This letter created an enormous amount of discussion in Germany, little
of it productive, imho.
In the most charitable interpretation, the letter reflects an aversion
to militaristic thinking, an version which defined the common-sense in
de-nazified post-war Germany. Remember, the German left, at least the
Social Democrats, always tried to soften, perhaps even overcome, the
antagonistic logic of military blocks that dominated the cold war by a
policy of "Wandel durch Handel" (transformation through trade).
That policy made, in my opinion, sense during the cold war, and probably
also in its immediate aftermath, but at least since 2008, it has become
a moral fig-leaf for naked German economic interests (cheap energy
imports & exports of manufactured goods).
In a less charitable, but in my view more accurate, interpretation, this
is an intellectually lazy attempt to claim moral high-ground and a
willingness to throw Ukrainians under the bus to avoid having to rethink
one's self-serving positions.
A much more substantial open letter was published on Jürgen Habermas on
28. April in Süddeutsche Zeitung, in which he formulates the principle
dilemma: Ukraine must not loose this war, the nuclear war needs to be
averted at all costs.
Against this background, he advocates a cautious course which manages to
achieve both goals. This has been widely interpreted as support for Olaf
Scholz, but that is a very superficial reading of his position.
Because, his main concern is how the so-called "Zeitwende" works in
favor of the hard right, which always despised the idea of German
non-militarism and truly hated Willy Brandt for saying, in 1971, that
"war can never the a means of politics" (remember, this was the cold war
when the hard right did not accept the German-Polish border).
Habermas is, obviously, well-ware that this is approach does not work
once war has broken out, but deeply concerned with the return of
jingoism to German politics in weird coalition between the Greens and
the conservatives. The far right/far left have been probably been paid
by Putin and are now somewhat in a dilemma.
Hence he's focused on a cautious, but unavering support of Ukraine that
avoids overreach and escalation.
The best English-language analysis of this debate I have seen is by Adam
Tooze
https://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2022/05/after-the-zeitenwende-jurgen-habermas-and-germanys-new-identity-crisis
all the best. Felix
On 17.05.22 18:22, Francis Hunger wrote:
Hi Brian,
I think this open letter shows a rift in leftist analysis in Germany.
The more radical-leftist leaning weekly newspapers Jungle World and
Analyse & Kritik have contributed valuable analysis:
https://jungle.world/artikel/2022/19/western-leftists-explain-things-you
(paywalled)
https://jungle.world/artikel/2022/19/wenn-pazifismus-zum-luxus-wird
https://shop.jungle.world/artikel/2022/19/die-ukraine-ist-durch-angst-und-wut-geeint
https://www.akweb.de/ausgaben/682/was-wollen-linke-in-der-ukraine-solidaritaets-delegation-in-lwiw/
Am 17.05.22 um 17:50 schrieb Brian Holmes:
Below is a machine translation of the “Open Letter” to Scholz, signed
by over 200,000 German personalities including Alice Schwartzer,
Alexander Kluge and Siegfried Zielinski. The source is here:
https://www.emma.de/artikel/offener-brief-bundeskanzler-scholz-339463
I am curious as to the letter’s significance in German debates and
also, about the many reactions to it which have apparently emerged
since its publication on April 29. Some people on the list could
inform us about this!
I can’t agree with this letter, because its core notion of universally
binding moral law appears out of touch with the present-day reality of
civilizational clashes, and perhaps more representative of the 1980s
than now. However, I think that the mere rebooting of Atlanticist
proxy wars, without any discussion of a global military, economic and
political strategy for the rapidly emergent Anthropocene crisis, is
equally out of touch.
It is true that the left has wrongly abdicated any consideration of
military strategy. But one does not correct such an error by abounding
in the Free World/Cold War logic of the 1950s. Russia’s geopolitical
bid for Eurasia and its very capacity to make war are dependent on its
fossil fuel production, distribution and consumption, which largely
takes place under free-market rules. The US, and by extension, NATO,
are similarly positioned, and the US is likely to come out of this war
as both global cop and global gas station attendant, supplying Europe
with LNG produced by an otherwise failing shale-gas industry. While I
do not see an alternative to the current proxy war, beyond more
vigorous and serious attempts at negotiation which are effectively
lacking, I do see an immense failure to think about where ‘victory’
can all-too easily lead.
