peace and facilitate the extraction of

military forces. Generals George Joulwan and Christopher Shoemaker, two former military officers with considerable peace operations experience, outline the ideal phases that every peacekeeping and peace-building operation should pass through: transformation, stabilization, and normalization. In the transformation phase, the terms of the peace agreement are initially translated to on-the-ground operations. There is the urgent task to introduce security forces rapidly to enforce the military aspects of the peace accord, quickly followed by several other steps: establish a legitimate government apparatus; install police, judicial, and penal systems; provide essential social services; and accelerate a return to productive economic activity. The primary thrust in the beginning of this transformation phase is for military or internal security forces to create a secure environment and ensure freedom of movement while longer-term civilian functions are set in motion.”[29]

Robert Orr addresses the challenges of weak, failed and defeated states in the 21st century. Nation-building and post-conflict reconstruction, in the age of “global terrorism, transnational crime networks, and border-hopping disease, state weakness and failure” was a real threat to Americans and their way of life.”[30] The United States needed to “re-energize its focus on weak, underdeveloped countries generally”. Significant improvements to “paltry, ineffective foreign assistance programs and improved trade regimes” were required if the United States was to “help address the needs of the vast majority of the world’s people, gain their support for the fight against terrorism, and provide them with the means to do something about it in their own countries”.[31]

In comparison to Holl, Orr highlights four instead of three phases during a post-conflict reconstruction process. Post-conflict reconstruction thus was a foreign policy tool that tried to “help local actors build up a minimally capable state in four key areas: security; governance and participation; social and economic well-being; and justice and reconciliation. Each of these distinct yet interrelated sets of tasks” constituted a “pillar of efforts to rebuild countries after conflict”.[32] For Orr, the security pillar addresses all aspects of public safety, while governance and participation is about the need for legitimate, effective political and administrative institutions. The third pillar of social and economic well-being should focus on the fundamental social and economic needs of a population, particularly the provision of emergency relief. Finally, the justice and reconciliation pillar was to provide an impartial and accountable legal system.[33]

In the aftermath of war against the Taliban in Afghanistan and war against Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq, we are left with the obvious question, to which extent theory that existed before September 11, 2001 was implemented to crisis management its aftermath? Perito concludes “as the United States pursues the global war on terrorism, the US military will be called upon to do more than hunt down terrorists and their protectors. It will continue to participate in peace operations, including those in countries where regimes that fostered terrorism have been replaced. The exit from such operations will demand a structured entry with a clear focus on establishing the rule of law and achieving sustainable security. In dealing with the security component of stability operations, America currently faces gaps in both force structure and political will. After September 11, the United States became very serious about fighting terrorism. It now needs to get equally serious about dealing with the security-related aspects of post- conflict reconstruction”.[34]

Orr’s analysis comes to a similar conclusion. It critically discusses America’s so-called capacity gaps. Despite a “long and deep history of involvement in post-conflict reconstruction efforts and growing demand over the last decade”, the United States had “failed to undertake a significant reform of its approach to and capabilities for post-conflict reconstruction”.[35] For all its ability to wage war, the US military was “unprepared to mount major stability operations and secure lasting peace”.[36] The US military had not been “prepared to do the job of post-conflict reconstruction”. It was not trained “for the types of duties it is now undertaking, it does not have the doctrine necessary, nor has it received a mandate to do the job”, Orr concludes in 2004. While the military can and should play an important role in nation-building and post-conflict reconstruction, civilian actors, such as non-governmental organizations or international and

regional organizations or the private sector had a “comparative advantage in addressing many of the wide range of needs in post-conflict reconstruction”.[37] This so-called civilian capacity had unfortunately not been sufficiently made use of. More attention should be “paid to building up civilian capacities in a systematic way so that these actors’ natural comparative advantages can be marshaled in the struggle to rebuild countries”.[38]

A Department of Defense Directive of November 28, 2005 emphasizes stability operations and military support to stability, security, transition and reconstruction (SSTR).[39] Integrated civilian and military efforts were “key to successful stability operations”. The Department of Defense therefore would be prepared to “work closely with relevant US Departments and Agencies, foreign governments and security forces, global and regional organizations, US and foreign nongovernmental organizations, and private sector individuals and for-profit companies”.[40]

Following that line of argument, the Quadrennial Defense Review of February 2006 recognizes that “stability, security and transition operations can be critical to the long war on terrorism”.[41] Therefore, the Department of Defense “issued guidance in 2005 to place stability operations on par with major combat operations within the Department”.[42] The directive called for “improving the Department’s ability to work with interagency partners, international organizations, non- governmental organizations and others to increase capacities to participate in complex operations abroad. When implemented, the Department would be able to provide better support to civilian-led missions or to lead stabilization operations when appropriate”.[43]

As Jock Covey puts it, if peace operations are established based on a UN mandate, the UN Secretary-General usually selects a prominent international statesman to run the mission as its special representative to the Secretary General (SRSG).[44] The SRSG thus would become “the custodian of the intensely political process behind, for lack of any better name, the peace process”.[45] Covey argues that “success in achieving a viable peace will be determined, in part, by how adroitly the custodian guides the transformation of conflict among rivals in the postwar period”.[46]

2. NATO in the 21st Century – a Role Constantly Revised

A declaration on NATO transformation of October 6, 2002 stated the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needed to be “capable of taking action whenever the security of its members was threatened, upon the basis of the United Nations Charter. By making it clear that there is no safe haven for those who would threaten our societies or for those who would harbor such people,” the deterrent element of Alliance strategy was strengthened. The North Atlantic Council should decide actions on a case-by-case basis. Where NATO as a whole was not engaged, allies willing to take action should be able to make use of NATO assets, procedures and practices. The declaration stressed high priority goals essential to the full range of Alliance missions including the defense against terrorism.[48] This new initiative was to be based on firm national commitments with specific target dates. National commitments should be made transparent for parliamentary monitoring and oversight. Priority should be given to projects maximizing multi-nationality, and which had the potential to become common NATO assets. NATO and European Union capabilities initiatives needed to be mutually reinforced and thoroughly harmonized through permanent co-ordination mechanisms and procedures in a spirit of openness. NATO should redouble its efforts to reduce the fragmentation of defense procurement efforts through the pooling of military capabilities, co-operative acquisition of equipment and common funding. It should reduce to a minimum the obstacles for the sharing of technology. The alliance had to be able to act wherever NATO’s interests were threatened, creating coalitions under NATO’s own mandate, as well as contributing to mission-based coalitions, concerning both, old and new threats. Former NATO General Secretary, Lord Robertson referred to the experience NATO had with post-conflict stabilization, such as in Kosovo and Macedonia. On October 8, 2002 Robertson declared, an enormous number of security issues on the Euro-Atlantic agenda required the greatest possible communication and coordination among Europeans and North Americans. The November 2002 Prague Summit covered a wide range from terrorism, NATO’s military command arrangements and

headquarters structure, to a further development of Partnership. The most visible issues referred to enlargement and improvements to NATO’s military capabilities. The question of capabilities concerned the member countries of NATO and of the European Union. Because each nation had only one set of forces, it was necessary to make the best use possible of scarce resources, avoiding duplication and overlaps. The message was clear: the European Capabilities Action Plan and NATO’s Prague Capabilities Commitment needed to be coherent. Work in full transparency on capabilities issues was imperative, if EU-NATO impasse was to be avoided or ended. Finally, NATO’s Response Force should provide “a high-tech, flexible, rapidly deployable, interoperable and sustainable force, including land, sea, and air elements, capable of carrying out the full range of Alliance missions. The development of this high-readiness force will also serve as a catalyst for promoting improvements and greater interoperability in Alliance military capabilities to ensure their continuing transformation to meet evolving security challenges”. This concerned crisis management that increasingly in regions that would have been outside the North-Atlantic area during the Cold War.[53]

A core statement of NATO’s so-called transformation declaration of October 2002 emphasized that NATO would go global where the threat was – also based on UN resolutions.[54] By that, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization formally embraced so-called ‘out of area missions’.

What did this mean for specific case studies in recent years? While NATO took over the lead of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan in 2003,[55] NATO supported the Polish contingent in Iraq. However, the crucial question remained, whether NATO as an organization would assume a larger peacekeeping role in Iraq? France, Germany under the previous government, Belgium and - after a change in government in Madrid in the spring of 2004 - also Spain, remained highly skeptical about NATO providing peacekeeping or police training within Iraq.[56] While Senator John Kerry in the US came out in support of a NATO role in post-war Iraq on April 30, 2004, President Bush outlined his Iraq vision on May 24, 2004, foreseeing both a UN mandate and a NATO role. [57] A range of security-related problems in post-war Iraq centered on the question, whether the US administration sufficiently planned for the post-conflict transition process. The corresponding challenges have also or mainly concerned the civil-military interface, which NATO and European-US allies seem to have managed better in the aftermath of war against Serbia and Montenegro in Kosovo in 1999. [58] Before the election of President Bush in November 2000, supporters of and advisors to the President expressed, the main aim of the US army was to win wars. [59] Would this mean that Americans were to win wars, while European allies would focus on ‘cleaning up’ afterwards? Can such an important distinction be sufficiently paraphrases as hard power vis-à-vis soft power? Is any such distinction helpful? On the other hand, should not the intrinsic and necessary link between so-called soft-power related security and hard-power related security, or the link between structural and operational security policy be emphasized?[60] In other words, security is the core challenge when nations or the international community try to protect and safeguard a long-term political transition process. Without enforcement of the rule of law and security, there is no lasting peace; without investing in education and cultural-political transformation, there will be no long-term peace, nor security. [61]

General Klaus Naumann, former chairman of NATO’s military committee emphasized the necessity to outline a new transatlantic vision, which links elements of collective defense with collective security. [62] A renewed NATO vision needed to comprise preventive elements as designed in the 1990s, but also deterrent aspects stemming from the Cold War period. Allies on both sides of the Atlantic shared more than values, and the long-term stabilization [and democratization] of the Middle East was in the national interest of allies in North America and Europe. The 2002 NATO Summit in Prague had provided a corner stone concerning the future of NATO. It was questionable, however, whether the summit in Istanbul would provide a definite answer about the role of NATO as an organization in post-war Iraq. [63]

A document titled ‘NATO Transformed’ highlights the following topics as corner stones on the transatlantic agenda:[64] Strengthening defense capabilities, changing role of NATO’s forces, opening the alliance to new members, forging new relations with Russia, establishing a

distinctive partnership with Ukraine, engaging in dialogue with Mediterranean countries, peacekeeping and crisis management, responding to civil emergencies, and collaborating in science and environment.

