Is the professionalization of the military a liberal reform? Yoshie
***** German Green party calls for professional army By Ulrich Rippert 24 June 2000
...The lurch to the right by German political parties since the Kosovo War is most obvious in the case of the Greens. Only three months after the end of the war, the defense spokeswoman of the Green parliamentary group, Angelika Beer, presented a 12-page paper entitled "Less is More! Proposals for a Security-Policy and Technology-Oriented Modernisation of the Bundeswehr [German Army]". Up to then, the Greens had always linked their opposition to military service to a general rejection of the army. Now they call for the abolition of military service and the creation of a powerful professional army that can be deployed swiftly and reliably anywhere in the world.
In Angelika Beer's opinion, the reform of the German army must be oriented toward enabling Germany to make a powerful contribution to the creation of an independent European defense identity: "NATO defense and crisis management require the restructuring of the German army into an army that can deploy suitable, excellently trained and adequately equipped forces requiring a low level of mobilization time in Europe and its peripheral and neighbouring regions."
Beer calls for armed forces "that are characterized by great mobility, technical and operational superiority, leadership-adapted discipline and flexible deployment capacity in the context of multinational and international operations." Following detailed technical proposals aimed at creating "higher performance and more cost-efficient armed forces", Beer concludes her paper with a clear affirmation of support for national German interests and the warning that there is a danger "that we could miss our chance of making a German contribution to the change in international relations".
In the introduction to her theses, Beer repeats a few phrases from her pacifist past. She has much to say about "strengthening the preventive elements in foreign and security policy" and "early detection and prevention of conflicts". But, then, so do top military leaders like former German Army Chief of Staff Klaus Naumann, who has often stressed "the elimination of conflict sources as a central aspect of crisis management".
Based on Angelika Beer's paper, the Greens have taken on the role of foremost proponent of a heavily armed professional army. They praise the report of the Weizsaecker Commission (a commission headed by former German President Weizsaecker which recently submitted its proposals for a reform of the German army) and criticize the plans put forward by Defense Minister Rudolf Scharping (SPD), because these plans do not go far enough and continue to call for military service.
The hapless attempts by Green members of parliament to pacify critics in their own ranks by claiming that the reduction in the number the soldiers, the closure of a few barracks and their demand for the abolition of military service are all steps in the direction of disarmament are farcical. Nothing can obscure two fundamental facts: first, that the restructuring of the German army is linked to a gigantic rearmament programme budgeted at 120 billion marks for the next 10 years; and second, that the Greens have made a 180-degree turnabout in their position on military issues.
As on so many other political issues, the Greens' arguments are thoroughly opportunistic. In the debate on military service they take a narrow-minded position which approaches the question entirely from the standpoint of individuals who would no longer be obliged to do military service. The Greens ignore the broader consequences for society.
The creation of a professional army does not-as the Greens claim-reduce the influence of the military in society. Rather it increases it, while reducing the influence of society on the military. German history over the past century has amply demonstrated how closely linked the creation of a professional army is with the danger of a military caste that strives for social recognition and political influence, and thus becomes an independent power factor.
But all such issues are of no interest to the Greens. Instead, they proclaim that democratic control of the army is secured through parliament. They themselves demonstrated what that means in practice. With very few exceptions, the members of parliament voted for a war in which 15 heavily armed NATO countries bombed an underdeveloped country for weeks on end....
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/jun2000/germ-j24.shtml *****