Nettimers, I would be glad to hear your thoughts about the current
state of political debate in Germany, and I would also be glad to be
proven wrong about the lack of a thoughts on a strategy for the
upcoming decades, when the powers of Nature will likely show that they
still do seriously rival those of Humanity – and when the
international order will be continually disrupted by crisis, conflict,
breakdown, and desperate bids to maintain outdated forms of hegemony.
All the best, Brian (who’s headed to Berlin today)
****************************
Dear Chancellor,
We appreciate that until now you have considered the risks so
carefully: the risk of the war spreading within Ukraine; the risk of
expansion across Europe; yes, the risk of a 3rd world war. We
therefore hope that you will remember your original position and will
not supply any more heavy weapons to Ukraine, either directly or
indirectly. On the contrary, we urge you to do everything you can to
ensure that a ceasefire can be reached as soon as possible; a
compromise that both sides can accept.
We share the verdict on Russian aggression as a breach of the basic
norm of international law. We also share the conviction that there is
a fundamental political and moral duty not to back down from
aggressive violence without resistance. But everything that can be
derived from this has its limits in other imperatives of political ethics.
We are convinced that two such dividing lines have now been reached:
First, the categorical prohibition on accepting a manifest risk of
this war escalating into a nuclear conflict. The delivery of large
quantities of heavy weapons, however, could make Germany itself a
party to the war. And a Russian counter-attack could then trigger the
case for assistance under the NATO treaty and with it the immediate
danger of a world war. The second line of demarcation is the level of
destruction and human suffering among Ukrainian civilians. Even the
legitimate resistance against an aggressor is at some point in an
intolerable disproportion.
We warn against a double error: Firstly, that the responsibility for
the risk of an escalation to a nuclear conflict lies solely with the
original aggressor and not also with those who openly provide him with
a motive for possibly criminal action. And on the other hand, that the
decision on the moral responsibility of the further "costs" in human
lives among the Ukrainian civilian population falls exclusively within
the competence of their government. Morally binding norms are
universal in nature.
The escalating armament taking place under pressure could be the
beginning of a global arms race with catastrophic consequences, not
least for global health and climate change. Despite all the
differences, it is important to strive for worldwide peace. The
European approach of shared diversity is a model for this.
Dear Chancellor, we are convinced that the head of government of
Germany can make a decisive contribution to a solution that will stand
up to the judgment of history. Not only in view of our current
(economic) power, but also in view of our historical responsibility -
and in the hope of a peaceful future together.
We hope and count on you!
Sincerely
The signatories
*Andreas Dresen, Filmemacher
Lars Eidinger, Schauspieler
Dr. Svenja Flaßpöhler, Philosophin
Prof. Dr. Elisa Hoven, Strafrechtlerin
Alexander Kluge, Intellektueller
Heinz Mack, Bildhauer
Gisela Marx, Filmproduzentin
Prof. Dr. Reinhard Merkel, Strafrechtler und Rechtsphilosoph
Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Merkel, Politikwissenschaftler
Reinhard Mey, Musiker
Dieter Nuhr, Kabarettist
Gerhard Polt, Kabarettist
Helke Sander, Filmemacherin
HA Schult, Künstler
Alice Schwarzer, Journalistin
Robert Seethaler, Schriftsteller
Edgar Selge, Schauspieler
Antje Vollmer, Theologin und grüne Politikerin
Franziska Walser, Schauspielerin
Martin Walser, Schriftsteller
Prof. Dr. Peter Weibel, Kunst- und Medientheoretiker
Christoph, Karl und Michael Well, Musiker
Prof. Dr. Harald Welzer, Sozialpsychologe
Ranga Yogeshwar, Wissenschaftsjournalist
Juli Zeh, Schriftstellerin
Prof. Dr. Siegfried Zielinski, Medientheoretiker*
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
# more info:http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
# archive:http://www.nettime.org contact:nett...@kein.org
# @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
--
Researcher at Training The Archive, HMKV Dortmund
https://www.hmkv.de/events/events-details/research-project-training-the-archive.html
Artistic Practicehttp://www.irmielin.org
Ph.D. at Bauhaus University Weimarhttp://databasecultures.irmielin.org
Daily Tweetshttps://twitter.com/databaseculture
House of Mirrors – Artificial Intelligence as Phantasm (co-curator with Inke
Arns, Marie Lechner) atwww.hmkv.de Dortmund
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
# more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
# @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
--
| |||||||||||||||| http://felix.openflows.com |
| for secure communication, please use signal |
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
# more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
# @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