With regard to the constantly changing role of NATO’s forces, “NATO’s new crisis-management and peace-support roles took on increasing importance from the mid-1990s. Between 1992 and 1995, NATO forces became involved in the Bosnian war in support of the United Nations, helping monitor and enforce UN sanctions in the Adriatic as well as the no-fly zone over Bosnia and Herzegovina and providing close air support to the UN Protection Force on the ground. Air strikes, launched in August and September 1995 to lift the siege of Sarajevo, helped shift the balance of power and secure a peace settlement. NATO subsequently deployed a UN- mandated, multinational force to implement the military aspects of the peace agreement, in December 1995.”[65]

Then, in the spring of 1999, NATO’s crisis-management role had been “reinforced when the Allies launched an air operation against the Yugoslav regime to force it to comply with international demands to end political and ethnic repression in the province of Kosovo. A large NATO-led multinational force was sent in to help restore stability”[66]. It is important to recall that this mission was not based on a corresponding UN-mandate.

By early 2006, NATO agreed to extend its assistance to the African Union until September 2006. So far, the Alliance has been helping to airlift African Union peacekeepers in and out of Darfur and to train its forces.[67] Another option, already referred to in this paper, is the likely or potential NATO support for a possible UN-led peacekeeping mission in Darfur, after the mandate of the current African Union force will have ended in September 2006. With regard to Afghanistan, NATO Secretary General, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer declared “Afghanistan remains our number one priority, and it is absolutely vital, both for the people of Afghanistan, and for NATO, that we are successful.”[68] The forthcoming NATO Summit at Riga in Latvia towards the end of November 2006 should mark the time by when NATO’s security presence in Afghanistan will have covered all of the country.[69] The Alliance in that sense planned to have up to 25.000 troops based in Afghanistan. At the present, NATO and its partner countries, such as members states of the European Union, who were not within NATO, had some 28.000 troops on operations and missions in Afghanistan, the Balkans, Iraq and the Mediterranean, with the bulk in Afghanistan and Kosovo.[70]

During a meeting in Brussels on June 8, 2006, NATO defense ministers agreed on new so- called planning targets, for NATO countries to be able to conduct a greater number of smaller- scale operations than NATO has planned for in the past. According to an agreement called ‘Ministerial Guidance’, the Alliance’s so-called planning process “will be geared to ensuring that NATO can conduct a greater number of the more likely smaller-scale operations – a brigade or division level (up to 30.000 troops) – with less emphasis on the larger-scale operations – at corps level (up to 60.000).”[71]

Jaap de Hoop Scheffer emphasizes that NATO today was “fully alert to the possible escalation of local conflicts into broader security threats. In a globalized world, geographic distance no longer shields us from trouble.[72]” After the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 against the United States, “NATO’s unique crisis-management capabilities – including the NATO Response Force (NRF), the Alliance’s spearhead force – are of increasing importance to wider international security, since failed states have proved to be an ideal breeding ground for instability, terrorism and transnational crime”.[73]

Such developments seem to correspond with policy changes that have taken place in the United States, putting more emphasis on inter-agency cooperation with regard to (international) missions of stabilization and reconstruction.[74] A Presidential Directive on US Efforts for Reconstruction and Stabilization of December 14, 2005 established “that the Secretary of State shall coordinate and lead integrated US government efforts, involving all US Departments and Agencies with relevant capabilities, to prepare, plan for, and conduct stabilization and

reconstruction activities”.[75] They also reflect trends within the United Nations and a renewed emphasis on peace-building.[76] The Peacebuilding Commission of the United Nations states for specific purposes: First, to “propose integrated strategies for post-conflict peace-building and recovery”; second, to “help ensure predictable financing for early recovery activities and sustained investment over the medium- to longer-term”; third, to “extend the period of attention by the international community to post-conflict” crises; fourth, to “develop best practices on issues that require extensive collaboration among police, military, humanitarian and development actors”.[77]

So, where do above trends leave the transatlantic alliance, which is made up by member states of NATO and EU? EU for one is currently in charge of peacekeeping in the Balkans, has contributed to UN election monitoring in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and is spearheading - through EU and NATO members France and Italy – Europe’s contribution to the multinational peace force in Southern Lebanon. NATO on the other hand has been leading the peacekeeping mission in Afghanistan and currently seems to be stretched too thin, given the violent resurgence of the Taliban in certain parts of Afghanistan. This may well have an impact on NATO’s envisioned stronger role in support to the African Union in Darfur, Sudan. While winning the war (against global terrorism) will not be possible without winning the peace in the long-term, this reality increasingly comes to a higher price to both Europeans and Americans![78]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] ‘NATO in the 21st Century’, May 2004, www.nato.int/docu/home.htm; ‘Briefing: Helping Secure Afghanistan’ s Future’, January 2005, www.nato.int/docu/home.htm; ‘Briefing: Deploying Capabilities Faster and Further than Ever Before’, January 2005, www.nato.int/docu.home.htm; ‘President Discusses Democracy in Iraq with Freedom House’, Washington DC, March 29, 2006, www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060329-6.html

[2] Charter of the United Nations, Chapter VII, Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression, www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter7.htm, article 42: “Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations”; 43: “All members to the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security”; Article 45: “In order to enable the United Nations to take urgent military measures, Members shall hold immediately available national air-force contingents for combined international enforcement action. The strength and degree of readiness of these contingents and plans for their combined action shall be determined within the limits laid down in the special agreement or agreements referred to in Article 43, by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee”; Article 47: “...1. There shall be established a Military Staff Committee to advise and assist the Security Council on all questions relating to the Security Council’s military requirements for the maintenance of international peace and security, the employment and command of forces placed at its disposal, the regulation of armaments, and possible disarmament...”

[3] ‘NATO Transformed’, June 2004, www.nato.int/docu/nato-trans/html_en/nato_trans03.html, page 35: “The need for a more coordinated Euro-Atlantic disaster-response capability led to the establishment at NATO headquarters, in June 1999, of a Euro-Atlantic Disaster Response Coordination Centre (EADRCC), based on a proposal made by Russia...”

[4] See United Nations Peacebuilding Commission, www.un.org/peace/peacebuilding; ‘Reform at the United Nations’, Reference Reports and Materials, www.un.org/reform/about- unreform.html; James Dobbins, Seth G. Jones, Keith Crane, Andrew Rathmell, Brett Steele, Richard Teltschik, Anga Timilsina (2005), The UN’ s Role in Nation-Building. From the Congo to Iraq (Rand Corporation: St. Monica. CA).

[5] Statement on Presidential Directive on U.S. Efforts for Reconstruction and Stabilization, www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051214.html, December 14, 2005; National

Strategy for Victory in Iraq, February 2005, whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_strategy_nov2005.html; Jock Covey, Michael J. Dziedzic & Leonard R. Hawley (2005), The Quest for Viable Peace. International Intervention and Strategies for Conflict Transformation (USIP: Washington, DC); Michaela C. Hertkorn (2002), Why Conflict Prevention Does not Exclude the Use of Force (Mensch und Buch Verlag: Berlin), page 112: ‘Model on the Probability of Violent Conflict Escalation’, and page 133: ‘A Model for Preventing the Re-Emergence of Violence”; Pamela Aall, Daniel Miltenberger & Thomas G. Weiss (2000), Guide to IGOs, NGOs and the Military in Peace and Relief Operations (USIP);

[6] For the definition of peace-building, see Boutros Boutros-Ghali (1995), An Agenda for Peace. Second Edition with the New Supplement and Related UN Documents (United Nations: New York, NY). See also: James Notter & Louise Diamond, ‘Building Peace and Transforming Conflict’, Occasional Paper 7, October 1996, www.imtd.org: While conflict transformation described the outcome, peace-building described the actions. IMTD distinguishes ‘political peace-building’ from ‘structural’ and ‘social peace-building’. Political peace-building is about agreements and political arrangements, whereas structural peace-building created mid-level structures, such as institutions. Social peace-building is the missing link. It seeks to build the human infrastructure that can support political agreements and societal institutions.

[7] Jock Covey, Michael J. Dziedzic & Leonard R. Hawley (2005), The Quest for Viable Peace. International Intervention and Strategies for Conflict Transformation (USIP: Washington, DC), page 78 – 79.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Covey et al, page 78 – 79.

[10] Ibid, page 79.

[11] Albrecht Schnabel and Hans-Georg Ehrhart (2006), Security Sector Reform and Post- Conflict Peacebuilding (United Nations University Press), www.unu.edu/unupress/2005/securitysectorreform.html: “Military and police forces play a crucial role in the long-term success

[12] Craig Cohen, ‘Measuring Progress in Stabilization and Reconstruction’, Special Report, March 2006, www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/srs/srs1.html

[13] Ibid.

[14] With regard to USIP case study analysis and impact assessment, see also: Celeste J. Ward, ‘The Coalition Provisional Authority’s Experience with Governance in Iraq. Lessons Identified’, USIP Special Report, May 2005; Robert M. Perito, ‘The Coalition Provisional Authority’s Experience with Public Security in Iraq. Lessons Identified’, USIP Special Report, April 2005; ‘Building the Iraqi Special Tribunal. Lessons from Experiences in International Criminal Justice’, USIP Special Report, June 2004; Faleh A. Jabar, ‘Postconflict Iraq. A Race for Stability, Reconstruction, and Legitimacy’, USIP Special Report, May 2004; ‘Building Civilian Capacity for US Stability Operations. The Rule of Law Component’, USIP Special Report, April 2004; ‘Establishing the Rule of Law in Afghanistan’, USIP Special Report, March 2004; William Lewis, Edward Marks, and Robert Perito, ‘Enhancing International Civilian Police in Peace Operations, USIP Special Report, April 22, 2002;

[15] Robert M. Perito, ‘Where is the Lone Ranger when We Need Him?’ In: Ibid. America’s Search for a Postconflict Stability Force, edited by Robert Perito (USIP: Washington, DC), 2004, page 323.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Robert Perito, 2004, page 323: “...’The US cannot be unprepared for missions it does not want, as if the lack of preparedness might prevent our going. We cannot be like children who refuse to get dressed for school’...”

[18] Ibid, page 324.

[19] Michaela Hertkorn (2002), Why Conflict Prevention Does Not Exclude the Use of Force (Mensch & Buch Verlag: Berlin), page 126: “... The model above focuses on two types of potential activities by a variety of actors or tracks in the wider field of conflict prevention: First, short-term (military) intervention to stop violence, aggression and genocide; second, long-term transformation of a so-called conflict-habituated system into a peace system with a partnership culture. These two types of potential activities pose challenges to a whole variety of actors dealing with conflict prevention, which will be explained in the following. First, with the help of Bruce Jentleson’s coercive prevention approach, and a ‘model for preventing the re-emergence

of violence’, designed by Jane Holl. Second, with a so-called ‘model to transform conflicts’ defined by the Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy. The following quote highlights to which degree or extent the two elements of intervention and transformation are linked in theory and practice. In the words of John McDonald, ‘the so-called exit strategy the US military keeps talking about and looking for, will only work, when the departing US troops are able to leave behind a peaceful community’.”

[20] ‘Civil Affairs: Reflections of the Future’ (prepared remarks by H. Allen Holmes, assistant secretary of defense for special operations at the Worldwide Civil Affairs Conference, Chicago, June 6, 1997), vol. 12, number 31, www.defenselink.mil/Speeches/Speech.aspx? SpeechID=736, page 2 and 3.

[21] Robert Perito (2004), page 325.

[22] Perito, page 326.

[23] Perito, page 336.

[24] Ibid, page 336.

[25] Preventing Deadly Conflict. Final Report with Executive Summary (Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict and Carnegie Corporation of New York: Washington, DC and New York, NY), 1997; Preventing Deadly Conflict. Executive Summary of the Final Report (Carnegie Commission: New York, NY), page 7: operational prevention: strategies in the face of crisis; structural prevention: strategies to address the root causes of deadly conflict: security, well- being, justice, page 19. Michaela C. Hertkorn (2002), page 133; Jane Holl, ‘Konfliktprävention. Strategien zur Verhinderung Ethnischer Zwietracht’, Internationale Politik, 9/1999, page 41;

[26] Hertkorn (2002), page 133.

[27] Ibid.

[28] Ibid.

[29] Garland H. Williams (2005), Engineering Peace. The Military Role in Post-Conflict Reconstruction (USIP: Washington, DC), page 14 – 15.

[30] Robert C. Orr (2004), Winning the Peace. An American Strategy for Post-Conflict Reconstruction (Center for Strategic and International Studies: Washington, DC), page 9.

[31] Ibid.

[32] Ibid, page 11.

[33] Ibid.

[34] Perito, 2004, page 337.

[35] Orr 2004, page 14.

[36] Ibid, page 14 and 15: “Although the Bush administration came to office concerned about the overuse of the military, it has rapidly accelerated the tendency to use the military as the primary instrument for post-conflict reconstruction. During the 2000 campaign, candidate Bush cautioned: ‘I would be very careful about using our troops as nation-builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war...’ Even after the terrorist attacks on the US ..., official attitudes in the Bush administration toward nation-building changed only slowly. President Bush himself continued to demonstrate his unease with the concept and the term... By mid-2003, President Bush had deployed significant numbers of forces in Iraq (150.000 coalition, including 130.000 US) and Afghanistan (6.000 NATO and 9.000 US) where they became deeply enmeshed in fundamental nation-building efforts, remaining in both places in similar quantities for more than a year despite plans to scale back dramatically. In addition, the Bush administration maintained significant force levels in two ongoing nation-building projects: Bosnia (13.000 NATO, including 3.000 US) and Kosovo (20.000 NATO, including 1.500 US).”

[37] Orr, 2004, page 15.

[38] Ibid.

[39] ‘Department of Defense Directive’, number 3000.05, November 28, 2005, www.dtic.mil.whs/directives; ‘Management of Interagency Efforts Concerning Reconstruction and Stabilization’, www.defenselink.mil; ‘Statement on Presidential Directive on US Efforts for Reconstruction and Stabilization’, December 14, 2005, www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051214.html.

[40] Ibid, page 3.

[41] ‘Quadrennial Defense Review Report’, February 6, 2006, page 86, www.defneselink.mil

[42] Ibid; ‘Stabilization and Reconstruction of Nation-States: How to Deal with Security and Challenges of the 21st Century’ (panel discussion with Ambassador John McDonald, Erik

Leklem and Michaela Hertkorn, School of Diplomacy, Seton Hall University, March 23, 2006). One observation of the panel was that the Quadrennial Defense Review of early 2006 put equal emphasis on stability operations and combat operations. This was also a result of the experience in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

[43] Ibid.

[44] Jock Covey, ‘The Custodian of the Peace Process’, in: Covey, Dziedzic & Hawley, The Quest for Viable Peace, USIP, 2005.

[45] Ibid, page 77.

[46] Ibid.

[48] ‘NATO Transformed’, June 2004, www.nato.int/docu/nato-trans/html_en/nato_trans03.htmlwww.nato.int, page 11: “Several initiatives were taken at Prague to enhance the Alliance’s capabilities against terrorism and other new security threats. A military concept for defense against terrorism was endorsed. Cooperation has also been launched with Partner countries in the form of an Action Plan against Terrorism to exchange intelligence and to improve civil preparedness against possible chemical, biological or radiological attacks against civilian populations and to help deal with their consequences...”

[53] ‘NATO Transformed’, June 2004, www.nato.int/docu/nato-trans/html_en/nato_trans03.html, page 10: “Following a first force-generation conference in July 2003, a prototype force was launched in October 2003. An initial operational capability is expected to be ready by October 2004 and the force is due to be fully operational by October 2006. It will then number some 21.000 troops and have dedicated cutting-edge fighter aircraft, ships, army vehicles, combat service support, logistics, communications, and intelligence. It will be able to deploy to a crisis area within five days and sustain itself for 30 days.”

[54] United Nations Charter, Art. 43, calls for a ‘stand-by force’. Art. 45 calls for a ‘stand-by air force’. Art. 47 calls for a ‘military staff committee’.

[55] ‘NATO Transformed’, 2004, page 13: “NATO’s engagement in Afghanistan is the Alliance’s first mission beyond the Euro-Atlantic area. It reflects the seminal decision taken by Allied foreign ministers meeting in Reykjavik in May 2002, that ‘NATO must be able to field forces that can move quickly to wherever they are needed, sustain operations over distance and time’. Moreover, following the US-led intervention against Saddam Hussein’s regime, NATO has agreed to support the Polish-led multinational division in central Iraq with force generation, logistics, communications and intelligence. It is prepared to offer similar support to other Allies that request it.” ‘Eurokorps für Afghanistan vorgesehen’, www.bundeswehr.de/wir/einsatz/ (16 May, 2004); ‘NATO Takes over Afghanistan Command’, BBC News, August 11, 2006.

[56] ‘Summit Meetings of Heads of State and Governments’, Istanbul, Turkey, June 28 – 29, 2006, www.nato.int/docu/pr/2004/04/0483.htm

[57] ‘This Moment in Iraq is a Moment of Truth’, Remarks by Senator John Kerry, Westminster College, Fulton, MI, April 30, 2004; ‘President Outlines Steps to Help Iraq Achieve Democracy and Freedom’, Remarks by the President on Iraq and the War on Terror, United States Army War College, Carlisle, PA, May 24, 2004; ‘Iraqis to Have Veto over Troops’, BBC News, May 25, 2004; ‘Fresh Iraq Plan Awaits UN Verdict’, BBC News, June 2, 2004; ‘Text: Iraq Draft Resolution’, BBC News, June 2, 2004’; ‘UN Envoy Defends Iraq Government’, BBC News, June 2, 2004.

[58] Michaela Hertkorn (2002), page 116 – 139.

[59] Paula J. Dobriansky and David B. Rivkin, Washington Post, January 30, 2001; Michaela C. Hertkorn, ‘The Relevance of Perceptions in Foreign Policy: A German – US Perspective’, World Affairs, fall 2001, page 63: “The critical question seems to be whether a common European security and defense policy can become more than a reflection of European concern in the aftermath of Kosovo. Is the creation of ESDP – as formulated at the Cologne EU summit of July 1999 and the Nice summit of December 2000 – an attempt to counterbalance US power, while theoretically facing the challenge of coercive prevention? Paula Dobriansky and David Rivkin stated that the ‘United States can and must maintain a first-rate military establishment capable of fighting and winning wars. President Bush articulated this fundamental truth in stating that the core US strategic mission is to deter war by preparing to win swiftly and decisively’.”

[60] ‘NATO-EU: A Strategic Partnership’, February 10, 2004, www.nato.int/issues/nato- eu/indext.html; ‘First EU-NATO Crisis Management Exercise (CME/CMX 03), November 11, 2003, www.nato.int

[61] Michaela Hertkorn, Why German – US Relations Still Matter to the Transatlantic Alliance – One Year after War in Iraq, DIAS Analysis, Nr. 7, August 2004.

[62] ‘NATO at the Crossroads – The Prospects for Success at the Istanbul Summit’, Speech by General (ret.) Klaus Naumann, former Chariman of the NATO Military Committee, Konrad- Adenauer-Foundation, Washington, D. C., 30 April, 2004.

[63] Richard Bernstein and Mark Landler, ‘German Leader to Oppose Sending NATO Troops to Iraq’, New York Times, 21 May, 2004; Jeffrey Gedmin, ‘An Orgy of Anti-Americanism. They Hate Us. They Really, Really Hate Us’, Weekly Standard, 24 May, 2004.

[64] ‘NATO Transformed’, June 2004, www.nato.int/docu/nato-trans/html_en/nato_trans03.html . [65] Ibid.

[66] Ibid.

[67] ‘UN Humanitarian Envoy Visits NATO’, NATO Update, May 30, 2006, www.nato,int/docu/update/2006/05-may/e0530a.htm

[68] ‘NATO Parliamentarians Get Preview of Riga Summit’, NATO Update, May 31, 2006, www.nato.int/docu/update/2006/05-may/e0531a.htm

[69] Ibid.

[70] ‘NATO Sets New Level of Ambition for Operations’, NATO Update, June 8, 2006, www.nato.int/docu/update/2006/06-june/e0608b.htm; ‘NATO Reconfirms Afghanistan Expansion’, NATO Update, June 8, 2006, www.nato.int/docu/update/2006/06-june/e0608a.htm; ‘Afghanistan: ISAF-Truppen töten vor Besuch Steinmeiers Dutzende Taliban’, DIE WELT, August 21, 2006, www.welt.de/data/2006/08/21/1004569.html?prx=1; Joachim Schlucht, ‘Steinmeiers schwierige Mission in einem Land Abgrund. Immer mehr Afghanen sehen in den Taliban ihre Beschützer’, Schwarzwälder Bote, 21. August 2006.

[71] ‘NATO Sets New Level of Ambition for Operations’, NATO Update, June 8, 2006, www.nato.int/docu/update/2006/06-june/e0608b.htm

[72] ‘Building Peace and Stability in Crisis Regions’, NATO Crisis Management Briefing, September 2005, www.nato.int

[73] Ibid, page 2.

[74] Natural disasters, especially in 2005, such as the Tsunami in South East Asia and Hurricane Katrina in the United States, have further highlighted the need of rapid military deployment capabilities to crisis regions. James Dobbins et al. (2003), America’s Role in Nation-Building. From Germany to Iraq (Rand).

[75] ‘Statement on Presidential Directive on US Efforts to Reconstruction and Stabilization’, December 14, 2005, www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/print/20051214.html

[76] The United Peacebuilding Commission was established in December 2005, www.un.org/peace/peacebuilding; James Dobbins et al. (2005), The UN’s Role in Nation- Building. From the Congo to Iraq (Rand), www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG304/

[77] Ibid.

[78] ‘The European Union in the World. Abroad Be Dangers’, Economist, August 26, 2006; President Bush Addresses United Nations General Assembly’, New York, September 19, 2006, www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/print/20060919-4.html goes here

In der Nacht vom 6. zum 7. April 2017 gab der neu amtierende US Amerikanische Präsident Donald J Trump den Befehl zum Angriff auf Syrien. 59 Tomahawk Cruise Missiles wurden von US Amerikanischen Kriegsschiffen auf Syrisches Gebiet abgefeuert. Wozu genau? Und warum jetzt?

Polen erklärte wie erwartet: "The United States for sure are a guarantor of world peace and order. And there are situations when you need to react, situations when you need to take actual action." Nach Einschätzung der Autorin ist die Aussage, Amerika sei im 16. Jahr des gescheiterten sogenannten ‘Krieges gegen den Terror’ immer noch der ultimative Garantor für den Weltfrieden, mehr als fragwürdig.

Wie von einer wohl zunehmenden Anzahl von Amerikanern selbst empfunden, scheinen die Vereinigten Staaten leider mehr und mehr für weltweite Destabilisierung und Chaos zu stehen; dies angesichts von nicht endenden militärischen Interventionen, des unter Obama eskalierten Drohnenkrieges in Afghanistan und der Verfolgung von sogenannten Geheimnisverrätern im Inneren sowie angesichts der Enthüllungen von Wikileaks und Edward Snowden.

Für all diejenigen in Amerika, die an Trump-den-Reformer glaub(t)en, bietet ausgerechnet Alex Jones Erklärungsansätze für die scheinbar plötzliche Kehrtwende Trumps, die Lage und Situation in Syrien jetzt allem Anschein nach zu eskalieren. Es werde sich zeigen, so Jones, ob Donald Trump mit diesem Militärschlag seine innen-politischen Kritiker, wie Senator John McCain und Senator Lindsay Graham oder ‘Speaker of the House’ Paul Ryan in ihrem Konfrontationskurs gegenüber Russland besänftigen werde, oder – alternativ – ob Trump (doch) unter dem Einfluss der Neokonservativen stehe. Dies bleibe jetzt abzuwarten.

Noch am 6. April 2017 warnte der US Politiker Rand Paul Donald Trump vor einem übereilten Militärschlag in Syrien. Es sei keineswegs erwiesen, sondern eher unwahrscheinlich, dass das Assad-Regime tatsächlich hinter dem jüngsten Giftgas Anschlag in Syrien stehe. Warum solle Assad zum jetzigen Zeitpunkt so viel riskieren? Wisse er doch, dass der Westen dann angreifen werde. Es seien die Assad-Truppen, die mit Russischer Hilfe in den letzten Monaten erfolgreich gegen ISIS vorgegangen seien.

Exemplarische Quellen:

‘False Flag’ — Ron Paul Says Syrian Chemical Attack ‘Makes No Sense’, 5. April 2017, http://www.globalresearch.ca/false-flag-ron-paul-says-syrian-chemical-attack-makes-no-sense/5583844

http://phibetaiota.net/2017/04/ron-paul-syria-false-flag-zero-chance-assad-to-blame-for-latest-chemical-attack/

Senator Rand Paul Warns Trump Not To Back Al Qaeda/ISIS In Syria, 6. April 2017-04-07, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWXNITma9wI

Michel Chossudovsky, ‚Pentagon Trained Syria’s Al Qaeda “Rebels” in the Use of Chemical Weapons’, 7. April 2017, http://www.globalresearch.ca/pentagon-trained-syrias-al-qaeda-rebels-in-the-use-of-chemical-weapons/5583784

Robert Parry, ‘Another Dangerous Rush to Judgment in Syria’, 5. April 2017, http://www.globalresearch.ca/another-dangerous-rush-to-judgment-in-syria/5583853

Wie wird die Russische Antwort wohl aussehen? Sollen, dürfen wir darauf setzen, ‚Team Trump‘ habe den Kremlin zuvor über die bevorstehende Vorgehensweise in Syrien in Kenntnis gesetzt, mit der Versicherung, Washington versuche erzürnte Neo-McCarthy-Kriegsbefürworter, sowohl bei den Demokraten, als auch bei den Republikanern, zu besänftigen? Dies scheint in diesem Moment eine wesentliche Frage zu sein. Die kommenden 24 – 48 Stunden dürften zeigen wohin die Welt geht.

“…Washington has reopened the conflict with a Tomahawk missile attack on Syrian Air Force Bases. The Russian/Syrian air defense systems did not prevent the attack. The Washington Establishment has reasserted control. First Flynn and now Bannon. All that are left in the Trump administration are the Zionists and the crazed generals who want war with Russia, China, Iran, Syria, and North Korea. There is no one in the White House to stop them. Kiss good-bye normalized relations with Russia.“ (Paul C. Roberts, 6. April 2017).

Die Tatsache, dass Trump Berater Stephen Bannon noch am 5. April seinen Hut nahm, scheint auf Zerwürfnisse innerhalb der Trump Administration hinzuweisen. Die Entlassung oder Demontage Bannons – unabhängig davon wie man ihm politisch gegenüberstehen mag – hat wohl jenes Lager im ‘National Security Council’ erstarken lassen, welches für eine härtere Gangart gegenüber Russland steht.

‚Nomen est omen‘: Am 7. April 1917 traten die Vereinigten Staaten in den Ersten Weltkrieg gegen das Deutsche Reich ein. Der US Kongress hatte am 6. April 1917 hierüber noch abgestimmt. Der Eintritt Amerikas in den Ersten Weltkrieg war kriegsentscheidend. Er führte für Deutschland – trotz eines Friedens mit Russland von Brest-Litowsk 1917 – zum ultimativen Desaster von Versailles: dem ‚Frieden(svertrag) der allen Frieden zerstörte’, nicht nur in Europa, sondern auch im Mittleren Osten und der Arabischen Welt. Repetitiones no placent!

Richard Cook, ‘The Trump Administration: “Ship of Fools”’, 7. April 2017, http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-trump-administration-ship-of-fools/5583824

'World War 3: Trump Begins Paying His Penance To Rothschilds’, 7. April 2017, http://yournewswire.com/trump-rothschilds-world-war-3/

‚US Strikes Syria, Russia Set to Respond’, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ER3Xlpq0rmc

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-poland-idUSKBN1790Q7

Trump Removes Stephen Bannon From National Security Council Post’, 5.4.2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/05/us/politics/national-security-council-stephen-bannon.html?_r=0

David Fromkin (1989), A Peace to End All Peace. The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East (Owl Books); Robert Fisk (2005), The Great War for Civilisation. The Conquest of the Middle East (Vintage); ‘Zionists extracted 1917 Balfour Declaration from British as price for bringing U.S. into WWI‘, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjmUNR4sLMg

Die ARD berichtete in der vergangenen Woche “US-Wahlkampf 2016: FBI untersucht mögliche Absprachen mit Russland...“ Was ist davon zu halten?

In einem Artikel mit dem Titel ‘In America Today, Facts Cannot Compete With Lies’ – im heutigen Amerika können Fakten nicht mit Lügen mithalten – unterstreicht und argumentiert der Kanadier Paul Craig Roberts: “Unable to provide an ounce of evidence that a Trump / Putin conspiracy stole the presidential election from Hillary Clinton, the corrupt US ‘intelligence’ agencies are shifting their focus to social media and to Internet sites such as Alex Jones and Breitbart. Little doubt the FBI investigation will trickle down to Glenn Greenwald and The Intercept, Zero Hedge, the Ron Paul Institute, Naomi Prins, Naked Capitalism, Lew Rockwell, Global Research, antiwar.com, and to others on the PropOrNot, Harvard Library, and LeMonde lists, such as top Reagan administration officials David Stockman and myself. It is extraordinary that the FBI is so desperate to protect the budget of the military / security complex that it brings such embarrassment to itself. Who in the future will believe any FBI report or anything a FBI official says?”

Inhaltliche Übersetzung: “…Unfähig auch nur den kleinsten Nachweis dafür aufzubringen, dass etwas an der Trump-Putin Verschwörung wahr sei - Russland habe 2016 die Wahl von Hillary Clinton gestohlen (oder diese beeinflusst) - verlagerten die korrupten US Geheimdienste und der Verfassungsschutz nun ihr Augenmerk von (Staatsfeind Nummer 1) Russland auf die sozialen Medien... Es sei beachtlich, wie weit der Verzweiflungsgrad des FBI reiche, lieber das Budget des militärischen und Sicherheitskomplexes zu schützen, als sich selbst vor einer Blamage zu bewahren…”

In einer RT Diskussionsrunde ‘Bullhorns: Same Boss?’ diskutierten Analysten am 20.03.2017 die vermeintlich gefährlichen Folgen des sogenannten gegenwärtigen McCarthyismus. Die Neuauflage eines ‚anti-Russland McCarthyismus‘ im - unter Präsident a. D. Obama - begonnenen Zweiten Kalten Krieg sei schlimmer als der seines Vorgängers in den 1950er Jahren. Heutzutage seien es die offiziellen Medien, welche die alternativen Medien (unter dem Vorwand ‚fake news’) zensieren wollten.

Dem oben Gesagten scheint ein früheres Interview mit Ray McGovern bei der Alex Jones Show zu entsprechen.. McGovern, CIA Analyst, spricht von einem ‘constitutional embarrassment’ – einer beschämenden Gesamtsituation für die (US) Verfassung. Wir lebten heute in einer Situation, in welcher ein Politiker den anderen decke. In den 1970ern sei dies (noch) anders gewesen. Damals habe es Einzelne in der Politik gegeben, die im US Kongress aufgestanden seien und sagten, die CIA ginge zu weit. Und dann sei es zu echten Untersuchungen gekommen... Heute lebten wir jedoch in einem Moment, bei dem es darauf ankäme, dass die Bürger auf die Straße gingen... Bei den USA handele es sich um eine ‘extra-constitutional society’ – eine Gesellschaft außerhalb der Verfassung. Die größte Veränderung liege darin, dass es keine wirklich unabhängigen Medien mehr gebe... Jeder Konflikt in der letzten Zeit – Gaza, Ukraine – sei von den Medien falsch dargestellt worden... Dies sei wirklich gefährlich. Ohne eine freie Presse gäbe es keine Demokratie.

Gehen wir noch einmal zur ‘Crosstalk Show’ des Russischen Senders in Englischer Sprache vom 20.03.2017 zurück. Hier ging es vor allem auch um den Besuch von Kanzlerin Angela Merkel in Washington DC in der vergangenen Woche. Im Vordergrund stand die scheinbar zunehmende ‘Isolation’ Merkels in Europa und innerhalb des transatlantischen Bündnisses. Das Treffen mit Präsident Donald Trump sei für Merkel enttäuschend verlaufen. Deutschland habe sich in den Jahren unter Ex-Präsident Obama in der ‚privilegierten Position’ befunden, Russland zu bedrohen und den Rest Europas zu dominieren – immer mit der Garantie im Hintergrund, dass die wirtschaftliche, militärische und geopolitische Macht Amerikas Merkels Politik hierbei unterstützen würde; so die Russische Darstellung. Jetzt wo Donald Trump Merkel die kalte Schulter zeige, hätten sich ihre Optionen verändert, bzw. verschlechtert. Merkel sei das Synonym für eine Politik in Europa, die ‘out of touch’ mit der Bevölkerung sei. Es bestehe kein Zweifel, dass Merkel Trump verachte. Ihre Wähler lehnten Trump ab, die Deutschen Staatsmedien hätten Trump im Wahlkampf angegriffen. Deutschland zahle jetzt den Preis dafür. So habe Präsident Trump einen Spiegel Reporter als ‘fake news’ Reporter bezeichnet. Man dürfe keine wirkliche Annäherung zwischen Merkel und Putin erwarten, und auch keine Lösung der Spannungen bezüglich der Ukraine. “Merkel often presents the image of being a German matronal technocrat with all the charisma of a potato. But at her heart she is a liberal ideologue that exemplifies the very worst European exceptionalism. Merkel exemplifies all the bad things we have seen in the European Union the last 20 years. The Western globalist elites will do everything for her to stay in power after the election in September. They are already dominating the media. And even if she is replaced by Martin Schulz, it is the same. But what I really admire is the patience of both Trump and Putin, that they welcome her after everything she said about them, after this meeting, this summit of Malta where they said that Trump and Putin were a threat to Europe, after that, meeting her is already a huge favor, a huge privilege that they are giving her (Merkel). And of course I liked the joke of Trump ‘at least we have something in common’ (having been listened to by Obama) – all the hysteria about Russian hackers getting involved in the German election and French election, in the American election, when everybody knows, and it has been admitted now, that Obama has been listening to Merkel…” (‚Crosstalk‘, RT.com, 3/21/2017)

Robert David Steele äußert sich wie folgt: “…. Part of the problem for Trump and Putin is that all of their generals are trying to start WW III, just like (for) Khrushchev and Kennedy. We are back in the same place. But if Trump and Putin were to have a private meeting in Hamburg before the G20 (in July 2017), and if they were to declare peace, and if they were to adopt the idea of the open-source-everything-engineering, which would lift the 5 billion up, and basically keep all of the refugees home, then in fact I believe they (Putin and Trump) would deserve the Nobel Peace Prize (in four years)… The neo-conservatives have hijacked US foreign policy. They are the ones pushing for the military. Any common sense person looking at the US military will see a military that costs too much, cannot win wars. It consumes 60 % of the US budget… We have a thousand overseas bases that are used to smuggle gold, cash, drugs and small children. These bases are not there for the military. They are there for the CIA to smuggle stuff… Putin has asked Trump for a private meeting in Hamburg… That could be as important a meeting as Reykjavik was for Reagan and Gorbachev. If Trump and Putin declare peace in Hamburg, I think we will begin a new era…”

Nach Steele’s Ansicht, sei Trump seit Kennedy der erste Präsident der nicht vom ‘Deep State’ unterstützt werde.

Exemplarische Quellen:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvYWNR9575I&feature=youtu.be

‘FBI untersucht mögliche Absprachen mit Russland’, 20.03.2017, www.tagesschau.de

Paul Craig Roberts: ‘In America Today, Facts Cannot Compete With Lies’, ZeroHedge, 23.03.2017

Paul Craig Roberts, ‘Mainstream Media in Total Collapse’ – das Totalversagen der (Massen)Medien, 21.03.2017

http://www.globalresearch.ca/mainstream-media-in-total-collapse/5580854

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xB9TzZKUXM

Sean Adl-Tabatabai, ‚ Washington Post: Obama May Face Criminal Charges’, 25.03.2017, http://yournewswire.com/washington-post-obama-criminal-charges/

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/clinton-ally-says-smoke-no-fire-no-russia-trump-collusion-n734176

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/22/us/politics/devin-nunes-wiretapping-trump.html

‘The McCain mutiny and the demonization of Iran’, 25.03.2017 (https://www.rt.com/shows/watching-the-hawks/382265-iran-threat-strada-lawsuit/

Steele, Robert with Fredrik Heffermehl and Enrique Salinas, ‘Donald Trump, the Deep State, War & Peace, & the Nobel Peace Prize,’ International Press Center, Oslo, Norway (YouTube 28:05), March 19, 2017

Nachtrag der Autorin am 22. Juni 2024: Die Jahre, welche der Trump Administration ab 2021 under Biden folgten, offenbarten spätestens den enormen Propaganda-Aufwand, welcher um Donald J. Trump, MAGA, die Q- und ‘Great Awakening’ Bewegungen in den USA und in Übersee, v.a. auch in Europa stattfand, um Donald Trump als Opponenten des Tiefen Staates darzustellen.

Anmerkung der Autorin: Die nachstehende Zusammenfassung und Übersicht wurde im Frühjahr 2017 als Presseschau sogenannt konservativer Quellen und alternativer Medien in den USA verfasst, um einen Überblick derjenigen Stimmen zu erhalten, welche die politischen Ereignisse um Donald J. Trump in einem positiven Licht betrachteten. Das Dokument entstand in Deutscher Sprache. Die Autorin wohnte zum Zeitpunkt des Verfassens als Amerikanerin in der BRD.

In December 2016 / January 2017, the author of the following overview was invited by Peter Schmitt, then President of German Association of Employers ‚Markt und Freiheit‘ (market and freedom) in Wiesbaden, Germany, to provide a weekly overview of voices and commentary portraying Donald J Trump in a positive light. The author agreed to research the channels in question, but insisted to do so in a factual way. Throughout February 2017, the author composed four weekly press reviews with links and articles from so-called conservative alternative media. Those reviews ended up being published on the web site of Germany‘s Association of employers, reaching thousands of CEOs in German industry. By early March 2017, these posts were discontinued. I can only assume that the reviews in question were not pro-Trump enough; or, alternatively they shed light on questionable sources. It is clear to me nowadays, that Trump has had powerful / influential backers in industry and finance abroad.

Am 27.02.2017 bezog sich Tyler Durden von ‚Zerohedge‘ auf David Stockmann: „The market is apparently pricing in a huge Trump stimulus. But if you just look at the real world out there, the only thing that's going to happen is a fiscal bloodbath and a White House train wreck like never before in U.S. history." (1)

Inhaltliche Übersetzung: ‚Der Markt weist anscheinend einen beträchtlichen Stimulus aus. Aber die Realität sieht anders aus. Das einzige was passieren wird, ist ein fiskales Blutbad und ein Weißes Haus, welches gegen eine Wand fahren wird, wie noch nie zuvor in der Geschichte der Vereinigten Staaten.‘

David Stockmann, ehemaliger Mitarbeiter der Reagan Administration sehe enorme finanzielle Schwierigkeiten mit mathematischer Sicherheit als gegeben voraus. Präsident Trump habe ein enormes Chaos geerbt, welches die Probleme von Januar 1981 erblassen ließen. Donald Trump befinde sich in einer Falle. Heutzutage liege das Haushaltsdefizit bei 20 Billionen US $. Dies bedeute, die Schulden entsprächen 106 % des gesamten US Amerikanischen Bruttosozialproduktes ('gross domestic product'). Über den Verlauf der nächsten 10 Jahre erbe Trump ein Defizit von 10 Billionen US $. Dennoch wolle er mehr für Verteidigung ausgeben, statt weniger. Der Präsident wolle die Steuern für Unternehmen und Bürger kürzen, dann aber mehr Geld für Grenzsicherung und die Polizei ausgeben. Er werde mehr für die Veteranen tun. Sein Infrastrukturprogramm belaufe sich auf Billionen Dollar. Wenn man all dies gesamt betrachte, so werde der Wahnsinn klar. Das mache keinen Sinn, und noch weniger wenn man mit den 10 Billionen zu kämpfen habe, die da als Schulden auf einen zukämen, zusätzlich zu den 20 Billionen, die bereits als Schulden in den Büchern stünden.

Nach Tyler Durden treffe Stockman den Nagel auf den Kopf: "I think what people are missing is this date, March 15th 2017. That's the day that this debt ceiling holiday that Obama and Boehner put together right before the last election in October of 2015. That holiday expires. The debt ceiling will freeze in at $20 trillion. It will then be law. It will be a hard stop. The Treasury will have roughly $200 billion in cash. We are burning cash at a $75 billion a month rate. By summer, they will be out of cash. Then we will be in the mother of all debt ceiling crises. Everything will grind to a halt. I think we will have a government shutdown. There will not be Obama Care repeal and replace. There will be no tax cut. There will be no infrastructure stimulus. There will be just one giant fiscal bloodbath over a debt ceiling that has to be increased and no one wants to vote for." (2)

Den Aussagen Stockmans zufolge, stünde den USA ein ‚Ritt auf der finanziellen Achterbahn’ bevor. Der Haushaltsdeal, auf welchen sich der frühere Präsident Barack Obama gemeinsam mit John Boehner als Sprecher des US Repräsentantenhaus im Oktober 2015 geeinigt hätte, laufe jetzt am 15.03.2017 aus. Nach diesem Datum verfüge das Finanzministerium noch über 200 Milliarden. Das Land ‚verbrate‘ 75 Milliarden monatlich. Im Sommer 2017 sei nichts mehr übrig. Die ‚Haushaltskrise aller Haushaltskrisen‘ stünde den USA bevor. Die Regierung werde (voraussichtlich) dicht machen. Für die Obamagesundheitsreform werde es weder Änderungen noch einen Ersatz geben. Es werde keine Steuersenkungen geben (können). Auf den Infrastrukturstimulus müsse verzichtet werden. Alles deute auf einen enormen Aderlass hin. Und keiner wolle die Schuldengrenze wirklich noch weiter erhöhen.

In einem Interview mit Sean Stone am 10.03.2017 betont Robert David Steele Mehrausgaben in der Höhe von 54 Milliarden für Verteidigung seien verfehlt: "Trump has no business adding money to the Pentagon, particularly since the Pentagon consumes 60 % of the disposable budget of the United States… 60 % of the total. We are spending more for a worthless military, including contractors. Six contractors for every soldier. We are spending more than China, Russia, Turkey, Iran and North Korea and six other countries together. It is insane.“ Nach Steele sei u. a. davon auszugehen, dass Ex-Präsident Barack Obama als persönlicher Repräsentant der Rotschilds in Washington DC verblieben sei, um vor Ort zu sein wenn die USA in eine finanzielle Krise einträten, bzw. wenn es zu einem Finanzcrash komme! Obama sei aber ein Leichtgewicht im Vergleich zu George Soros und dem Drehbuch zu den 'color revolutions' (Farben-Revolutionen), welches nunmehr in die USA zurückgebracht worden sei, um hierzulande angewandt zu werden. Zu viele Fehler seien bereits von der neuen Trump Administration gemacht worden. Und es sei davon auszugehen, dass die Trump Administration diesen Sommer (2017) untergehe, zerstört werde. Insgesamt identifiziert Steele vier Akteure, welche gegen die Trump Administration arbeiteten. (3)

In seiner eigenen Bewertung der Obama Administration bezieht sich Adl-Tabatabai u. a. auf John Pilger: "Whistle-blowers are the truth-seekers, and we must demand the truth. Who does not want to know the truth? Sadly, in an empire of lies, the truth has become treason…" Obama, ein Anwalt für Verfassungsrecht habe mehr Geheimnisverräter strafrechtlich verfolgt, als jeder andere Präsident in der US Geschichte, obwohl die US Verfassung Geheimnisverräter eigentlich schütze. Er habe Chelsea Manning vor Beendigung eines Verfahrens, welches eine Travestie gewesen sei, für schuldig erklärt. Obama habe ein Bogus-Verfahren gegen Julian Assange angezettelt. Er habe versprochen, Guantanamo zu schließen und habe es nicht getan. Adl-Tabatabai folgert, es scheine, als gehe die Verunglimpfung derjenigen, die die Wahrheit sprächen unter der Trump Administration bereits weiter. Menschen wie Ron Paul aber hätten keine Angst, die Wahrheit im ‚Reich der Lügen‘ auszusprechen. (4)

* Anmerkung der Autorin am 22.06.2024: Steele bezeichnete sich selbst als ehemaliger CIA Mitarbeiter.

Exemplarische Quellen:

(1) http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-26/stockman-after-march-15-everything-will-grind-halt

Greg Hunter, 26.02.2017, 'Giant Fiscal Bloodbath Coming Soon-David Stockman'.

http://usawatchdog.com/giant-fiscal-bloodbath-coming-soon-david-stockman/

(2) http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-26/stockman-after-march-15-everything-will-grind-halt

https://dailyreckoning.com/stockman-debt-crisis-countdown-begins/

http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2017/02/28/david-stockman-trump-will-create-debt-crisis-like-never-before.html

'March 15th: Rothschild, debt ceiling & demise of the dollar', https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=March+15th%3A+Rotschild%2C+debt+ceiling+%26+demise+of+the+dollar

(3) 'Secrets over safety & the apathy of voters(E435)', 10. März 2017, https://www.rt.com/shows/watching-the-hawks/380085-fbi-trump-cia-ibm/

Kevin Barrett, 'Trump and the Deep State: The no-good, very bad, odious, unspeakably ugly truth', http://www.veteranstoday.com/2017/03/12/trump-deepstate/

Ibid., '"False flag" just entered mainstream vocabulary– THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING', http://www.veteranstoday.com/2017/03/05/falseflag-vocab/

Grayson Black, 'War-profiteers Trying To Influence Dems To Push Trump Into More Wars', 16. März 2017,http://yournewswire.com/war-profiteers-trying-to-influence-dems-to-push-trump-into-more-wars/

Sean Adl-Tabatabai, Roger Stone Jr Survives Assassination Attempt After Exposing Corrupt 'Deep State', 16. März 2017, http://yournewswire.com/roger-stone-assassination-attempt-deep-state/

Carol Adl, 'Assange Claims Clinton Is "Quietly Pushing For A Pence Takeover"', 15. März 2017, http://yournewswire.com/assange-claims-clinton-is-quietly-pushing-a-pence-takeover/

(4)Sean Adl-Tabatabai, 'Ron Paul: Whistleblowers Are True American Patriots', March 17, 2017,http://yournewswire.com/ron-paul-whistleblowers-patriots/

Anmerkung der Autorin: Die nachstehende Zusammenfassung und Übersicht wurde im Frühjahr 2017 bewusst als Presseschau sogenannt konservativer Quellen in den USA verfasst, um einen Überblick derjenigen Stimmen zu erhalten, welche die politischen Ereignisse um Donald J. Trump in einem positiven Licht betrachteten. Das Dokument entstand in Deutscher Sprache. Die Autorin wohnte zum Zeitpunkt des Verfassens als Amerikanerin in der BRD.

Remark of the author: In December 2016 / January 2017, the author of the following overview was invited by Peter Schmitt, then President of German Association of Employers ‚Markt und Freiheit‘ (market and freedom) in Wiesbaden, Germany, to provide a weekly overview of voices and commentary portraying Donald J Trump in a positive light. The author agreed to research the channels in question, but insisted to do so in a factual way. Throughout February 2017, the author composed four weekly press reviews with links and articles from so-called conservative alternative media. Those reviews ended up being published on the web site of Germany‘s Association of employers, reaching thousands of CEOs in German industry. By early March 2017, these posts were discontinued. I can only assume that the reviews in question were not pro-Trump enough; or, alternatively, they shed light on questionable sources. It is clear to me today, that Trump has had powerful / influential backers in industry and finance abroad.

Am 30.03.2017 schlug Russlands Präsident Vladimir Putin ein gemeinsames Treffen mit dem US-Amerikanischen Präsidenten Donald Trump beim Arktischen Gipfel in Finnland vor. Dieser fand im September 2017 als wissenschaftlich multi-disziplinäres Treffen zum Thema arktischer Energiequellen statt. Ein potentielles Treffen zwischen Putin und Trump solle von der Amerikanischen und Russischen Seite aus gut vorbereitet werden. Die Kommentare des Russischen Präsidenten kamen während seiner Teilnahme am Internationalen Arktischen Forum im Nordwesten Russlands im März in Arkhangelsk: “I believe Finland suits this purpose well, and Helsinki is a very convenient platform to organize an event like this” - so Moskau. Alternativ könne man sich auch beim G20 Gipfel im Juli 2017 in Hamburg treffen. (1)

Letzterer Vorstoß entspricht einem von Robert David Steele im März 2017 in Norwegen gemachten Vorschlag. (2)

Was den US-Amerikanischen Präsidenten mit dem Russischen Präsidenden verbinden dürfte, ist die skeptische Haltung gegenüber der Erderwärmungstheorie als eine vom Menschen verursachte globale Herausforderung. Interessant in diesem Kontext auch die Bemühungen von Ex-Präsident Barack Obama, in den letzten Wochen seiner zweiten Amtsperiode, um künftige Bohrungen in Arktischen Gewässern möglichst nachhaltig zu erschweren. (3)

Exemplarische Quellen:

(1) ‚Putin ready to meet Trump at upcoming Arctic summit in Finland’, 30. März 2017, https://www.rt.com/news/382805-putin-meet-trump-arctic-finland/

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/putin-ready-meet-trump-finland-hosts-summit-46462926

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-31/russias-putin-says-ready-to-meet-trump-at-a-summit-in-finland/8403406

http://www.voanews.com/a/putin-wants-to-meet-with-trump-in-finland/3788581.html

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russias-putin-says-ready-to-meet-trump-at-a-summit-in-finland/ar-BBz2YkL

‘Trump Has Called Climate Change a Chines Hoax. Beijing Says it is Anything But’, The New York Times, 18.11.2016, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/19/world/asia/china-trump-climate-change.html?_r=0

‘The biggest threat to Earth has been dismissed by Trump as a Chinese hoax’, Business Insider, 11.11.2016, http://www.businessinsider.de/donald-trump-climate-change-chinese-hoax-2016-11?r=US&IR=T

‘Vladimir Putin Says Man-Made Climate Change Is A Hoax’, YourNewsWire, 31.03.2017, http://yournewswire.com/vladimir-putin-climate-change-hoax/ - die Welt bewege sich tatsächtlich seit Jahren auf eine Eiszeit zu.

(2) Steele, Robert with Fredrik Heffermehl and Enrique Salinas, ‚Donald Trump, the Deep State, War & Peace, & the Nobel Peace Prize,‘ International Press Center, Oslo, Norway (YouTube 28:05), March 19, 2017.

(3) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/20/president-obama-expected-to-ban-oil-drilling-in-large-areas-of-a

Zur wachsenden geopolitischen Relevanz der Arktis als wirtschaftlicher Region siehe zum Beispiel:

‘The Growing Importance of the Arctic Council’, 17.05.2013, https://www.stratfor.com/analysis/growing-importance-arctic-council

‚The Economic Imporance of the Arctic’, http://www.bmub.bund.de/en/topics/europe-international/international-environmental-policy/multilateral-cooperation/the-arctic/the-economic-importance-of-the-arctic/

Ernest Wong, ‚Geopolitics of Arctic Oil and Gas: The Dwindling Relevance of Territorial Claims’, http://journals.gmu.edu/newvoices/article/view/132

http://www.arcticenergysummit.com/ Arctic as a Leader in Renewable Energy Development, Knowledge and Expertise, 18-20 September 2017 • Finlandia Hall • Helsinki, Finland - hosted by Institute of the North and Finland Ministry of Economy and Employment

http://www.arcticenergysummit.com/story/Themes_and_Issues

http://russland.ahk.de/events/details/events/iv-internationales-arktisches-forum-arktis-raum-fuer-den-dialog/?cHash=c798b8397985d016575576876442a3bb

Anmerkung der Autorin: Die nachstehende Zusammenfassung und Übersicht wurde im Frühjahr 2017 bewusst als Presseschau sogenannt konservativer Quellen in den USA verfasst, um einen Überblick derjenigen Stimmen zu erhalten, welche die politischen Ereignisse um Donald J. Trump in einem positiven Licht betrachteten. Das Dokument entstand in Deutscher Sprache. Die Autorin wohnte zum Zeitpunkt des Verfassens als Amerikanerin in der BRD.

Remark of the author: In December 2016 / January 2017, the author of the following overview was invited by Peter Schmitt, then President of German Association of Employers ‚Markt und Freiheit‘ (market and freedom) in Wiesbaden, Germany, to provide a weekly overview of voices and commentary portraying Donald J Trump in a positive light. The author agreed to research the channels in question, but insisted to do so in a factual way. Throughout February 2017, the author composed four weekly press reviews with links and articles from so-called conservative alternative media. Those reviews ended up being published on the web site of Germany‘s Association of employers, reaching thousands of CEOs in German industry. By early March 2017, these posts were discontinued. I can only assume that the reviews in question were not pro-Trump enough; or, alternatively, they shed light on questionable sources. It is clear to me today, that Trump has had powerful / influential backers in industry and finance abroad.

Die CIA sei mittlerweile eine paramilitärische, cyber-militärische Organisation, schreibt der ehemalige CIA Mitarbeiter und unter Ex-Präsident Obama verurteilte Geheimnisverräter ('whistleblower'), John Kiriakou am 10. März, 2017. (1)

"… Die wiederholten Versuche der Demokraten, die nicht erwiesene Verbindung zwischen Präsident Trump und der Russischen Regierung in den Vordergrund zu stellen, scheinen (nunmehr) auf spektakuläre Weise gescheitert zu sein...", lesen wir am 5. März online bei Breitbart. (2)

Für den Beobachter US-Amerikanischer Politik überschlugen sich ab dem 5 März 2017 gefühlt die Ereignisse. Es begann mit einem Tweet Donald Trumps, er sei bereits vor seiner Wahl zum US Präsidenten von seinem Vorgänger Barack Obama im Trump Tower in New York City abgehört und ausspioniert worden. Dabei gewonnene Informationen seien auf illegale Weise an die Presse weitergeleitet worden. Aus diesem Grunde werde Präsident Trump nun jenen Ausschuss des US Kongresses, welcher die sogenannten Russischen Hacking-Angriffe untersuche mit einer weiteren Untersuchung beauftragen, und zwar, ob im Jahre 2016 durch die Obama Administration Gesetze gebrochen wurden. Am 8. März 2017 thematisiert Sean Adl-Tabatabai potentielle politische und juristische Konsequenzen: "… Nach den Enthüllungen, dass die Obama Administration Donald Trump im vergangenen Jahr abhörte, fordert das Weiße Haus nun eine genaue Untersuchung, sowohl Obamas, als auch des Justizministeriums ('Department of Justice')". Es gehe um Straftaten. Eine Anklage Obamas sei nicht auszuschließen. (3) Nach Durden hätten zu den Zielen von Obamas Abhörpraxis auch gezählt: UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, Bundeskanzlerin Deutschlands, Angela Merkel, 'Chief of Staff' des UN Hohen Kommissars für Flüchtlinge(UNHCR) – Telefon in der Schweiz, Direktor 'Rules Division', World Trade Organisation (WTO), Johann Human – Telefon in der Schweiz, Abfangen Italienischer Diplomatischer Korrespondenz bezüglich der Beziehung Netanyahu - Berlusconi, Top EU Handelsminister, Japanische Handelsminister, Fünf weitere EU Beamte im Bereich Wirtschaftsbeziehungen; darunter Französische, Österreichische und Belgische Telefonnummern.

Desweiteren stellt Adl-Tabatabai eine Verbindung zwischen dem 2013 ums Leben gekommenen Journalisten Michael Hastings und der Obama Administration her. Hastings habe vor seinem unerwarteten Tode u. a. an einem Artikel zu John Brennan, CIA Direktor a. D. gearbeitet. (4)

In den Worten von Baxter Dmitry sei es Loretta Lynch gewesen, die den 'FISA court order' für eine Abhörung Donald Trumps nach dem Anti-Spionage Gesetz gegengezeichnet habe. Es habe Lynch offenbar gelegen, das von Präsident Obama gestellte Gesuch abzusegnen. Am 5. März 2017 hätte Loretta Lynch noch in einem Interview zur Gewalt auf den Straßen in den USA aufgerufen. (5) In die Schlagzeilen sei die frühere Generalstaatsanwältin im Frühsommer 2016 geraten, wie die New York Times über ein Treffen zwischen ihr und dem ehemaligen Präsidenten William J Clinton spekulierten. Clinton solle Lynch davon überzeugt haben, damalige Ermittlungen des FBI gegen Hillary Clinton. (6)

Zurück zu Adl-Tabatabai: Am 3. Oktober 2016 habe das FBI ein Laptop und iPhone des ehemaligen US Abgeordneten Anthony Weiner beschlagnahmt. Das Laptop sei von Weiner und seiner Ehefrau Huma Abedin benutzt worden. Abedin sei seit Jahren eine enge Vertraute und Beraterin von Hillary Clinton gewesen. Zwischen der Beschlagnahmung des Weiner Laptops und iPhones durch die New Yorker Polizei und den derzeitigen Ermittlungen in Sachen ‚Pizzagate / Pedogate‘ scheine es Verbindungen zu geben. Loretta Lynch sei im November 2016 vom gewählten, jedoch noch nicht amtierenden US Präsidenten Donald Trump aus dem Amt enthoben worden. (7)

Am 7. März 2017 verkündete oder implizierte Wikileaks, die online Enthüllungs-Plattform von Julian Assange ‚Russiagate’ sei ‚Obamagate’. Niemand anderer als die CIA habe hinter den von Obama, Clinton, und den Senatoren McCain und Graham gemachten Äußerungen gestanden, Russand habe sich 2016 in die US Wahlen eingemischt und diese manipuliert. (8)

Tyler Durden stellte am 10. März 2017 die folgende Frage: "…When do the unlimited powers of the Intelligence/Security agencies threaten America's domestic and global national interests?" (9)

Exemplarische Quellen:

(1) 'CIA is now a paramilitary, cyber-military organization', John Kiriakou, 10. März, 2017: https://www.rt.com/op-edge/380151-cia-privacy-wikileaks-vault7/

(2) Joel B. Polak, 'DeepStateGate: Democrats' 'Russian Hacking' Conspiracy Theory Backfires, 5. März, 2017: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/05/deepstategate-obama-trump-surveillance-fisa-investigation-russia/)

(3) ‚Obama Could Become First Former President With A Felony', http://yournewswire.com/obama-former-president-felony/

Tyler Durden, 'Here Are The Top 15 'Obamagate' Wiretap Victims', 6. März 2017: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-06/here-are-top-15-obamagate-wiretap-victims

(4) Sean Adl-Tabatabai, 'WikiLeaks: Barack Obama Connected To Journalist Assassination': http://yournewswire.com/wikileaks-obama-journalist-assassination/)

Baxter Dmitry, 'WikiLeaks: Journalist Investigating CIA Assassinated In 'Hacked Car' Crash', 8. März, 2017: http://yournewswire.com/wikileaks-journalist-cia-hacked-car/

Baxter Dmitry, 'Clinton Aide Squeals: 'Everyone Knew' About Obama's Illegal Wiretapping', March 8, 2017: http://yournewswire.com/clinton-obama-illegal-wiretapping/

Ibid., 'Judge Napolitano: Obama Wiretapped Trump Without A Warrant', March 8, 2017: http://yournewswire.com/napolitano-obama-wiretapped-trump/

Sean Adl-Tabatabai, 'Former AG Loretta Lynch Approved Trump Wiretap, Faces Prosecution', March 8, 2017: http://yournewswire.com/loretta-lynch-approved-trump-wiretap/

(5) Baxter Dmitry, 'Loretta Lynch Calls For 'Blood, Death On Streets' To Protest Trump', March 5, 2017: http://yournewswire.com/loretta-lynch-blood-death-trump/

(6) Mark Landler, 'Meeting Between Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch Provokes Political Furor', June 30, 2016: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/us/politics/meeting-between-bill-clinton-and-loretta-lynch-provokes-political-furor.html

Charlie Spiering, 31. Oktober 2016, '12 Facts About the FBI Investigation of Hillary Clinton's Email Server': http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/10/31/12-facts-fbi-investigation-hillary-clintons-email-server/

(7) Sean Adl-Tabatabai, 'Trump Fires Attorney General Loretta Lynch', November 19, 2016: http://yournewswire.com/trump-fires-attorney-general-loretta-lynch/

(8) Baxter Dmitry, 'John McAfee: CIA Would Rather Suicide Me Than Protect Americans', YourNewsWire, 11. März 2017: Der Entwickler des McAfee Antivirusprogrammes erklärt in einem Interview mit Ed Schultz, warum die hinterlassenen Spuren ('fingerprints') während des Hackerangriffes auf die Demokratische Partei - nicht nach Russland deuteten: http://yournewswire.com/john-mcafee-cia-suicide/

Sean Adl-Tabatabai, 'John McCain Panics: WikiLeaks Vault7 Dump 'Is Very Real', 7. März 2017: http://yournewswire.com/john-mccain-wikileaks-vault7/

Carol Adl, 'Russia: CIA Hacking Leaks Shows World In Great Danger', 10. März 2017: http://yournewswire.com/russia-cia-hacking-leaks-shows-world-in-great-danger/

(9) Tyler Durden, 'The Conflict Within The Deep State Just Broke Into Open Warfare': http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-10/conflict-within-deep-state-just-broke-open-warfare

'Secrets over safety & the apathy of voters(E435)', Watching the Hawks, 10. März 2017: siehe das Interview zwischen Sean Stone und Robert David Steele über einen wahrscheinlich gewalttätigen ‚Amerikanischen Frühling‘ und den nahenden Crash vom Frühsommer 2017. Robert David Steele nennt vier 'tracks' oder Ansätze über welche die Trump Administration in den kommenden Wochen unter Druck gesetzt würde: https://www.rt.com/shows/watching-the-hawks/

'Jeff Sessions Asks All Remaining Obama-Appointed U.S. Attorneys To Resign',10. März 2017: http://www.zerohedge.com/

'Attorney General Jeff Sessions Seeks Resignations of 46 US Attorneys', Breitbart News: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/10/attorney-general-jeff-sessions-seeks-resignations-46-us-attorneys/

Baxter Dmitry, 'Sean Spicer Confirms Trump Is Going To 'Break Up Wall Street', 10. März 2017: http://yournewswire.com/sean-spicer-trump-wall-street/

'Breaking & Exclusive - Pentagon Insider Q and A Session - #Vault7 Will Certainly Expose Pedogate': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXvBZvXr0YE

'BREAKING - CNN Insider Confirms CIA Controls CNN & Most Other MSM Outlets': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaiWd49gvUw

'#OBAMAGATE - TRUMP ACCUSES OBAMA OF TAPPING HIS PHONES DHS INSIDER NAILED THIS, SAYS STILL GOING ON': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5esE4ThidE

'#PIZZAGATE - #PEDOGATE - FBI ANON RESURFACES AS PROMISED BY OUR DHS INSIDER - SHADOW STATE VAMPIRES': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0HMVvFQ7sE

Vault 7: CIA Hacking Tools Revealed: https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/

Joachim Hagopian, 27.02.2017, 'Pizzagate turned PedoGate Leads to Momentum Surge in Busting Global Child Sex Trafficking Rings', https://www.sott.net/article/343780-Pizzagate-turned-PedoGate-Leads-to-Momentum-Surge-in-Busting-Global-Child-Sex-Trafficking-Rings

Nachtrag der Autorin am 22. Juni 2024: Die Jahre, welche der Trump Administration ab 2021 under Biden folgten, offenbarten spätestens den enormen Propaganda-Aufwand, welcher um Donald J. Trump, MAGA, die Q- und ‘Great Awakening’ Bewegungen in den USA und in Übersee, v.a. auch in Europa stattfand, um Donald Trump als Opponenten des Tiefen Staates darzustellen.

Anmerkung der Autorin: Die nachstehende Zusammenfassung und Übersicht wurde im Frühjahr 2017 bewusst als Presseschau sogenannt konservativer Quellen in den USA verfasst, um einen Überblick derjenigen Stimmen zu erhalten, welche die politischen Ereignisse um Donald J. Trump in einem positiven Licht beleuchteten.

Remark of the author: In December 2016 / January 2017, the author of the following overview was invited by Peter Schmitt, then President of German Association of Employers ‚Markt und Freiheit‘ (market and freedom) in Wiesbaden, Germany, to provide a weekly overview of voices and commentary portraying Donald J Trump in a positive light. The author agreed to research the channels in question, but insisted to do so in a factual way. Throughout February 2017, the author composed four weekly press reviews with links and articles from so-called conservative alternative media. Those reviews ended up being published on the web site of Germany‘s Association of employers, reaching thousands of CEOs in German industry. By early March 2017, these posts were discontinued. I can only assume that the reviews in question were not pro-Trump enough; or, alternatively, they shed light on questionable sources. It is clear to me nowadays, that Trump has had powerful / influential backers in industry and finance abroad.

Unsere Presseschau der vergangenen Woche begann mit Zitaten des amerikanischen Schriftstellers Mark Twain. Heute beginnen wir mit dem renommierten Filmregisseur, Oliver Stone

"…Nachdem er vom Schauspieler James Wood vorgestellt worden war, um bei der WGAW Zeremonie den 'Laurel Preis' zu erhalten, erinnerte Oliver Stone jüngere Filmemacher daran, dass es legitim sei, die eigene Regierung und Gesellschaft zu kritisieren. 'Ihr müsst Euch nicht anpassen'. Es liege im Trend der Zeit, vor allem die Republikaner und Trump zu kritisieren und die Obamas und Clintons auszulassen. 'Aber macht Euch vor allem das Folgende klar: bei den 13 Kriegen, die wir (Amerikaner) in den letzten 30 Jahren begonnen haben, bei den 14 Billiarden die wir dafür ausgaben, und bei den Hundertausend Leben, die dabei ausgelöscht wurden, all dies wurde nicht nur von einem Präsidenten einer bestimmten Partei getan. Dafür war ein System, kontrolliert von Republikanern und Demokraten verantwortlich. Nennt es wie Ihr wollt: den militärisch-industriellen Banken und Sicherheitskomplex. Es ist ein System, welches darauf baut, dass diese Kriege, die wir (im Namen unserer Nation) und unter unserer Flagge führen, gerechtfertigt sind' – einer Flagge, die uns immer noch mit Stolz erfülle“, so Stone… Enthüllungen, dass US Attorney General Jeff Sessions allem Anschein nach 2016 zwei Mal mit dem Russischen Botschafter in den USA kommuniziert habe – ohne dies in seiner Senatsanhörung angegeben zu haben – hätten zu einer ‚Hexenjagd McCarthy-schen' Ausmaßes in den USA geführt. Führende Politiker und Kräfte in der Demokratischen und Republikanischen Partei arbeiten offensichtlich nach der Resignation General Flynns an der Demontage eines weiteren Mitgliedes der Trump Administration. (1)

Die Vertreterin der Demokraten im US Kongress, Nancy Pelosi, Demokratin aus Kalifornien, forderte den Rücktritt von Jeff Sessions. (2)

Am 25. Februar 2017 berichtete die US Journalistin Liz Crokin Polizeibeamte des FBI hätten seit Amtsantritt Donald Trumps und unter Anleitung des neuen 'Attorney Generals' Jeff Sessions bis zu 1500 Verhaftungen in den Bereichen Pädophilie und sexueller Ausbeutung von Kindern ('sex trafficking') durchgeführt. Im Jahre 2014 habe es nur ca. 400 Verhaftungen gegeben.

Die gängigen Medien würden diese Verhaftungen bislang verschweigen, so Crokin. Allein in Pelosi’s Kalifornien hätten fanden 474 Verhaftungen stattgefunden; 28 sexuell misshandelte Kinder wären befreit worden. (3)

Am 03. März 2017 berichtete die Alex Jones Show, Demokratische Politiker – darunter auch Mitglieder der ehemaligen Obama Administration - hätten sich mit Russischen Kollegen unterhalten. (4)

Von Interesse scheinen die Äußerungen Robert D. Steeles zu den von US Medien und Geheimdiensten gemachten Behauptungen zu sein, Russland habe sich 2016 in den US Amerikanischen Präsidentschaftswahlen eingemischt. (5)

Nicht Russland, sondern 'Verräter' im Inneren hätten die Wahlen zu beeinflussen gesucht. Steele nennt Namen wie Senator John McCain, Senator Lindsay Graham sowie CIA Direktor a. D. John Brennan. Brennan gelte als Apologet von Folter, dem unter Obama weltweit eskalierten US Drohnenkrieg sowie der Kriegsführung Saudi Arabiens im Jemen. (6)

In einem Interview mit Radio Host Jeff Rense spricht Robert Steele über den ‚accidental President' – Donald Trump als zufälliger Präsident, dessen Wahl nach Ansicht der US Eliten oder dem politischen Establishment im Gegensatz zur Wahl Barack Obamas nie hätte stattfinden sollen. Das Establishment habe nach Obama auf Hillary Clinton gesetzt. (7)

Am 28. Februar 2017 hatte Donald J Trump eine Rede als amtierender Präsident vor beiden Häusern des US Kongresses gehalten: „… Wir haben angefangen, den Korruptionssumpf in unseren Regierungen auszutrocknen, indem wir es Regierungsvertretern ab sofort für fünf Jahre verbieten, als Lobbyisten zu arbeiten... Meine Administration ist in einem historischen Kraftakt darum bemüht, Regulierungen, die die Entstehung neuer Jobs verhindern, zu eliminieren… Wir haben uns aus der Trans-Pazifischen Partnerschaft verabschiedet, einer 'Job-killenden' Handelsvereinbarung… Gemeinsam mit dem Kanadischen Premier Trudeau wurde eine Partnerschaft ins Leben gerufen, die es vor allem Frauen als Unternehmer ermöglichen soll, auf beiden Seiten der Kanadisch-Amerikanischen Grenze besseren Zugang zu Kapital, Netzwerken und Ressourcen zu haben… Um US Bürger zu schützen, haben wir über das Justizministerium eine Spezialeinheit ins Leben gerufen, die sich mit Gewaltverbrechen befasst, um die Anzahl schwerer Straftaten zu reduzieren… Ich habe außerdem die Ministerien für Heimatschutz ('Homeland Security'), das Justizministerium und das Außenministerium ('Department of State') sowie den Direktor für die Geheimdienste ('Director of National Intelligence') angewiesen, an einer Gesamtstrategie zu arbeiten, um fortan aggressiv gegen kriminelle Kartelle in unserem Land vorzugehen.“ (8)

Exemplarische Quellen:

(1) Alex Stedman, Debra Birnbaum, Februar 19, 2017, Oliver Stone Gives Impassioned Speech at Writers Guild Awards: It's Not Just Trump, 'But a System'

http://www.globalresearch.ca/oliver-stone-gives-impassioned-speech-at-writers-guild-awards-its-not-just-trump-but-a-system/5576018

Filme: Snowden, JFK – Tatort Dallas, Plattoon / Bücher: The Untold History oft he United States, mit Peter Kuznick und Matt Graham, 2012.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/02/us/politics/russia-sessions-attorney-general.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/02/opinion/jeff-sessions-had-no-choice.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/03/opinion/what-to-do-with-jeff-sessions.html

(2) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nancy-pelosi-jeff-sessions_us_58b7ab1fe4b0284854b3fc0e

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-02/attorney-general-must-resign-pelosi-top-democrats-calls-sessions-immediate-terminati

(3) https://townhall.com/columnists/lizcrokin/2017/02/25/why-the-msm-is-ignoring-trumps-sex-trafficking-busts-n2290379

(4) http://www.infowars.com/watch-alex-jones-show/

(5) Robert Steele: 'US IC Allegations Against Russians Are Crap — Our Own Traitors, Not the Russians, Are the Real Enemy, Fake Evidence & Fake News – UPDATE 22'.

(6) http://phibetaiota.net/2016/12/robert-steele-the-dhs-fbi-report-against-the-russians-is-absolute-crap/

(7) Jeff Rense and Robert Steele – Shocking Enemies Inside and Out of the Trump Presidency: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCVRyCVXJGg

http://phibetaiota.net/2016/11/robert-steele-the-accidental-president-will-he-resign-the-closed-system-is-still-rigged-and-likely-to-remain-so/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1Kr1SNLaX4

(8) https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2017/02/25/president-donald-j-trump-address-joint-session-congress-first-time

Zusätzliche Links:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/

Sean Adl-Tabatabai, James Woods Blasts John Podesta for Pizzagate Scandal, YourNewsWire.com, Feb. 22.2017,

http://yournewswire.com/james-woods-john-podesta-pizzagate/

Nachtrag der Autorin am 22. Juni 2024: Die Jahre, welche der Trump Administration ab 2021 under Biden folgten, offenbarten spätestens den enormen Propaganda-Aufwand, welcher um Donald J. Trump, MAGA, die Q- und ‘Great Awakening’ Bewegungen in den USA und in Übersee, v.a. auch in Europa stattfand, um Donald Trump als Opponenten des Tiefen Staates darzustellen.

Description